Amy Khor Lean Suan
Singapore
“Sir, NEA does conduct inspections of these premises from time to time. For this particular premises, they actually did six inspections since 2021.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts enforcement actions against drivers who are found to have provided illegal car-pooling services. An individual who provides an illegal car-pooling service may face a fine of up to $3,000, up to six months' imprisonment, or both.”
“We will also provide the first 500 private heavy vehicle chargers co-funding of up to 50% of the charger installation cost, capped at $30,000 per charger. These measures will narrow the lifecycle cost gap between an electric and internal combustion engine heavy vehicle and spur adoption of electric heavy vehicles.”
“With regard to the extension of the lower speed limit to school zones for full day, we will work with the relevant agencies on the enhanced enforcements.”
“They will provide a certain amount of protection to the pedestrians because, as I have said, the bollards will absorb the impact of the collision from the vehicles. So, there is a protection. But ultimately, of course, road safety really depends on a multitude of factors, including road user behaviour.”
“The bollards installed at pedestrian crossings by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) are not of the K4, K8 or K12 standards stated by the Member. Bollards of these standards are typically security bollards. They are installed to protect critical infrastructure or at high security areas, such as Changi Airport, to be unyielding.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,285 lines we hold for Amy Khor Lean Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 46.
“I thank the Member for her questions. Let me say that I do sympathise with such families. As I have said, this is part of a suite of policy tools to discourage double-transfer COE speculation. So, for this to remain useful and relevant, the conditions or circumstances under which waiver of the additional levy can be given would necessarily need to be stringent and limited in terms of circumstances. But having said that, as I have earlier clarified, the additional levy policy just means that if you want to transfer within four to six months, you have to pay an additional levy. It is not that you cannot transfer. And for vehicle owners who wish to transfer within the four to six months and not wait thereafter because of various circumstances, they can actually sell it to motorcar dealers registered with LTA – what we called the electronic service agents – whereby they will not need to bear the additional levy. So, these registered dealers can take temporary ownership without incurring an actual transfer count and they have 12 months to sell the vehicle. And if they actually sell it after six months of vehicle registration, they also do not need to pay additional levy. So, there is a way out, an option, for the appellant. But having said that, we hear the Member's views. And let me say that we will continue to look at appeals and review the circumstances under which waivers can be granted, where the conditions warrant such a waiver.”
“First, let me clarify that for vehicle transfers within four to six months of registration is not a ban on transfer. You just need to pay the additional levy. With regard to the question about whether this is an effective policy tool, I have said in my reply earlier that it is part of a suite of measures to discourage COE speculation. By way of explanation, let me also say that this policy to discourage double transfers was first implemented in 1995. That is really to discourage double transfers whereby you may bypass, to this means, the non-transfer TCOE policy of Cat A and Cat B vehicles. And there were public sentiments that double transfers would have resulted in higher COE prices. So, there were measures put in. For the first three months, you are not allowed to transfer for Cat A and Cat B vehicles and then, subsequently, in the next three months, you can transfer, but you will need to pay an additional levy only if what you paid is actually lower than the QP at the point of transfer, otherwise, there would not be any additional levy. If you look at the numbers, I have said that, over the last five years, we received, on average, about three appeals for a waiver of the additional levy. So, it is a handful of appeals. Over the same period, the proportion of Cat A and Cat B vehicles that are transferred within four to six months, as a proportion of the total Cat A and Cat B vehicles registered, is also very low, at about 0.3%. So, I think these numbers do suggest that this policy tool remains relevant and useful as part of this suite of measures to counter COE speculation.”
“Cars registered under Category A (Cat A) and Category B (Cat B) of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) are only allowed to apply for a transfer of vehicle ownership three months after the date of registration. If cars are transferred between four and six months from the date of registration, an additional levy would be payable if the Quota Premium (QP) of the corresponding COE category at the point of transfer is higher than the original QP paid upon successful bidding for the COE. The additional levy is part of a suite of measures to discourage COE speculation, which also includes requiring a bid deposit and disallowing the transfer of Temporary COEs (TCOEs) for Cat A and Cat B vehicles. Over the last five years, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) received, on average, three requests annually to waive the additional levy payable by the vehicles' owners. Over the same period, only one request to transfer car ownership from a deceased person to the executor of the deceased estate was acceded to.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 20 and 21 on today's Order Paper?”
“For instance, mobile speed cameras were deployed to increase versatility of traffic enforcements at new locations. With the addition of 12 more red light cameras in 2020, there are now a total of 252 red light cameras in Singapore, up from 120 in 2015, to bolster islandwide enforcement. In conclusion, for there to be sustained improvements in road safety, we will need all four pillars that contribute to a healthy and positive transport ecosystem to come together – Road Design, User Behaviour, Regulations and Enforcement, and Vehicle Technology. I appreciate the Member’s suggestion and thank him once again for raising this Adjournment Motion. LTA will continue to monitor international technology trends, engage the industry and road users and push the envelope in adopting vehicle safety technologies. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." (proc text)] Adjourned accordingly at 6.02 pm.”
“To have safer and more gracious roads, we will need to have safer and more gracious behaviour by all road users, which include motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. TP works closely with the Singapore Road Safety Council to continually improve safety on our roads by inculcating good safety practices among all road users. TP also conducts weekly engagements with various groups and stakeholders. In addition, TP leverages on technology, such as launching the compulsory simulator training since 2019 for new drivers to experience the top causes of accidents and practise defensive driving under a safe and controlled environment. This allows them to appreciate the dangers on the roads and be more situationally aware of blind spots when driving on the roads. We could have the safest road designs and the best technology in our vehicles. But it is considerate, caring and gracious behaviour by all while using our roads that will improve our daily commutes and make them safer for everyone. A third and critical component to improving our road safety is road regulations and enforcement. These are the traffic laws and rules that all road users must obey to ensure safe roads for all to use. And this is the basic framework and tenet to encourage compliance and deter misconduct. MHA amended the Road Traffic Act in 2019 and 2021 to enhance penalties against irresponsible driving and will continue to review them to strike a balance between deterrence and proportionality. Of course, enforcement plays an important role in ensuring compliance. Enforcement takes place through the deployment of resources on the ground and with the use of technology. Besides the deployment of officers to conduct daily and targeted enforcement, TP adopts new technology to augment its enforcement efforts.”
“Members of this House would likely be familiar with Silver and School Zones, which serve to provide safer roads for our seniors and students in areas where these vulnerable groups are in higher proportion. Apart from implementing traffic calming measures, LTA implements a lower road speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour or 30 kilometres per hour in Silver Zones. With these improvements, the number of road accidents involving senior pedestrians has dropped by about 80% in completed Silver Zones. We will continue to build on these efforts. At this year's Committee of Supply debate, I introduced the concept of Friendly Streets and announced that we will be piloting Friendly Streets at five locations. This is an ambitious and meaningful endeavour, as we move from making specific zones safer, to making entire streets more pedestrian-friendly and we are doing so in two ways. First, by changing the road infrastructure with various moves, such as road pinching, more crossings, lower speed limits, to make these roads safer for pedestrians. Second, by bringing in the local community to give us feedback and work with us to make these roads more conducive and safer, not just for travel, but also for other daily activities. That is why we call such streets Friendly Streets – friendly for all who use these streets – drivers, pedestrians, residents alike. We have just started this journey, with pilots to be completed by 2025. Our resolve and end goals are clear. We want safer streets and safer journeys for all road users. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have covered road design, which is the hardware. But our goal is to improve road safety and that will not be complete without the software, which is road user behaviour.”
“For each change, many factors have to be assessed, including motorists' readiness to adapt to the new technology, the reliability of the new technology, cost effectiveness, as well as the impact on motorist behaviour with the adoption of new technology. These considerations apply to safety technology on all types of vehicles, including motorcycles. In the case of motorcycles, advanced braking systems, such as Combined Braking System (CBS) and Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) that the Member mentioned in his speech, have increasingly been made available on smaller and larger engine capacity motorcycles respectively. LTA is aware of campaigns overseas to mandate ABS for all motorcycles, regardless of engine capacity and is studying the impact if we were to impose such requirements locally, based on the factors I cited earlier. Besides vehicle technology, there are three other pillars in our ecosystem to improve road safety. These are road design, user behaviour and regulations and enforcement. First, at the very core of road safety is road design. This is an iterative and ongoing effort by LTA as it regularly reviews traffic accident data to identify areas with higher accident rates. For these identified areas, LTA will conduct detailed investigations to assess the need for additional road safety measures. Where necessary, road improvements, such as traffic calming measures and signages, as well as road safety barriers, are introduced. Beyond that, our road design is inclusive. It takes into account the demographic changes of nearby communities and incorporates the needs of the residents and stakeholders it serves.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the Adjournment Motion and sharing his personal experiences and convictions with this House. As road users, I am certain Members in this House would be able to relate to the issues raised. Our goal is to have safer roads for all. This is an ongoing journey that requires collective effort from every road user. The Member has rightly pointed out that technology can be an enabler for improving road safety outcomes in Singapore. Let me assure the Member that this is, indeed, what LTA has done over the years. For heavy vehicles, LTA has mandated blind-spot mirrors and allowed the use of camera devices to cover blind-spot areas in 2015. The Traffic Police (TP) has also made it mandatory for such vehicles to install speed limiters, as the Member has said. For vehicles, apart from motorcycles, LTA has allowed the use of camera monitor systems in lieu of conventional rear-view mirrors from 2021. For public buses, they have progressively been fitted with safety features, such as the Driver Anti-Fatigue System to monitor the bus captain's fatigue level and the Collision Warning System to alert the bus captain on impending collisions. In fact, for the Collision Warning System, 79% of the public bus fleets are already fitted with that. These measures help make our roads safer. And while the measures target larger vehicles, they also protect other road users, such as motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians. Technology can only be implemented effectively after careful consideration of other factors, such as road design and user behaviour, as well as extensive industry engagement.”
“Let me thank the Member for his suggestion. This is something that we can look into. But let me say that the group that is working on this – the interagency – is not called a "work group", but there is a group that is working on this that already consults many of these representatives.”
“I thank the Member for his suggestions. Indeed, we do have an interagency work group that is working on this and, indeed, we will work closely with the unions as well as take into account the feedback from the NGOs. As regard to further measures that we could put in place, for instance, the Member's suggestion about prohibiting the transport of equipment as well as passengers, there are actually difficulties and operational constraints for this, particularly for those, say, in the specialist trade. But we will continue to look at this and other suggestions.”
“The statistics themselves show that there has been impact and there has been improvement in terms of the number of injuries and fatalities of workers being transported on board lorries. In fact, we have also said in our statement that was issued by the various agencies that, over the past five years, for instance, to put in context, the proportion of persons on board lorries who have suffered injuries from traffic accidents, on average, is about 4%. Amongst all vehicle types, the highest proportion of injuries of people involved in road traffic accidents are motorcycles, at around 50% over the same period. We will continue to work. This is really a work-in-progress. It will remain our priority – the safety of all road users, including workers who are transported on lorries – and we will have to work closely with the industry to see how we can address some of these challenges and issues, encourage more to transit and also, at the same time, look at other measures that we can put in place, where feasible and effective, to enhance safety for the workers. With regard to the Member's question about timeline, I think I have already answered that before. There are challenges, practical constraints and difficulties and, therefore, it is really not meaningful to talk about a timeline. The other issue about working together, we have already said that we want to work together with everyone, including the NGOs.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions and comments. First, let me say that his two supplementary questions were also covered in my reply to his Adjournment Motion last month. But let me also reiterate that we have said that it is not ideal to transport workers on lorries. Having said that, we understand the concerns of the industry and, as Members have seen, they have laid it out in detail in a joint statement that they sent yesterday. There are real, practical and operational constraints for them to transit. Hence, over the years, as I have said, we have been working very closely with the industry as well as with all stakeholders, the unions, for instance, and industry experts, to look at additional measures that we can put in place in order to improve safety for these workers. I want to thank the Member for stating his concern for the workers' safety and also the NGOs who have submitted petitions expressing their concerns for these workers. In fact, we are all on the same page. The industry associations – more than 20 of them – have also stated their commitment to improve and ensure the safety and welfare of the workers. And so has the Government. Our commitment is to ensure the safety of all road users, including all our workers. Therefore, the way forward is for us to continue to work closely together in order to look at practical solutions. Solutions which are implementable, workable at the ground, and in the best interests of the workers to protect their safety as well as their livelihoods. And as I have said, we have been doing this. We have also recently introduced a slate of measures.”
“We are committed to improving safety for all road users and working with stakeholders, including the non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to develop practical solutions that are in the best interests of our workers, to protect their safety and their livelihoods. On the Member’s other question, section 126 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which regulates the carriage of persons in goods vehicles, is a legacy provision. It has been in the Act since it was first passed in 1961. From legislative records, it is also found in the predecessor to the Act, the Road Traffic Ordinance, dating back to before 1950. We do not have records to definitively confirm what was the rationale back then. However, we surmise from contemporaneous reports that the likely intent was to prevent lorries from being used to provide commercial taxi-like services and this remains relevant today.”
“In a joint statement issued yesterday by more than 20 industry associations, including the Singapore Contractors Association (SCAL), Association of Singapore Marine Industries (ASMI), Association of Process Industry (ASPRI) and the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF), the employers stated that if the Government imposes a ban, many companies, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), will not be able to continue operating their business. If the companies close down, there will be knock-on effects on society, including delays affecting new housing projects, polyclinics and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines, as well as higher costs all around for Singaporeans. Their employees – both Singaporean and migrant workers – would also risk losing their jobs. We want to safeguard both the safety and livelihood of our workers. My Ministry has been working closely with relevant Government agencies, including the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of National Development (MND), the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Traffic Police, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and Enterprise Singapore, as well as industry associations to progressively implement a suite of additional measures to improve safety for our workers. For instance, we introduced minimum rest time requirements for dual-role drivers, and we announced plans to require all lorries to be fitted with speed management devices, details of which will be announced by MHA later this year. The Traffic Police will also continue enforcement to ensure compliance with existing traffic regulations.”
“Thank you. We had on 5 July 2023 responded to the Member’s Adjournment Motion on the issue of transportation of workers on lorries and covered some of the points that he raised in the two Parliamentary Questions. As stated in our previous response, the Government shares the objective of enhancing safety for every worker, regardless of nationality. We have worked closely with stakeholders and introduced a suite of additional safety measures. For example, we have mandated that the front passenger cabin be fully occupied before the rear deck can be used to carry workers, required lorries transporting workers to be fitted with canopies and higher side railings, raised requirements for S Pass and Work Permit holders to obtain a Singapore Class 3 licence that will allow them to drive light goods vehicles and imposed higher penalties for non-compliance. These measures have helped to enhance safety and reduce the risk for workers. The average number of fatalities from road traffic accidents involving persons onboard lorries has halved, from around six per year from 2013 to 2017, to around three per year from 2018 to 2022. The average number of injured persons on board lorries has also gone down by about a third. Our efforts will focus on improving safety for all road users. We will also continue to roll out measures that address a multitude of factors behind accidents, such as driving behaviours and vehicle speed. The Government recognises that it is not ideal for workers to be transported on lorries, but we also understand the genuine concerns from employers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to reply to Question Nos 19 and 20 together?”
“I think I have given a detailed response to the Member's suggestions and views. What he is asking is still similar with regard to our plans to transit to safer modes of transportation. As I have said, I think this is something that we have to work out with the industry, with the associations. It will take time because we are looking at various sectors. We will share further when we are ready on this transit. As I have said, we have already implemented various measures and we are implementing a new set of measures. Some have been implemented and another one is ongoing. We will have to review this, but our foot is still on the pedal and we are still looking at further measures to enhance safety for our workers. With regard to your point about ignoring the advice of suppliers, no. In fact, we were talking about whether we can install safety belts on the back of lorries. The advice of the supplier is that it is not useful, meaningful or safe to do, because lorries were not built for safety belts. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." (proc text)]”
“We are similarly studying these use cases to see how they can be scaled up as well as other possible modes of transportation that may be used. Industry will be best placed to spearhead this effort as they best understand the ground needs and challenges. The Government will work with the industry and consider any further support required, but this will need to be effective and sustainable. Mr Deputy Speaker, this approach will take time and effort, as well as many difficult conversations as we grapple with the realities and constraints. Our agencies are working hard on the ground and I seek the support of the House as we continue to work together with our workers, associations and industry to bring about further effective and sustainable improvements to the safety of our workers. In the meantime, we are pressing ahead with the implementation and monitoring of the set of measures we had last announced at COS 2022 to enhance worker safety, even as we look at how we can further transit from the use of lorries.”
“It is neither practicable nor productive for them to have different vehicles to transport workers, equipment and goods. Making it mandatory for them to do so may lead to decisions which impact the livelihoods of their workers. On a similar note, while the intent of the Member's recommendation to have designated drivers is a good one, smaller enterprises, in particular, will find it challenging to employ full-time drivers. The recent Ministry of Manpower (MOM) measures of at least 30 minutes' rest immediately before driving for dual-role drivers who have worked six hours, and designated a vehicle buddy is intended to address the concern of driver alertness. I do want to assure the Member, however, that the 12-hour daily limit of working hours includes the time spent driving, as that is considered part of work. The Member has suggested that the Government consider providing funding to larger construction companies, dormitories and bus operators to facilitate this shift. As I explained earlier, at its core, the challenges are not necessarily financial in nature and, if so, funding would not be an effective remedy. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have therefore taken a different, multi-pronged approach towards addressing the issue. Our agencies are looking at specific sectors, engaging the companies that have been able or are open to shifting to buses or other modes of transportation, understanding the specific pain points and seeing how adoption can be scaled up. Today, there are already several bus companies that provide such services to transport workers. Besides Tong Tar Transport Services, which I had previously mentioned, other examples include Bedok Transport, Hui Leong Transport Service and JK59 Transport Pte Ltd.”
“However, this is not a matter of legislating or imposing rules and expecting compliance from the industry, without regard for the wider implications and unintended consequences. Simply mandating that workers travel on buses or banning the transport of workers on lorries, without considering ground realities and constraints, is not a realistic solution. Setting a timeline without understanding the varied concerns of all stakeholders is also not meaningful or workable. Transporting workers on lorries is a practice that cuts across various sectors and industries. Hence, we must understand the different challenges faced by each sector and ensure that our measures are effective, implementable and sustainable. Let me recap some of the key challenges. First, there are insufficient private buses to meet the needs across various sectors. A full transition to transportation via buses would require at least a doubling of the number of large private buses today. This will have knock-on effects on the rest of society, including more congestion. Second, operating buses also requires a different driver's licence. Members may have seen recent articles about the shortages of school bus drivers, resulting in some bus operators cancelling their service contracts despite underlying demand for school bus services. In fact, the shortage of bus drivers is not limited to the school bus sector. A wider shift to mandate the use of buses will likely exacerbate this shortage and affect other bus service providers, including our public buses. Third, the nature of businesses of many micro, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), such as those in specialist trades, require them to be able to transport a small crew of people together with some equipment or goods to several locations in a single day.”
“The requirement for dual-role drivers to have sufficient rest and the appointment of a designated "vehicle buddy" as well as for all newly-registered lorries used to ferry workers to be installed with rain covers came into force on 1 January this year. The requirement for in-use light lorries used to ferry workers to install rain covers just came into effect on 1 July 2023 and will come into effect for heavy lorries on 1 January 2024. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is working with the industry to implement speed management devices in all lorries and will announce more details when ready. These are all in addition to the earlier requirements for lorries to be fitted with canopies and higher protective side railings, lower speed limits and minimum space requirements. We believe that these efforts will build on the earlier enhancements and further improve the safety of our workers. The average number of fatalities from road traffic accidents involving persons onboard lorries has declined, from around six from 2013 to 2017, to around three from 2018 to 2022, even as we recognise that one fatality is one too many. The average number of injuries has also dropped by one-third, from 522 from 2013 to 2017, to 359 from 2018 to 2022. And as I mentioned earlier, we will need to give the industry and workers time to adjust to the measures. We will then review them and continue to work with the industry to explore further enhancements. The Member has called on the Government to ban the transportation of workers on the back of lorries. Let me reiterate that from a road safety perspective alone, it will be ideal for lorries not to carry any passengers in their rear decks. We have acknowledged this multiple times in the House.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for raising concerns about the transportation of workers in lorries. We are equally concerned about the safety of our workers. Our goal to improve safety in transportation is a work in progress and we will seek to do more and do better. But this is a goal that cannot be achieved solely through the efforts of the Government. For there to be enduring change, this goal needs to be shared by all stakeholders. Over the years, Government agencies have been reviewing and studying this issue on a regular basis to ensure that transportation of workers is done as safely as possible. Just last year, I announced four new measures during the Committee of Supply (COS) debate. However, what is less salient perhaps, are the many hours of careful policy consideration, stakeholder engagement before and after the announcements that agencies put in to be able to roll them out with the stakeholders' support. The industry and workers themselves will need time to react, adapt and comply. Thereafter, the Government will also have to review the effectiveness of the measures. These are measures which affect both lives and livelihoods, including those of the workers themselves, and that is why we need to approach them carefully and holistically. These new measures have been rolled out progressively. We released the Inter-agency Advisory on Safe Transportation of Workers on 31 December 2022, which provides practical guidance to employers and workers on the new and existing legal requirements and recommends practices to enhance safety of workers on lorry transportation.”
“Let me also say that as an additional safeguard, our public transport operators are looking into technologies like video analytics to provide early alerts should there be a commuter intrusion onto the tracks to provide us more time to intervene.”
“I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I note the concerns of the residents and understandably so. Let me say that, in designing and running our rail network, safety is our highest priority. So, as the Member has noted, since 2018, we have installed fixed barriers at all LRT stations. In addition, we have also installed a line of tactile warning studs along the station platform to warn commuters that they are approaching the edge of the platform. In addition, there are emergency telephones for commuters to communicate with the stationmasters, as well as emergency stop plungers, which allow commuters to stop the trains in the case of emergency. We have also actually increased the signages and announcements in our LRT stations to remind commuters of safety practices within the station as well as signages to warn people, to remind people, to stay behind the yellow lines. We had studied – as the Member said – the feasibility of installing platform screen doors at our LRT stations and as she has noted, for LRT stations they have much smaller space than MRT stations and installing platform screen doors require additional space for power communication, signal control rooms and so on. And it is not possible or it will be difficult to accommodate such facilities in every station without substantially affecting the waiting space. And as she has said, sometimes the platform can be quite crowded, so this actually may not improve the safety of our commuters. Nonetheless, let me assure the Member that we will continue to look into the feasibility of platform screen doors taking into account any new technologies that may come into the market.”
“Sir, there were two fatalities and one injury from falls onto Light Rail Transit (LRT) tracks in the past 10 years.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission for the Minister for Transport to take Question Nos 1 to 7 in the Ministerial Statement later in the Sitting?”
“Currently, there are already retailers who are voluntarily charging for bags and the bag charge actually varies. So, really, this is a commercial decision. It is also part of their sustainability drive if they are into this, and we will leave it to them, and the consumers have a choice of whether to patronise these retailers. What we have done is for the covered supermarkets, we have mandated a charge of at least five cents and, as I have said, most of the supermarkets that are covered will be charging five cents per bag. For us, we have mandated a low charge of five cents because we are also cognisant of the fact that most people get their disposable bags from the supermarket and if they shop in supermarkets, they tend to require more bags and, if they forget to bring their reusable bags, then they will have to pay for that.”
“Ms Pereira will be glad to know that the SG Eco Fund has supported many such initiatives in the community, such as food waste collection drives, composting and gardening workshops, as well as initiatives that mobilise residents to bring their food waste to a central collection point to be turned into compost for their local community gardens. Under the Green Action for Communities movement, we are hearing good ideas from residents, including on handling food waste. MSE and Green Plan agencies will work with residents to bring these ideas to fruition. Let me conclude. The proposed changes set out in this Bill represent our next steps in this journey towards zero waste and a circular economy. In particular, the beverage container return scheme and disposable carrier bag charge will require individuals to adjust their daily lives and their daily habits. Life-as-usual and business-as-usual cannot continue if we are to responsibly steward our resources and environment. Each of us has a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions, conserve Semakau Landfill and enhance resource resiliency. By reducing waste and recycling right, we can do our part to combat climate change and ensure that Singapore remains clean, green and liveable. I call on all Members of the House to give our support to this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. 3.55 pm”
“Our intent is to encourage higher value-added processes, such as valorising food by-products into animal feed ingredients or even food products. More details on the approval criteria will be provided when ready. The food waste must be transported by licensed general waste collectors in a manner that safeguards public health. Mr Don Wee suggested that food caterers should take back leftover food from their clients' events for segregation and reporting. He asked if we would consider imposing penalties on those who dispose of the food waste at the clients' premises. It is primarily the consumers' responsibility to avoid food wastage by ordering just enough food for their guests. We encourage everyone to adopt such sustainable practices to minimise food waste from catering events. Mr Don Wee asked about food waste reporting requirements and frequency. To minimise compliance burden, we will only require key data to be submitted annually, such as the building-level tonnages. Mr Louis Ng asked if we would consider requiring food donation amounts to be reported. We will not require this as donated food is not food waste. We agree that donating excess food which is safe for consumption will reduce the amount of food waste, and the latter will be reported. Regarding the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, MSE, with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), will continue to work closely with Mr Ng's team on this. Ms Joan Pereira asked if there is any support provided for community food waste collection and composting solutions to close the food waste loop for households.”
“We will monitor the scheme closely and assess the need to expand coverage, if necessary, or to include them in future phases of the wider EPR scheme for packaging. Mr Shawn Huang asked how the scheme would work for cross-border commercial activities, such as food and beverage services onboard aircrafts and ships. There are varying circumstances in how the beverages are supplied to aircraft and ships, as well as where the beverage containers are then disposed of. NEA has been engaging the industry to develop suitable arrangements for such activities. Finally, on the new food waste reporting requirements. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if we would consider requiring other types of buildings, such as SAF cookhouses, schools and hospitals, to segregate food waste for treatment and submit reports. Under GreenGov.SG, public sector buildings with food and beverage or F&B establishments will segregate the food waste for on-site or off-site treatment from 2024. This will include SAF cookhouses, schools and public hospitals. Some public sector buildings have already done so. For instance, several polytechnics have introduced food waste segregation measures and installed on-site food waste digesters at F&B areas within their premises. For non-public sector buildings, we will explore extending the segregation and reporting requirements to more types of buildings over time. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Shawn Huang asked about off-site food waste treatment for new buildings. NEA will not determine which off-site treatment facility building managers should send their food waste to. Building managers can determine this based on their business considerations and submit their proposal for NEA's approval.”
“Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Poh Li San have raised questions and suggestions about the scheme in relation to the broader waste collection industry, including informal waste collectors such as karang gunis. NEA will work with the scheme operator on appropriate measures to cater to them. For example, the scheme operator could deploy return depots to accept beverage container returns in bulk, similar to arrangements made in other jurisdictions to involve the informal sector in the collection network. Even as we seek to deploy a network of accessible return points to make returning beverage containers as convenient as possible, we recognise that the elderly and less mobile residents may find it more challenging, as Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted. We want to design a scheme where everyone can participate. We will continue to seek out ideas from the community, such as students and community groups, on how we can encourage community support and involvement to make the scheme more accessible to less mobile residents. NEA will work closely with the scheme operator to make the scheme work for these members of our community. I am glad that Mr Dennis Tan is supportive of the scheme and is even calling for the expansion of the scope to glass bottles and beverage cartons. We are, first, targeting plastic bottles and metal cans because they are easy to collect, compactible and have high material value. They also comprise about 70% of beverage containers put to market. Including glass bottles or beverage cartons would add complexity and cost to collection logistics and infrastructure. They will continue to be recycled under the National Recycling Programme after the scheme begins.”
“In my opening speech, I spoke about how we are adjusting the timeline to implement the scheme based on the industry's feedback. We have also supported the industry with knowledge and capability building. We organised an industry workshop last year and invited an overseas scheme operator to share best practices. We will continue to convene and facilitate discussions and knowledge sharing amongst industry stakeholders. Third, where possible, we will provide operational flexibility for companies to decide on arrangements that are more cost-effective. For example, producers could consider using stickers for the barcodes and deposit marks, or to directly print them on the beverage container. Mr Shawn Huang asked about the scenario where the scheme operator fails to meet the return rate target. We place great importance on ensuring that the scheme operator meets the return rate target. I mentioned in my opening speech that we will have a specific and higher financial penalty for missing the target for the beverage container return scheme. However, we want to avoid this outcome as much as possible. We will support the scheme operator on key scheme aspects that contribute to achieving the return rate, such as public education efforts and deploying a robust return point network. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about measures to raise awareness and participation. Indeed, this is a key area of work that we will partner the scheme operator on. We will need to reach out to all segments of society, as Mr Yip described, and spread the message in our communities. We want to bring everyone on board to do their part for sustainability.”
“This is an EPR scheme, where producers are responsible for the collection and recycling of their products. As such, the scheme would be financed by producers, that is, the covered beverage importers and manufacturers. Producers will pay producer fees to the scheme operator to carry out these responsibilities on their behalf. These fees would be proportional to the beverages they put out to the market. The revenue from the sale of clean, high-quality and high-value recyclables will be utilised by the scheme operator to reduce the scheme costs. The eventual cost pass-through to consumers in beverage prices, if any, will likely be moderated by price competition among industry players. This is also the experience in other countries that have implemented similar schemes. I appreciate that business costs are a concern. We have also heard this feedback at our consultations with companies. At the same time, many have also expressed their support for this scheme, recognising the importance of sustainability. We do need to balance cost and environmental considerations, especially in this uncertain economic environment. Therefore, we have taken a consultative and pragmatic approach in developing the scheme. First, as outlined in my opening speech, we hope to establish an industry-led scheme operator, which is a good practice that we see in jurisdictions overseas. It will have a strong incentive to operate efficiently. It will also be able to tap on the industry's capabilities and resources to improve operational synergies, such as using existing logistics channels to make backhaul trips. Second, we will continue to support the industry and provide sufficient time for implementation.”
“The Government will also exercise oversight via licensing conditions to ensure a robust network of return points for the public to return beverage containers conveniently. Mr Don Wee asked about the space taken up by a return point. This would depend on whether the premises operator opts for an over-the-counter return point, or a reverse vending machine (RVM). RVMs range in size, with smaller machines requiring around 0.6 square metres of space and larger ones with higher capacities requiring up to three square meters. Premises operators may work with the scheme operator to determine the optimal RVM size for their premises. Mr Don Wee asked whether the scheme operator can exercise creativity in boosting recycling rates, such as by offering supermarket vouchers. Return point operators would need to provide a full refund of the deposit amount when the covered beverage container is returned. As highlighted in my opening speech, the 10-cent deposit has been set to provide the necessary behavioural nudge to achieve the desired return rates. That said, we will certainly encourage the scheme operator to work with stakeholders such as return point operators to explore innovative ways to boost return rates. For example, in addition to the cash option, they could create different options for refund, including supermarket vouchers, rewards points or donation to charity. We see such practices in overseas jurisdictions too. For example, in Australia, consumers are given the option to donate their refunds directly to charity. Beyond this, return point operators may also work with the scheme operator on further promotional initiatives to increase footfall to their stores, if they wish to. Mr Don Wee asked how the scheme is funded.”
“In the lead-up to 3 July, we will ramp up public awareness efforts together with the supermarket operators. We will remind the public to bring their own bags to avoid the bag charge and offer suggestions on alternatives to supermarket carrier bags for bagging waste. We are also encouraging the supermarket operators to carry out initiatives to support the transition from disposable to reusable bags, such as bring-your-own-bag initiatives and the distribution of reusable carrier bags, especially to lower-income groups. In the spirit of environmental stewardship, I urge everyone to be mindful not to take more disposable bags than necessary and start bringing our own bags, even before the bag charge commences. Let me now address the beverage container return scheme. The scheme has seen good results overseas. To Mr Don Wee's question, similar schemes in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Lithuania have consistently achieved return rates of 80% or higher. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have asked about the return point network. Setting up a convenient return point network is a top priority, because it is crucial to the scheme's success. The mandated return points in larger supermarkets will form an important part of the network. At other community spaces and public areas, NEA will work with the scheme operator to encourage premises operators to voluntarily set up return points. Based on the experience overseas, setting up a return point can increase footfall to stores. The scheme operator will also pay handling fees to return point operators as part of the commercial arrangement, to reimburse costs incurred. The scheme operator will be setting up return points at locations based on considerations, such as footfall and proximity of return points.”
“On Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Joan Pereira's concerns about responsible waste disposal, I would like to reiterate that the practice of properly bagging waste before disposing of it in rubbish chutes should still continue. We are not imposing a ban on disposable carrier bags. They will still be available. Other packaging such as the bags that hold bread or toilet rolls can also be used to bag waste as alternatives to supermarket carrier bags. The bag charge should not be an excuse to dispose of waste in an irresponsible manner. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Don Wee commented that with the bag charge, consumers might start purchasing single-use plastic bags from online and overseas retailers in bulk. While this is possible, these consumers would likely only buy what they really need and be more mindful of how they use the bags, since they would also have to pay for them. Members like Ms Poh Li San and Mr Dennis Tan spoke about the importance of public education to promote greater understanding of the value of sustainability and effect positive behavourial change. I agree with this. Our nation-wide "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign has been ongoing since 2019. As part of the campaign, we work with many partners including supermarkets and F&B establishments to amplify the message of sustainable living and encourage action through initiatives and incentives. The campaign aims to help Singaporeans better appreciate why we need to reduce the use of disposables and food wastage and how to do so. The campaign messages are shared across multiple touch points and languages to cater to the wider population. The Government plans to increase public education in conjunction with the commencement of the bag charge.”
“As I said in my opening speech, operators of Singapore Food Agency (SFA)-licensed supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $100 million will be required to charge for disposable carrier bags at their SFA-licensed supermarket outlets. Convenience stores, such as those operated by Cheers and 7-Eleven that do not sell or prepare raw meats, poultry or seafood, are not required to have supermarket licences and hence, do not come under this legislation. Nonetheless, I note that Cheers and 7-Eleven are already charging for disposable carrier bags voluntarily. Members have raised clarifications about online grocery purchases. We will prescribe in the subsidiary legislation that the bag charge will not apply to disposable carrier bags used by retailers to bag groceries that are purchased online and delivered to the customer. This is because customers do not have the choice of using their own bags. Nevertheless, we agree with Ms Carrie Tan that there is scope for online retailers and platforms, not just supermarkets, to reduce packaging waste. We will study how best to address packaging waste from e-commerce, including online grocery shopping, as we develop the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging waste management. In the meantime, we will work with the supermarket operators to compile best practices and develop guidelines on reducing packaging for online purchases. We also encourage other retailers to pursue initiatives to reduce and reuse delivery packaging. To Mr Shawn Huang's question on annual turnover, this will be determined at the entity level and will not be aggregated at the group level. We will monitor the implementation of the bag charge and assess if there is a need to adjust how annual turnover is determined in the future.”
“Indeed, we need to strike a careful balance between creating an effective behavioural nudge and managing the cost impact on households. Compared to other retail establishments, shoppers tend to make larger purchases at supermarkets and may have to purchase more bags if they forget or do not bring enough reusable bags. We have therefore set the bag charge at a minimum of five cents and most covered supermarket operators will be charging five cents per bag when the bag charge comes into effect. The bag charge can be avoided by bringing our own bags. We all have to play our part for the environment. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Shawn Huang asked about the use of proceeds from the bag charge. Covered supermarket operators have flexibility to decide on the use of proceeds but will need to account to the public for how they were used. Our approach to mandate annual declarations on the use of proceeds ensures that there is transparency and public accountability, while minimising regulatory and compliance costs. I am heartened that all the supermarket operators have indicated that they intend to use the proceeds to support environmental and social causes. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan asked about expansion plans for the bag charge. We will monitor the effectiveness of the bag charge and assess the need to expand coverage. For example, will we observe new behavioural norms where bringing your own bag for shopping becomes second nature? Will more retailers follow suit to voluntarily charge for disposable carrier bags? We can learn from the experience of other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and England, which have taken a phased approach in extending the coverage of the bag charge over time. Mr Don Wee asked if the bag charge would apply to convenience stores.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy that Members from both sides of the House have expressed support on the initiatives proposed in this Bill. Let me address Members' thoughtful comments and suggestions. First, the disposable carrier bag charge or "bag charge". I am glad that many Members have expressed support for the bag charge, including Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Louis Ng. Indeed, many Members, including Miss Cheng Li Hui, former Member of Parliament, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah as well as non-governmental organisations like Zero Waste SG and WWF Singapore have also called for a charge on disposable bags. Mr Louis Ng, as he noted, has been speaking up about a charge since 2016 and I commend him for his persistence. We heard these calls. The Government has been studying the experiences of other jurisdictions that have implemented a bag charge. We are also mindful of our local circumstances, where plastic bags are widely used by households to dispose of waste hygienically and where incinerable waste is not directly landfilled. We convened the Citizens' Workgroup in 2020 to tap into diverse views and insights to address the issues of disposables. After we accepted the recommendation to implement a disposable carrier bag charge, we consulted widely to hear different considerations, seek feedback and build collective support. I am glad that Mr Dennis Tan agrees that it is the excessive use of disposables that we need to tackle. By placing a visible cost on each bag, we will be more sensitive to the impact of our consumption on the environment. While Ms Joan Pereira raised concerns about cost, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if we should consider charging more to discourage consumption.”
“As the Member has rightly pointed out, we need to strike a balance, we need to maintain public confidence, especially for passengers conveyed in public service vehicles, like taxis and private hire cars. Whilst we want to give the applicant who has had a criminal record before a second chance in taking up driving as a vocation, we also need to ensure that the interest and safety of commuters are safeguarded. So, when we look at the applications, the Member has asked whether there are specific offences that we consider. Actually, criminal offences make up a large range. Besides murder, rape and kidnapping, there is a real wide range of such offences. We will consider them on a case-by-case basis because it is not just the severity of the offence, but also when the offence was committed, and also any other mitigating factors like recalcitrance and so on. So, when an appeal comes in, we will look at it on a case-by-case basis, based on its own merit and make an independent assessment.”
“Of the more than 15,000 vocational licence, or VL, applications across the different services in 2022, 226 applications or about 1.5% were rejected due to criminal records, including murder, rape and kidnapping. It is necessary for Land Transport Authority (LTA) to screen the VL applications to safeguard the interests of the commuting public. LTA may consider appeals from applicants with criminal records depending on the nature of the case. In 2022, 72 out of these 169 appeals were acceded to. LTA considers such appeals carefully to strike a balance between allowing applicants who committed less severe offences to take on driving as a vocation while safeguarding the safety of passengers.”
“On using cleaner renewable energy for electricity generation, that is actually under MTI. On MSCP solar panels, there is already a scheme. HDB also has a scheme – the SolarNova scheme – to put solar panels on rooftops and, I am sure, if it is possible, for MSCPs too. However, that is also not under this Ministry. On logistics companies' transition to cleaner vehicles, we are working with them, but it is now limited by the availability of this kind of vehicles, in terms of technology.”
“Yes, it is okay. I can answer that "half" question on the linkway. That is why we are forming a committee and getting local stakeholders involved. We will take all suggestions and ideas into consideration and study this as part of the Friendly Streets initiative. Obviously, we will have to look at the viability and so on.”
“As we have said, 60,000 by 2030, our estimate is that they should be able to serve at least half the car population. The kiosks – about 180 all round – about half are on Temporary Occupation Licences or short leases. So, depending on how the demand for EV chargers pans out – basically, now, there are already petrol kiosks that have installed EV chargers. For some, it is a question of business model and how they transit. For others, depending on whether there is demand in that specific location and so on, some may actually transit out. So, we will have to look at this as the EV charging network builds up and demand for EV cars increases.”
“On the Friendly Streets pilot, we are wanting to work with the local community and will form a committee. That committee would comprise all stakeholders. So, if you have an NRP going on, then the relevant stakeholders can also be involved. Indeed, the Friendly Streets initiative is really about integrating; looking at an entire zone and then putting in place the various projects that we may have, whether it is a School Zone, Silver Zone, your NRP as well as other initiatives to make the area more friendly for users. So, definitely. Regarding the POBs, it is a coveted scarce commodity. We will always have to prioritise. Having said that, definitely, Members can continue to hope for it and we will take note of this.”
“LTA will work with operators to better understand the needs and potential role of the industry. We will share more when ready. Chairman, in conclusion, we look forward to working with the community to co-create friendly streets, making our towns safer and more vibrant. As we reimagine our road space, we also encourage the use of more sustainable alternatives, such as EVs and shared modes of transport. Through these initiatives, we can work together to create a more people-centric land transport system for all.”
“Operators are also rolling out features, such as "hotspot navigation" to alert drivers to areas with more booking requests, to better match demand and supply. Some have reintroduced ride-sharing services, where riders going to similar destinations can share a ride and be served by one driver. This allows the existing limited pool of drivers to serve more riders. Nonetheless, we have seen an increase in P2P vocational licence applications in the past year, with 950 new applications per month in 2022, up from about 650 per month in 2021. On the Government's part, LTA will work with operators to reduce the time to process vocational licence applications. As operators tackle new challenges faced by the sector, we will continue working with the industry stakeholders and drivers to address issues, ensuring drivers' livelihoods, addressing P2P availability and looking ahead to shifts in the sector's landscape. Over time, we have seen structural shifts in the needs of our land transport system. During our ForwardSG engagements, we heard some youths sharing aspirations to have the option to use a car, without necessarily owning a car. As Ms Poh Li San shared, car sharing may be an option for people who only require a private vehicle from time to time. Car sharing refers to the short-term leasing of cars, typically for less than a day. There are several operators, like Getgo and BlueSG. Based on preliminary engagements with operators last year, we understand that there is growing demand for car sharing. With over 5,000 shared cars throughout Singapore today, operators plan to expand their fleets further to meet expected demand. As car sharing can add to our mix of connectivity options for occasional car users, LTA will be further studying car sharing.”
“Our Steering Group, together with EVe, will engage industry stakeholders and the public to support a safe and sustainable EV transition. Chairman, I will now move on to point-to-point, or P2P, transport, which plays an integral role in complementing other transport modes. As Ms Yeo Wan Ling noted, the P2P sector and drivers' livelihoods were significantly impacted during the pandemic. But as Singapore transitioned towards an endemic COVID-19 norm, P2P trips recovered to about 80% of pre-COVID-19 levels in 2022. In addition, fuel prices moderated over 2022, mitigating the impact of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on drivers' costs. With this ridership recovery, P2P drivers have seen improved earnings and incomes returning to pre-COVID-19 levels. Whilst demand for P2P services has increased, there are now fewer P2P drivers, as some had left the sector during the pandemic. The number of monthly active P2P drivers dropped from around 69,000 pre-COVID-19, to 55,000 in the fourth quarter of 2022. The decline is steeper for taxi drivers as there are around 9,000 fewer active drivers, compared to pre-COVID-19, and many who left were two-shift drivers who would drive night or weekend shifts. Hence, with fewer P2P drivers available, riders experience high surge fares and longer waiting times, especially during the late evening or night. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Mark Chay asked for an update. The tight supply of P2P drivers reflects the manpower shortage in many sectors post-COVID-19 and the industry will require time to adjust to demand for P2P rides. For now, P2P operators have shared that they are recruiting more new drivers.”
“This Steering Group, co-chaired by Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng and myself, will focus on three "Cs". First, capacity. Most of the charging points that we are deploying islandwide will be slow chargers at residential estates. However, we are also exploring where fast chargers can be deployed to provide an option for high-mileage users, such as taxi drivers, who may need top-ups on the go. The ramp-up in charging points is necessary to serve Singapore's growing EV population, especially among light goods vehicles, or LGVs. Last year, electric LGVs, or e-LGVs accounted for over 30% of new LGV registrations. This suggests that existing incentives, such as the Commercial Vehicle Emissions and Early Turnover schemes, are effective. As e-LGVs have lower operating costs than diesel LGVs, many fleet owners have realised that it is cheaper to operate an e-LGV over its lifecycle. For heavier vehicles, we will engage fleet owners to see how we can facilitate their transition to a greener fleet. Dedicated charging infrastructure will likely be needed. The second "C", culture. LTA has been engaging EV drivers on their driving and charging experiences and is working with operators to foster socially responsible EV charging norms. Many EV charging operators today are considering measures to deter lot-hogging, such as idle fees. But we must do more to develop gracious charging etiquette among EV users. So, LTA is planning a citizen engagement exercise to develop ground-up recommendations on nurturing good charging etiquette. The third "C", capability. We will support the industry in training the workforce in areas, such as the EV charging standards.”