LOCAL indoor tanning salon operator, Sun Tanning Studio Pte Ltd, used to fork out an annual fee for a massage licence even though its services were restricted to tanning alone.

Under the Massage Establishments (ME) Act, this translated to additional business costs as a ME licence would come to about $480 a year. In addition, employees needed to undergo annual health screenings.

'We felt it was unnecessary as we are not doing any massage for our customers,' said Edwin Kow, sales and marketing manager for Sun Tanning Studio which was established in 1997. However, the service was a relatively new one to Singapore, pointed out Mr Kow, and the police was looking to safeguard public interest.

Since 2003, the Singapore Police Force has conducted regular reviews together with the Advisory Panel on Licensing (APL) on the regulatory regime for massage establishments. While the police was carrying out the review on the ME Act, the Pro-Enterprise Panel (PEP) put forth a suggestion in 2005 to exempt indoor tanning salons from obtaining a licence. In June 2006, after taking into account the fact that the procedure for indoor tanning had evolved to become self-operated and didn't require any physical contact between the customer and the beauty consultant, the police lifted these restrictions applying a risk assessment approach.

In the past, massage establishments and indoor tanning studios were perceived as being susceptible to vice, and licensing such establishments was seen as a necessary means of prevention. However, as there were no reported vice activities at such establishments, a more liberal approach could be adopted on regulating them.

With the exemption, indoor tanning establishments that operated solely by self-operated machines need register to their business once with the police and at no cost. As a result, the operators are able to reap cost-savings. However, these indoor tanning establishments are still subjected to police checks from time to time.

PEP panel member, Nicholas Malcomson, said: 'As business opportunities and the service environment change and develop in Singapore, we are often faced with a set of rules or a regulatory framework that simply no longer applies, or even worse, can prove detrimental to the businesses concerned. A strategic view that balances both the business needs together with a prudent approach to regulation is required.'

Describing the exemption as 'simply common sense', he added that it took a neutral party to bring those involved together to work out a sensible solution.

The Pro-Enterprise Panel (PEP) was established in 2000 to actively solicit feedback from businesses on how government rules and regulations can be improved to create a more pro-enterprise environment in Singapore. The PEP is chaired by the Head of Civil Service, Peter Ho, and comprises mainly business leaders from the private sector.

This article was first published in The Business Times on May 6, 2008