Dennis Tan Lip Fong
Singapore
“Yes, Sir. By combining practical experience with advanced analytics, we can transform traditional operational careers in the highly productive technology-enabled professions, ensuring that more high-value decision-making and better paying jobs remain in Singapore.”
“When Singapore officers are deployed at Bukit Chagar in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, do they enjoy the same legal protections and operational autonomy as their Malaysian counterparts enjoy when stationed in Singapore?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Relating to one issue of co-parenting, I would like to ask will the Ministry consider granting foster parents synchronised access to the child's Health Buddy app? Currently, foster parents have no access to the app and require the cooperation of biological parents.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Would the Ministry consider a tiered co-payment model for private providers similar to the EIPIC-P scheme where middle-income families can pay a regulated rate for a fixed number of additional private therapy hours to supplement their child's public intervention?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I thank the Government for acknowledging the gap regarding the software-driven energy degradation and for the commitment to monitor and test when necessary.”
“Yes, just a quick clarification. I thank the Minister of State for the answers and the details. The feedback I receive is pertaining, especially to making appointments, because there have been instances where foster parents experience appointments being cancelled without their knowledge, and then having to arrive at the hospital unnecessa…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,079 lines we hold for Dennis Tan Lip Fong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 22.
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. My answer in short is no. I am not criticising but I have highlighted, firstly, in my Parliamentary Question to ask the Minister whether the Government undertake a final EIA study to consider the holistic impact. I have sought to explain "holistic impact". Perhaps, let me explain further about my second supplementary question in terms of what I mean by "holistic impact". I am asking if we have done, and if not, are we prepared to do a more holistic valuation of the worksite environment through ecosystem service valuation techniques which assess the economic, cultural and environmental value of our natural capital. I believe I have also touched on and explained, for my first supplementary question, about the animal population projection and the future impact of climate change. If this has been done, and if the Senior Minister of State, the Ministry, is satisfied, so be it. But I am just asking for clarification whether they are prepared to consider these, if these have not been done.”
“Will the Ministry conduct a study to holistically evaluate, if it has not, the economic, cultural and environmental value of these ecosystem services provided at these sites before making a decision on the CRL? The rationale for me asking this supplementary question is simply that the idea is that when environmental degradation involving habitat loss and habitat fragmentation occurs, even if trees are replanted, the ecosystem services provided by the original forest may either be lost or will take decades or more to be re-established to its prior magnitude and scale. The important principle here is that degraded ecosystems cannot be regenerated wholesale, they can only be rehabilitated.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have two supplementary questions. My first supplementary question is this: in assessing the impact of CRL, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government has evaluated, one, the animal population projections; and two, the future impact of climate change for the critically endangered and endangered species in the CCNR and its adjacent forest, and whether this information will be made available to the public. The basis of my supplementary question is as follows. It has been reported in the EIA report, I believe, that various critically endangered species as well as endangered species of animals tend to be affected as a result. However, it is unclear whether the Government, whether by EIA or other studies, has tracked the population sizes of these species and, more crucially, whether there have been quantitative projections made to gauge how these population sizes may shift due to the construction. It is also unclear whether fairly established matrix used in conservation, such as species richness or species evenness, has been considered. For the long-term impact of climate change, factoring in this aspect will allow for better understanding of the true resilience of the ecosystem in this area, which is important, given that the effects of habitat fragmentation and loss will have long-term impacts on the ecosystem in the area. My second supplementary question is that even with mitigation, habitat loss and fragmentation at the worksite may result in the loss of ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration and natural heritage, currently provided by these areas.”
“Is this a one-off publicity spin, in which I wonder what is the point of it as we are nowhere near ready for this? Or is the Government even seriously contemplating use of flying taxis in the near future? The thought brings some quivers, not because I do not welcome modern technology, but after what we have seen with the introduction of other drones and PMDs and the inability of the law to prevent transgressions or accidents. How prepared are we, legally speaking, to handle passenger drones? We must always try and embrace technological advancements or new applications, but the law must also keep abreast or even stay ahead to regulate technological application and help set the right culture from the onset, instead of playing catch-up. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions and concerns, I support this Bill.”
“" So, it seems that SAF has shared its know-how with the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and CAAS and gave recommendations on the possible technology and equipment which CAAS can consider deploying. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State since then, what has CAAS done to beef up its anti-drone defences. Can he share with this House some details of the work done? I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State how confident MOT or CAAS is in avoiding flight disruptions in future should there be similar drone intrusions or attacks, at least the non-weaponised types, if we are to assume that SAF is responsible for all weaponised drone attacks. Any such Ministerial assurances which can be given in this respect are welcome and are important for Singapore because, for a major air hub like Changi, even if we were to exclude weaponised attacks, Changi airport cannot afford to have its flights randomly affected by drone intrusions. I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State since the drone incidents in June causing disruptions, have there been any other incidents of drone intrusions which led to flight disruptions or nearly led to any flight disruptions? Finally, I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government has identified the operators responsible for the flight disruptions in June 2019 or the person or persons behind the operator. If so, can he share the findings with this House? If not, is the Government confident of finding out who the culprits are? Mr Speaker, Sir, less than two weeks ago, a passenger drone, also referred to as a flying taxi, went for a lightning spin in Marina Bay generating some publicity.”
“It is important that the Government must be effective in disseminating to the public, especially the drone users, the legal restrictions imposed by the law and the enhancements in punishments. Sometime last year, I saw a foreigner using a drone at a beach in Sentosa and was later stopped by a security person. I was not even sure he was arrested or detained. The person did not seem to know that he was not supposed to use the drone in the vicinity. In some ways, this is like the problem we see with some people who still do not know that PMDs are not supposed to be used in certain areas. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how the Government intends to educate all unmanned aircraft or drone users as well as the public on the restrictions for drone use and the punishments prescribed by law for illegal uses. Like the man I saw in Sentosa, I have also seen other tourists or foreigners use such drones in the public. I would like to ask the Minister how the Government ensures that visitors and foreigners are made aware of the restrictions for drone usage and the ensuing punishments. Mr Speaker, Sir, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen shared with this House last month how the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is equipped to handle military grade drone attacks on Singapore. He gave assurances to the effect, as I understand, that SAF has the ability to defend against the kind of attacks which were levelled against the Saudi oil installations recently. In an earlier press interview in June this year, Minister Ng also shared that CAAS had asked SAF for professional advice and that SAF has told CAAS, and I quote Minister Ng, "What is out there in the market that they can procure if they want it quickly. What kind of defences they need, and it's up to CAAS to know what they need.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, ANA Bill seeks to amend section 3A to prohibit the disclosure of flight recorder information to any Court for criminal and civil proceedings except, I quote the Bill, "in prescribed circumstances". The Explanatory Note of the Bill states that this amendment is to put Singapore in line with Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention. Notwithstanding the prescribed circumstances which the Senior Minister of State has taken us through, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the prohibition against disclosure of flight recorder information, despite the exceptions, will, in any way, allow industry players, interested individuals or parties, or even authorities to rely on this prohibition unfairly and against public interest or safety to prevent disclosure of information whether for fear of prejudicing the respective party's interest or even fear of bad publicity affecting the relevant party. It brings to mind recent media reports of suppression of disclosure by Boeing staff of concerns relating to the Boeing 737 Max aircraft prior to the two crashes which led eventually to the grounding of the aircraft. Next, the ANA Bill also seeks to introduce, among other things, increased punishments for illegal use of unmanned aircraft or drones. The increase in punishments will, hopefully, deter recreational users from using their unmanned aircraft in prohibited areas and will make the users more aware of keeping their use to allowed areas. But changing the law per se and charging the odd person and hoping to make him an example may not be sufficient to ensure that all users know the laws.”
“Speaker, may I ask the Senior Minister of State in respect of part (c) of my Question No 8 "whether the Government will consider mandatory safe-riding certification courses with disqualification rights"? Would the Government still be considering this? In respect of the calls for age limit both by the Active Mobility Panel as well as in my previous Parliamentary Question, will the Government consider an age limit for riders riding PMDs? I would also be grateful if the Senior Minister of State can answer Question No 11. Thank you.”
“Such news is disconcerting, as such waste exports have been a source of diplomatic tensions and we do not want to impact the environment of our neighbours adversely. Ministerial reassurances in this area will go some way to assuage concerns on the impact on our environment or that we may be exporting our e-waste problem away, to the detriment of our neighbours. Four, marine pollution. Tackling the main streams of waste is key to minimising marine pollution that has impacted not just our shorelines, but also the shorelines and waterways of our neighbours. I wish to add my voice to support the recent Bangkok Declaration on combating Marine Debris that Singapore has adopted, but I hope we can do more on the preventative end. A key source of marine pollution has been micro plastics. Singapore has not been immune from this source of pollution, with micro plastics in our own coastline found to be carrying toxic pathogens that cause coral bleaching and wound infections. To prevent more of such micro plastics from entering the environment and wrecking damage, I wish to ask the Senior Minister of State if she will consider a ban on primary micro plastic production and use. Such bans have been introduced in the European Union (EU), to be enforced from 2020. I believe that banning the production of micro plastics will send a good signal in our commitment to reduce the impact of micro plastics on our environment. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in closing, I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications and answers, and notwithstanding my concerns, I support this Bill.”
“I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State how does the Ministry intend to enforce against retailers when they fall foul of the provisions of the Bill after it is passed and what recourse would the public have if retailers refuse to accept e-waste. What recourse can the public take to effectively report errant behaviour on the part of such retailers? It was noted by the Senior Minister of State in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate in 2018 that through aggregating e-waste and enabling more efficient collection and processing, there would be greater value captured from e-waste and can help offset the cost of operating the e-waste management system. As the small but burgeoning e-waste recycling industry will be boosted by the introduction of this framework, I hope some insights and assurances can be given on regulating precious metal recovery from e-waste. At this point, how do we ensure that the export of our e-waste for recycling purposes, such that the Basel Convention is compiled with, and that the e-waste does not end up in a black market overseas? Given the potentially hazardous chemicals involved in recycling, what safety regulations are in place to ensure that such chemicals do not find themselves into the environment? A case in point is Singapore-based Virogreen which had their import licence suspended for a year by Thailand’s Department of Industrial Works after police investigations. This was due to a batch of cargo with 96 tonnes of e-waste that were labelled as second-hand electronic appliances from countries, including Singapore, which found its way, according to Thai media reports, into their e-waste management plants.”
“I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what the expected use of food waste from new buildings will be, and if there will be enough off-takers of food waste slurry or compost. Finally, how is the Ministry currently helping charities that collect food from shops or food outlets and deliver it to needy residents and, if so, perhaps the Senior Minister of State can share with us what are these efforts and whether more support can be extended to these charities as this would help support the food waste and packaging waste goals and such charities play an important role in helping us to achieve these goals. Three, e-waste collection by individuals. Next, with the proliferation of digital devices, e-waste is increasingly a problem. Many households keep devices that no longer work, not knowing where to dispose of them. I am, therefore, concerned about how certain provisions in the Bill may adversely hinder certain current e-waste collection efforts. Under the provisions of the Bill, public collection of e-waste will henceforth be prohibited unless they are operating a licensed scheme or have a written approval of NEA to do so. Any person who does so will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding S$5,000. Would these provisions within this Bill negatively affect well-intended public collection? How about the "karang guni" men who also provide collection services? I am of the view that NEA should encourage ground-up initiatives from members of the public, NGOs and small shops to enable such recycling in conjunction with industry stakeholders. Therefore, I hope that such written permission from NEA will be easy to obtain at little to no cost if they are doing such public collection with good intentions.”
“In many Government and university events, anecdotes of good catered food going to waste as they are left unconsumed are a dime a dozen. Even as we must balance the needs between hygiene and waste management, the fact remains that food waste is a fundamental issue that requires bigger changes, indeed, an overhaul, to ensure that the loop can be closed and allow for effective regeneration of such resources. In the news, there are reports of plans from the Public Utilities Board (PUB) to treat food waste into biogas at Tuas Nexus and of urban insect farms supported by Enterprise Singapore that are targeted at the food waste issue as well. Such grandiose plans, however, will take time to integrate. In the meantime, perhaps making consumption adjustments on major waste producers will see more immediate impact. As clause 4 of the Bill binds the Government on the provisions of the Bill, we could start from the Public Service to signal the seriousness that this Government takes in tackling a fundamental issue. How would the Public Service support efforts to reduce food waste internally? I have seen in a Straits Times Forum reply that the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) tries to keep food waste to a minimum. This could be extended to the whole of the Public Service, with a firm public commitment to lead by example and reduce food waste that it produces. This will send a good signal to the private sector and can even be a good way to reduce overheads in holding events, however slight. Also, under the Bill, occupiers of a prescribed building or part of a prescribed building must segregate food waste. In addition to food waste segregation facilities, building managers of a new building must also provide treatment facilities.”
“Furthermore, since producers of specified packaging who fulfil the prescribed threshold criteria in any year – let us call it "T" – must, in year T+2, submit to NEA a report relating to the specified packaging that is imported or used in year T+1, it appears that there will be a two-year time lag in calculating the total amount of packaging reported. Therefore, the earliest this information will be reported will be in 2021, as noted in the news. In the meantime, how will NEA work to ensure that between now and 2021, the companies will actively work towards less packaging? Has there been any companies that have given information to the relevant agencies on this? Will this data be made public? A clear benefit of releasing such data is to let relevant organisations use it for a Green Score system that allows companies to be judged on their efforts and targets to reduce packaging waste. This can incentivise companies to work towards reduction targets as an interim measure until NEA releases an EPR scheme for packaging companies. Two, treatment of food waste. Mr Deputy Speaker, food waste looks to be a costly and big problem that we have yet to find an effective way to handle. The Singapore Environment Council (SEC) indicated in a recent study that food loss contributes to an estimated $2.54 billion from farm to market within Singapore. Key waste statistics from NEA indicate that while food waste stands at 10% of all waste generated, recycling stands at 17% of the food waste generated in 2018. It is an improvement from 6% in 2003 but, evidently, more can be done to tackle the remaining waste. However, our campaign against food waste seems lacklustre. The year-long Food Waste campaign is non-binding on citizens.”
“Therefore, mandatory packaging reporting seems necessary as a first step towards a framework to regulate packaging products. And such is the case under Part 4 of the Bill. Under clause 20 of the Bill, companies are required to submit a report relating to the specified packaging provided that they fulfil the prescribed threshold criteria. While it is not clear in the Bill itself, the Zero Waste Masterplan notes that the problem is on excessive packaging, and the initial aim of the framework is at producers of packaged products and supermarkets with a turnover of more than $10 million. This is a start, but I do have some concerns. Singapore currently serves as a key market and a regional showcase for many companies and franchisees, be it homegrown brands or foreign brands. The packaging waste generated by many such companies can be substantial, including companies or businesses with not more than a turnover of $10 million. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State why a revenue threshold was chosen in the reporting standard? The concern here is that by focusing on the bigger players, we may be losing sight of the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) or the smaller businesses which may be used to single-use plastics as they have no resources to work on alternatives. How will the Ministry help businesses below that turnover threshold limit their packaging, especially businesses that have always used much packaging, for example, food and other retail businesses? This issue is important to get right, especially for currently small but fast-growing companies, such as Grain and Wok Hey. Helping them with packaging standards at first will be more cost-effective than to have them switch over and comply with new standards at a later date.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with climate change and sustainability increasingly a hot-button issue across the globe, it is timely to think about how we manage our waste as we set about building a sustainable Singapore. The amount of solid waste disposed of has increased exponentially due to our affluence, population growth and consumption habits. Singapore's only landfill, Semakau Landfill, is expected to reach capacity in just 16 years if we continue to generate waste at current rates. This is a ticking time bomb that needs urgency in tackling. I am, therefore, heartened to see efforts being dedicated towards that end. The Resource Sustainability Bill we have before us is a timely addition to Singapore's waste management strategy by targeting the three main streams of waste in Singapore: electrical or electronic products and e-waste, food waste and packaging, and I support the Bill's aims to augment our waste management strategies. However, I would like to touch on a few topics related to circularity and resource sustainability, and I hope the Minister can clarify on how they will be addressed moving forward. One, packaging reporting. There has been much coverage over the impact of packaging waste on our environment. However, our reliance on such single-use packaging has only continued to deepen despite efforts, such as the voluntary Singapore Packaging Agreement. A main source of such packaging waste is made from plastic and, looking at the statistics over time, plastic waste disposed has gone way up from 540,800 tonnes in 2003 to 908,600 tonnes in 2018. As such, this House has unsurprisingly seen much debate over single-use plastics, including those used for packaging. However, data on the detailed use of such packaging does not seem to be tracked for now.”
“Four, in view of the desire for greater Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) integration and perhaps not entirely distinct from some of the ideas or the spirit behind the modelled ASEAN extradition treaty, does the Government have any plans to work towards having reciprocal enforcement of civil judgments for all ASEAN countries? If not, does the Senior Minister of State think that this is something that is workable at some point? And what will be some of the challenges anticipated? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, aside from the clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. Sir, I support the consolidation of the laws under the current RECJA and REFJA under a revised REFJA pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments (Repeal) Bill and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Bill. Though I cannot help but notice the slight tinge of irony that the well-used REFJA is being repealed in our Bicentennial Year, nevertheless, for a good reason, I guess. Mr Deputy Speaker, I also welcome the expanded categories of judgments and Court orders under the proposed amendments which will lead to greater applicability and more opportunities for enforcement. I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Senior Minister of State. One, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, after the passing of the Bills, what are the Government's plans to increase the number of countries under the revised REFJA. How does it intend to proactively reach out to other countries to obtain agreement on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of each other's civil judgments for the purposes of the consolidated REFJA? Two, I would like to ask specifically what are some of the countries which Singapore expects to bring on board the new REFJA regime in the near future. Three, may I also ask the Senior Minister of State, based on past experiences, what are the common factors preventing Singapore from reaching agreement with other jurisdictions on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of civil judgments? And, if so, how does the Senior Minister of State expect that the Government will work towards overcoming these difficulties?”
“I would like to ask the Minister, does NEA face any difficulties in accessing individual homes, whether in private estates or HDB estates? What measures are being taken to deal with this issue?”
“I am raising the issue for the Senior Minister of State to discuss with the industry. So, I am not making a proposal as such.”
“My concern would be the same for whether it is the taxi drivers or the PHC drivers. It is a concern that I have for the industry.”
“Will it be reasonable and meaningful? I would also like to know whether these concerns that I have mentioned above would be regulated in the Code of Practices or other regulations. Secondly, will ride-hailing operators affect COE prices? A few years ago, when the ride-hailing service was introduced in Singapore, Uber and Grab entered the market and COE prices saw an upsurge. In the subsequent few years, COE prices continued to rise significantly. With the departure of Uber, COE prices fell sharply. When Gojek entered the ride-hailing market this year, COE prices rose once again. Such price fluctuations are not welcomed by private car owners. I would like the Government to consider the following suggestions. First of all, we should set up a different COE category for the ride-hailing companies. Second, we should limit the number of cars that can be owned by them. Third, we can consider not allowing the ride-hailing operators to directly bid for COEs with owners of other private cars. (In English): I look forward to the Senior Minister of State’s clarifications. Notwithstanding my concerns, I support the Bill.”
“Taxi operators were once bidding for COEs and they, too, had an undesirable impact on the COE prices. When Uber departed, the end result was not pretty as well, as industry experts place the number of unused cars in the private hire fleet at over 2,000. For our stated zero-car growth policy, having idle cars is a market failure. This is also all rather unfair to individual car owners. There has also been media reports of news or speculation that taxi companies may be allowed to bid for COEs again. I seriously hope that the Government is not entertaining this thought. It will certainly lead to an unwelcome spike in COE prices. With such big players having the uneven power to distort COE prices, vehicles owned by or leased to all P2P passenger transport operators should be subject to a new category of COE so that these vehicles will not affect or drive COE pricing for current categories, to the detriment of private car owners. Alternatively, LTA should limit the fleet size of taxi and PHCs and ensure that all P2P passenger transport operators are not able to bid for COEs with other passenger cars. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I speak briefly in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, although I support this Bill, I do have a few reservations. First of all, in respect of our full-time PHC drivers, I would like to ask the Minister whether the average working hours each day as well as their daily income are comparable with those of their counterparts in other first-world cities. Are the incentives set by the operators causing drivers to work an unhealthy number of hours, for example, more than eight hours? And if so, should we be concerned with the impact on the driver's health and families? Apart from this, can the drivers' income be guaranteed?”
“The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) guidelines are still vague on the retention of such data, only noting that the data be no longer retained when it is no longer necessary for business or legal purposes. Would the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the proposed code of practices will be specifying a time limit for video and audio recordings to be deleted so that the privacy of individuals can be safeguarded and what will such time limits be? Next, there may also be a need to assess whether too many young adults may be lured by the promise of flexibility and wages they can gain from PHC driving as opposed to finding other employment. Does the Senior Minister of State have the data for PHC drivers broken down by age? The concern here is that, career training-wise, such young adult drivers, particularly those who do private hire driving as a full-time occupation, may risk becoming obsolete with the possible advent of autonomous vehicles in perhaps the not-too-distant future. If so, younger PHC drivers may find themselves unemployable earlier in their working life and would need to retrain. The Government may really need to encourage more pathways to skill up PHC drivers as well. I also want to speak on the impact that the operator-owned or -run PHCs has on the value of Certificate of Entitlement (COE) premiums. Mr Speaker, COE prices saw an upsurge a few years ago when PHCs were first introduced with Uber and Grab. With the departure of Uber, we saw the sharp drop in COE prices. With Gojek entering the market, the COE prices have picked up again earlier this year. To be fair, such big players buying or leasing a big fleet of cars having a distortionary effect on the value of COE premiums is not new to PHCs.”
“If child seats are deemed to be a safety necessity for children travelling in PHCs, young children travelling in taxis without child seats are surely subject to the same hazardous risks. Secondly, driver welfare. In other parts of the world, Uber drivers have gone on strike demanding better pay at the same time Uber went public. Even as companies here seem to be able to give drivers meaningful income, only the ride-hailing operators are clear whether their drivers are able to earn a liveable income while driving reasonable hours so as not to result in tired drivers, endangering the lives of commuters and the public. Crucially, drivers should also be able to earn a liveable and meaningful wage driving for ride-hail operators but with reasonable working hours. Does the Government have any comparative statistics of the average working hours and average income of our PHC drivers vis-à-vis their counterparts in other first-world cities? In other words, are both the average hours they work each day as well as their daily income comparable with those of their counterparts in other first-world cities? Are the incentives set by the operators causing drivers to work an unhealthy number of hours, for example, more than eight or 10 hours? And if so, should we be concerned with the impact on the drivers' health and families? Would this issue be regulated in the Code of Practices or other regulations? Finally, privacy concerns for passengers. Negative behaviour by passengers and drivers alike have made for regular headlines in recent times, spurred by the proliferation of smart devices, both handheld and in-car. However, as LTA allows for in-car video recording in 2018 and audio recording just last month, privacy concerns still remain.”
“I hope the Senior Minister of State will provide some clarity to the House on this issue. In the meantime, I would like to touch on three topics related to P2P transport that I hope the Senior Minister of State can clarify on how they will tackle in the industry moving forward. First, safety on the roads. Research by researchers from the University of Chicago and Rice University on US transport cases has shown that the arrival of ride-hailing services has led to an increase in motor vehicle and fatal accidents. Preliminary data in Singapore from motor insurers indicate an increase in road accident rates since the debut of ride-hailing firms. I would like to ask some questions relating to safety. One, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government is satisfied with the overall quality of PHC drivers in respect of safe driving, knowledge competency, driving skills and considerateness while driving. Does the Senior Minister of State think that more can be done to improve the standards in these respects? Two, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what measures will be taken to mitigate against the continuing risk of more accidents arising from PHCs. Next, a related issue or concern is that of child seats. Even as taxis do not need to carry child seats currently, PHCs do need to have child seats for use when they have young children as passengers. In the consultation phase of these regulations, more than half support having child seats in all P2P vehicles, including taxis. While I can appreciate that there may not be easy answers for the Government, there has to be some consistency in its policymaking.”
“Noting that the regulatory framework set forth is one of harmonising regulations between street-hail and ride-hail operators, will the Bill loosen the current restraints via redefining the market that Grab operates in as a P2P transport operator, rather than just a ride-hail platform? MOT and LTA should ensure that the constraints currently on Grab do not just loosen overnight as the potential for abusing its market position is still there. What measures will the Government be taking to prevent this? On a related note, clauses 58, 59 and 60 of the Bill will allow PTC to regulate ride-hail service providers, notably on the issue of fares as well. However, it is not clear in the Bill whether the regulation of such fares and its related standards will be determined. Will it be one aimed to make transparent the algorithms that power the fare structures, or will it be one that will institute hard rules, such as surge pricing caps or standardising the fare per kilometre travelled? Ultimately, any fare regime must balance the needs of allowing drivers to earn a meaningful living, while the commuters themselves do not need to pay exorbitant prices, especially during peak hours and times of stress in our public transport infrastructure. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill also seeks to address various safety, welfare and privacy concerns by allowing LTA to issue Codes of Practices that will contain various requirements. This potentially includes, among others, the matters on the condition of vehicles, conduct of drivers, and measures to deal with customer complaints. While it may be reasonable to expect street-hail operators to follow existing taxi regulations, it is not clear how such Codes of Practices will look like for ride-hail operators.”
“Mr Speaker, point-to-point passenger transport acts as a key complement to our public rail and bus infrastructure. In times where speed, comfort, convenience or connectivity are desired, such point-to-point transportation helps to fill in the gaps that our rail and bus infrastructure may not be able to. However, the industry was not always able to bridge that gap and has led to ride-hailing, working on the principles of the sharing economy, to disrupt the market. Yet, all disruptions to the market, given time, will become part of the new normal. Ride-hail, while bringing much-needed competition and innovation to the P2P transport space, has been regulated initially as a technology disruption, rather than a transportation alternative. The Bill before us today is not the first time the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and LTA have sought to regulate such services, but this Bill is finally a proper recognition of the fact that ride-hail providers do play a big role in our transport ecosystem and deserve to be regulated as such. I support the Bill, but I do have concerns surrounding the P2P transport landscape that I wish the Senior Minister of State can give clarity to. Mr Speaker, currently, Grab is the dominant operator in the ride-hail transport industry, with upward to 80% of the market share at the time of the Infringement Decision by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) in 2018. Since then, it has had to operate under the terms set forth by the CCCS judgment. However, the CCCS judgment hinged on defining the provision of ride-hailing platforms and crucially excluded street-hail providers. Should this Bill pass, would the CCCS directions continue to be in force?”
“I thank the Second Minister for his reply. I have asked this question because I have observed that despite the markings, which I agree is quite helpful, actually, on the ground, a lot of people are not really following the markings. It has caused certain confusion which I witnessed personally. I have also witnessed accidents where you have PMDs or bicycles on the part marked with the "foot", and then, on the PCN marking, you have people walking. So, may I ask if NParks can increase the public messaging on the safe use of these paths?”
“Mr Speaker, first, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to answer my Parliamentary Question Nos 9 and 10. I have two supplementary questions. One relates to the issue of safe riding courses. Would the Government consider making it compulsory for all users of PMDs to attend safe riding courses? The Senior Minister of State mentioned that, at the moment, there are about over 90,000 e-scooters that have been registered. I wonder whether the Government has an estimation of how many e-scooters that have been imported and sold in Singapore that have not been registered so far. We can just well imagine that the figure is definitely greater than 90,000. And of all the e-scooters that have been used, surely, there are a lot of the e-scooters that have been used by more than one owner, that is, one scooter may be used by a few people in the family. Secondly, still on the issue of public education, I have spoken about this in the past. I believe that to create a culture of safe riding, it will also involve putting the public information on the rules and on the etiquette to the users, that is, to PMD users, as well as to other park users or path users, who may not actively seek out such information, so they may not go to the LTA Facebook, they may not access certain areas where PMD users may go and sign up for safe riding courses. And this is clearly relevant. For example, a lot of elderly people may not access these Facebook sites and they are using the footpaths in our towns on an everyday basis. How do we ensure, for example, the simple etiquette that has always been talked about, that we should keep left, whether it is a PMD user, bicycle or pedestrian? How many persons actually consciously walk on a footpath or on a connector knowing that you keep left for safety —”
“I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, were there any geofencing solutions in place in Changi Airport by June 2019? If so, why were the existing geofencing solutions inadequate to prevent the disruptions in June? I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State, in light of Minister Ng Eng Hen's comments last week, does CAAS or the Changi Airport Group (CAG) intend to set up a specialist anti-drone unit to deal with drones?”
“Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions. One, I agree with the Minister that having an improved MKBF does not mean that MKBF will always be at that level. In that light, I would like to ask the Minister whether this would be a suitable time to consider introducing service quality as one of the factors in the Fare Review formula. I say this because this will help set the bar for service quality and help to deter decline in service quality in future years. My second supplementary question is that I would like to ask the Minister: does LTA monitor the frequency of delays of less than five minutes, and if not, are there any plans to do so? This is really to enhance the commuter experience on an everyday basis.”
“It will discourage bona fide criticism and stifle public debate. Along with my WP colleagues, I cannot support the Bill.”
“In POFMA, the aggrieved party, in this case a Minister or the Government, does not have to prove to any authority or adjudicator when it first decides on a Direction under the Bill, such as a Correction Direction or a stop communication Direction. Even when a defendant who is subject to a Part 3 Direction feels that the Minister is wrong in issuing such a Direction and wishes to appeal to the Courts, the Minister does not seem to have the primary burden of persuading the Court de novo that it is entitled to issue the order in question. In any case, this is not clearly or expressly set out in the Bill. In both civil and communal actions, it would be fair to say that the plaintiff and the prosecutor, respectively, bear the primary burden to prove the case in Courts. The burden of proof in an appeal under clause 17 or 29 of POFMA appears to be on the person who is the subject of a Minister's Directions under POFMA. This should not be the case. Surely, the Minister and the Government, as the aggrieved party, must always bear the burden of proof for any Direction or order under POFMA. In closing, the Minister cannot be an arbiter for any order or Direction under POFMA. The Courts should be given that role exclusively. Like many Singaporeans, I fear that the Bill, if passed, will create a chilling effect, whether for journalists, legitimate interest groups, academics or the average Singaporean. It may deter people from speaking up. It may encourage journalists or academics to err on the side of caution for falling foul of the law. If a Minister or the Government is not forthcoming in providing clarificatory facts, it may encourage journalists or even common citizens to practise self-censorship at the expense of truth.”
“Any aggrieved person wishing to make an application under POHA applies to the Court. If that works for everyone else, should the same procedure not apply to the Government in the case of POFMA? In my view, the Courts should be given the exclusive rights to decide on any application under POFMA at first instance and the Courts' jurisdiction should extend to all areas and issues under the Bill. Next, I think the same Court should handle and decide both POHA and POFMA applications. This is not currently the case as under the POFMA Bill, the High Court hears any appeal against the Minister's Direction or order. On the other hand, applications under POHA are heard in the State Courts. Without derogating from my earlier position that the Courts should be the only arbiter for POFMA, let me now deal with some procedural aspects of the Bill. For Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, if the affected person wishes to appeal to the Court against the Minister's stop or Correction Direction, he first needs to apply to the Minister in question to vary or cancel the order. This seems odd to me as I am rather circumspect that a Minister will change his mind within a matter of days after his order. The additional step of notifying the Minister is akin to being part of the appeal process itself and will merely add time to the affected person's wait for the Court hearing his appeal, but time may be of the essence to the affected person, especially when the Minister's Direction is wrongful and is bringing wrongful harm to the individual. In any case, I find the idea of, in effect, appealing to the accuser to be a little odd. Next, in POHA, an aggrieved party applying for an order has essentially the burden of proving his case to the judge deciding on whether an order should be given.”
“And even for appeal under the three grounds in clauses 17(5) and 29(5), it may only be true if the party being subjected to a Minister's order under this Bill does, in fact, actually appeal to the Courts. Until then, there is no judicial scrutiny. And if the party affected does not appeal to the Court for whatever reason, the Minister's order would have gone unscrutinised by the High Court – rightly or wrongly. Even when the appeal is pending, the Bill expressly provides for the Minister's Direction to continue. Would this not create injustice if the appeal was later allowed, proving that the Minister was wrong in the first place? In such cases, if the aggrieved person has suffered damages, he may not even be able to claim against the Minister. Further, in certain circumstances, a Minister may potentially find himself in a position of conflict of interest when he invokes POFMA in respect of criticisms or complaints of wrongdoing either on his part or in respect of his own Ministry. Is there any provision to handle such conflict of interest? Next, we do not have a Freedom of Information regime and well-meaning citizens may not have the same access to information, unlike the Government, and complaints may have arisen from well-meaning people where it may not be convenient to disclose the source of their information. In the situation where the Government has access to certain information and for whatever reason refuses to disclose full facts in the first place, even on request, it would be unfair to penalise anyone arising from a media report or something discussed in social media. Significantly, the procedure under POFMA is different from the procedure in POHA where the Court there is truly the one and only arbiter.”
“And how would it affect articles or reports of an opinion nature which premised its theories or findings on anonymous contributors? This could be by a journalist or even an academic. Those who contributed their opinion or feedback or even to a survey may have good personal reasons for their anonymity and not necessarily because they are, as a matter of integrity, afraid to stand up for what they have said. How will the journalist or newspaper be able to challenge an order on appeal given the circumstances? I fear that this new law will discourage journalists in their writings, particularly where the source of information cannot, for whatever reasons, be fully disclosed or cited in Court. To me, the most uncomfortable aspect of the Bill is the Minister being the first and even final arbiter under this Bill. The WP objects to the Minister being an arbiter under this Bill. We think that the Minister in question should apply to the Courts for an order under this Bill and let the Courts be the sole arbiter. Many in Singapore have voiced this concern about the Government or the Minister being the final arbiter. The Government has been saying that the Courts are the final arbiter. For Parts 3 and 4 Directions, that is only true insofar as any appeal comes within the three narrow grounds in clauses 17(5) and 29(5). If the Courts are the final arbiter, why circumscribe and limit their powers in these ways? Why not let the Courts be the sole arbiter under this Bill? As I have said earlier, even the Minister's opinion of whether the Minister was correct or not in arriving at his opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the Direction cannot be decided by the Court when it hears an appeal under clause 17 or 29.”
“For example, if I were to say something in good faith according to my own views, but what if the Minister and even the Court decide that it meant something else and is different from what I have explained? I did not even think of the Minister's view when I uttered those words. Would that not be very unfair to me as I did not intend that meaning? Why should I be subject to his Correction or stop Direction? Why should I have to appeal to the Courts? Should he not apply to the Court if he feels aggrieved in the first place and the Courts can decide at first instance whether a Correction or stop Direction is necessary? Next, according to clause 2(2), an article can be deemed to be a false statement even if only a part of it or a small part of it is false or misleading. Is there a risk that as a result of a small or even irrelevant or inconsequential factual error in an otherwise cogent article with serious issues, the article can be taken down, preventing the bulk of the meritorious arguments and issues raised in the article from being read and disseminated? I am also troubled by the definitions of "statement of facts" which have been defined as not false or misleading, rather than just "false" or "false and misleading". Such definitions can be open to different interpretations. For example, if I were to tell some people that I made a Police report against someone, in my opinion, that is a simple statement of fact, period. There is nothing much to disagree or to dispute. I made the Police report, surely, I know that as a fact. But when one applies the definition "misleading", what I have said may be interpreted by another to be something beyond what I ever intended to say or mean. And history has shown that such statements could be subject to different interpretations.”
“I believe that the diminution of confidence in the Government as a factor warranting legislative action is not found in fake news legislation elsewhere in the world. I am concerned that the extension of the definition of public interest to include not diminishing public confidence in the Government may deter or prevent bona fide criticism and well-meaning intentions to expose genuine Government failings. Above all, no government will always be correct, perfect or beyond reproach. It is for the Government, by its own efforts, to earn and maintain public confidence in itself and any use of the law to deter the diminution of public confidence will run counter to that. Next, the Bill provides, at clause 2(2), the definition of a statement of fact and a definition of when a statement is false. Already, many commentators have said that the distinction between a statement of fact and an opinion may not always be easy to draw, not to mention the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion of a statement of fact. Different surveys using different parameters produce different outcomes; they may all not be wrong, they may even constitute statement of facts in different ways, but they prove that there can be divergence on what can constitute statement of facts. Under the Bill, a statement is false if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears. The definition is troubling. The definition of "if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, whether on its own or in the context in which it appears" under clause 2(2) is too wide, especially the requirement of "misleading" alone. It would be misleading according to whose standards or opinion? And how would it be misleading?”
“The issue of whether the Minister was correct or not in arriving in his opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the Direction itself does not come within the three grounds of appeal and cannot be decided by the Court on appeal under clause 17 or 29. Similarly, the exact meaning and coverage of the definitions provided in clause 4 cannot be decided by the Court hearing an appeal under clause 17 or 29. In this connection, the Minister mentioned the availability of judicial review yesterday. As things stand, the procedure and cost regimes for judicial review will be quite different from the procedure and cost regimes for the appeal procedure under clause 17(5) and 29(5). Does the Minister intend to apply the same cost, procedure and timeline requirements for all Court applications or appeal under POFMA, including judicial review? Would it not be better for the Bill to expressly provide for the Court's ultimate jurisdiction over all areas of the Bill, including the issue of public interest, and for the same procedure and cost mechanism to apply? Finally, according to the Explanatory Statement of the Bill, the list of definitions under clause 4 is non-exhaustive. I am concerned about what else may be read by a Minister as a further definition or example of "in the public interest" in the future. Still on clause 4 of the Bill, clause 4(f) provides for one definition of doing anything in the public interest if the doing is to prevent a diminution of public confidence in the performance of any duty or function of, or in the exercise of any power by the Government, an Organ of state, a Statutory Board and so on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the WP opposes the POFMA Bill. Much as I believe that there is a need for some form of legislation to deal with online falsehoods, the remedy must be appropriate. Indeed, the Bill has generated much concern and objection from many Singaporeans since its First Reading in April. I will share some of the concerns I have about the POFMA Bill. As part of the conditions for the granting of the various directions under this Bill, under clause 4, the Minister must be of the opinion that it is in the public interest to issue such a Direction, and clause 4 provides a list of definitions or a set of different scenarios of what constituted "in the public interest". I am concerned with some of the definitions provided in clause 4. I find them to be too general, and the precise scope is not clearly spelt out. For example, in the context of falsehoods, what does it mean by "to protect public health or public finances" or "to secure public safety or public tranquility" under clause 4? What acts or words will definitively trigger each of these definitions? This brings me to the second point of concern about what is in the public interest. For Part 3 and 4 Directions, a person who has been served with a Correction or stop Direction, may appeal to the High Court against the Directions after having first applied to the Minister. However, for both Part 3 and Part 4 Directions, the appeal provisions expressly provide that the High Court may only set aside such a Direction on three grounds of appeal as seen in clauses 17(5) and 29(5).”
“Mr Speaker, just one last clarification. Were there any objections or reservations expressed by any of these stakeholders and, if so, who were they?”
“Just to clarify with the Senior Minister of State, Mr Speaker. On the second part of my question, prior to the approvals, were any stakeholders consulted in respect of possible social implications on Singaporeans arising from the proposed increases and, if so, who were these stakeholders? May I ask the Senior Minister of State to answer this question?”
“No, on my question. Not sure my question has been answered.”
“A question for Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong. Is the Senior Minister of State able to answer any aspect of my questions?”
“Finally, I would like to know whether any further action will be taken by NEA in this connection besides what was stated in the PQ reply and whether the supplier will be blacklisted from future contracts. Hawker Centres”
“Mr Chairman, in November 2018, I filed an oral Parliamentary Question (PQ) for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in respect of the supply of 8,600 quartz niches, instead of marble ones, when the niches were relocated from Mount Vernon Columbarium. Specifically, I had asked: (a) whether NEA had verified that all contractual requirements have been fulfilled by the contractors during delivery and installation; (b) what punitive action will be taken against the contractors; and (c) whether the contractors are required to provide refunds or compensation where affected families do not accept a marble replacement. The Minister has told me in his PQ answer that the contractor will bear the costs required to make good on what should have been delivered, that NEA has withheld payments to the contractor, and NEA will also be claiming against the contractor for any difference in price between the quartz and marble plaques. However, to date, we have not yet been told any explanation given by the contractor for their supply of the 8,600 quartz plaques out of the 20,000 total number of plaques. So, it is more than one third of the contracted quantity. Can the Minister clarify what was the explanation given by the contractor? Was it a deliberate attempt on the part of the contractor? Or was it an attempt to deceive? There was no mention of any Police report or Police investigation in the PQ answer. I would like to know whether NEA had made any Police report and, if no Police report was made, why did NEA not do so. If a Police report was made, when was it made and whether any investigation was carried out or is being carried out by the Police or the Commercial Affairs Department? What is the outcome of the investigation?”
“Mr Chairman, just a quick clarification with Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min. Sorry if I did not make myself clear. My question on PMD is really on whether the errant behaviour of hirers will be taken into account when LTA assesses whether or not the relevant operator has complied with the licence operating conditions. That means, after the licence has been awarded, will the errant behaviour of their hirers be taken against them, so to speak? Also, in respect of their hirers' eligibility to continue to hire with any of the commercial operators. So, will errant behaviour, let us say, if this rider has been caught riding on the road when he is not supposed to, will that actually be taken against him? Because if that is a case, then it will deter errant behaviour, just like what we see with shared bikes.”
“I have four questions. The first question is for Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. In the event of the withdrawal of air traffic services by Singapore over south Johor or the Riau Islands, may I ask the Minister what is his view on how it would affect Changi Airport as an air hub, as well as its future development? My second question goes to Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary who said that the bus and taxi operators are committed to using cleaner technology by 2040, if I hear him correctly. So, may I ask the Senior Minister of State: since the bus and taxi operators are already so committed, is there really still a need to use diesel tax to, in the words of Minister Heng Swee Keat, "nudge these operators towards cleaner and more sustainable alternatives"? My third and fourth questions go to Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min. I thank the Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min for the answers to the shared PMD. My clarification is: will the errant behaviour of the customer hirers of the shared PMD operators be taken into account when the LTA assesses the relevant operators complying with the sandbox licence conditions, or in respect of the specific hirers' eligibility to continue hiring e-scooters with any of the commercial operators? My fourth question is also for Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min and it is on maritime matters. I would be grateful if the Senior Minister of State can clarify: what is the status of the adoption of the 2012 amendments to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention of Limitation of Liability? When can we expect this to be introduced in our statutes?”
“In his reply to my PQ, Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min set out some of the conditions which would be imposed on the shared PMD operators upon issuance of their licence. I agree with those conditions but, notwithstanding these conditions, my reservations regarding the introduction of commercial shared PMD services have remained. It has been difficult enough to ensure that all PMD owners adhere to new rules for safe use of PMDs and to be considerate to other footpath users. We are not out of the woods yet. Would it not exacerbate the present situation if we have a new category of users, namely, hirers? Hirers are likely to take less ownership of the need to ride responsibly and considerately compared to owners since they are not the owners. Even if conditions are imposed on the operators, there is a limit as to what operators can do to ensure that correct use of PMDs is adopted by all users. While it is good to require operators to have insurance for all users, which may be helpful when there is an accident leading to a personal injury or property damage claim, this does not stop inconsiderate or unlawful behavior and, certainly, near misses. The biggest challenge is still of getting existing PMD owners and users to use the PMDs in accordance with the law and in a safe and considerate manner. What more can we expect from hitherto non-PMD users, namely, hirers? Already, I have seen quite a number of tourists or overseas visitors on the illegally operated PMDs, some of them even riding on the roads. What does LTA expect the operators to do to ensure that users will ride considerately and according to the regulations? Make them mug up all the rules before scooting off? 3.45 pm Safe Journeys”
“Mr Chairman, I certainly agree with the comments the hon Mr Lim Biow Chuan just delivered. Mr Chairman, last November, I asked the Government to consider delaying the introduction of commercial shared PMD services until the riding culture for PMDs has improved and incidences of unsafe and inconsiderate usage have subsided. Sadly, my request was turned down. However, even before my Parliamentary Question (PQ) was answered, prospective operator Beam announced in October that it planned to roll out its shared PMD services within the next few weeks. LTA had to issue a statement reminding all that it is an offence to operate a device-sharing service at public places without a licence. In replying to my PQ, Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min also said that the licence application exercise would only take place in January this year. In December 2018, I chanced upon a few PMDs with the familiar green logo of Grab displayed and parked outside a shophouse along Jalan Sultan. I was surprised to see this, given the answer to my PQ just a month before. I enquired with LTA and LTA confirmed that Grab was not allowed to operate on public land without a licence from LTA and they said they were investigating operators who were operating without a licence. I have also seen PMDs belonging to other operators being used on public lands. The fact that these operators have been operating their PMDs in public without a licence is disconcerting. If operators behave in this way without a proper licence, how can we have confidence in such companies toeing the line after they receive a licence? We should also remember Grab’s reaction to the Competition Commission’s findings on its acquisition of Uber.”