Janil Puthucheary
Singapore
“Sir, I thank Ms Lee for her two supplementary questions, which address what are our targets and what is it that we measure. Indeed, the issue of how we should think about recycling and waste disposal will be at the heart of our review of our Zero Waste Masterplan.”
“Another strategy that we are embarking on is the strengthening of the reuse of waste residue and treated toxic industrial waste before and after they are landfilled.”
“Sir, about half of our recycling material is exported. It is processed overseas. There are business arrangements between businesses here in Singapore and businesses in the region or overseas, to be able to handle the recycling of waste and recycling of material, whether domestic or non-domestic, already today.”
“Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her questions. Indeed, we do have to shift behaviours. The incentives and disincentives around recycling and waste disposal are an important part of it. We will consider her suggestion on looking at the fees.”
“The heat advisory that goes out is clearly defined. In my original answer, I explained what a heat wave was. There are clear definitions that we have been using in Singapore since 2016, if I recall. It was then last revised in 2023.”
“Sir, in the planning of schools, the Ministry of Education ensures that our students can access a primary school near their homes. Except for a small number, 15 of Special Assistance Plan schools, all primary schools offer the three official mother tongue languages.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,326 lines we hold for Janil Puthucheary, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 27.
“I understand. So, I just want to clarify that the Member does support that there is a minimum age for the riders and, hence, someone who is below that age has committed an offence or transgression at the very least. So, I think how the officers deal with that, we need to give them the operational leeway to deal with the circumstances that are in front of them. I think if you have someone who deliberately, maliciously and recklessly drove at a high speed a modified PMD, you would have to consider that quite differently from perhaps somebody who is on a family outing but who has then strayed away from their parent. Indeed, the two scenarios are different. I think the officer picking up the transgression needs to be able to understand that they have to deal with these two scenarios differently, as do the agencies and subsequently the Courts. I think to guarantee that every case is dealt with exactly the same way would be an inappropriate commitment at this point in time.”
“Yes. I am trying to understand whether the Member is objecting to the fact that there should be a minimum age of riding or does she agree that there should be a minimum age.”
“I take it that Ms Anthea Ong has no objection for there to be a minimum age of riding.”
“Indeed, the issues that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah brought up are today covered under the Road Traffic Act. One should not ride against traffic and one must remain in control of one's vehicle and ride, drive or progress in a safe and orderly manner. It is easier said than done and we need a combination of enforcement and education, as the Member has pointed out.”
“I would finally like to express my appreciation for the many stakeholders who have made these Bills possible – AMAP members, the tripartite partners, the industry stakeholders, members of the public who provided views and suggestions as part of the AMAP consultation process and, of course, Members of the House for their support of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.”
“To achieve this, we need the right infrastructure and the right regulatory approach. The ideal for infrastructure is segregation – keeping different groups of users – footpaths for pedestrians and slow-moving devices like bicycles and PMAs; roads for motor vehicles; and cycling paths for devices of intermediate speeds, such as motorised PMDs and PABs – all separate. Today, we have an extensive network of footpaths and roads. We had previously announced that we will extend the cycling path network from 440 km to 750 km by 2025 and 1,300 km by 2030. We will elaborate on these plans at the Committee of Supply debate next month. Going forward, we will continue to strike a delicate balance in ensuring Singaporeans can reap the benefits of active mobility, ensuring public safety and enabling business innovation. Where possible, we will try our best to anticipate the changes and put in place the necessary frameworks ahead of time. But it is not possible to predict all the ways that users, retailers and device operators will change their behaviour or find ways to circumvent our regulations. Rather than saying no to all innovations because of this, we want to continue to facilitate in a measured manner where there are clear benefits. And where we cannot anticipate, we will consult deeply, study the matter and move decisively to address the issues and challenges as they occur. We will continue to consult widely and engage regularly, to ensure that our policies remain relevant to Singapore, Singaporeans and their aspirations – not just on active mobility, but in general.”
“That was why we had provided a two-month advisory period – it is not an overnight ban – a two-month advisory period and worked closely with food delivery companies, the Labour Movement and other partners to support food delivery riders in the transition. This strong tripartite collaboration enabled us to launch a Transition Assistance Package, a comprehensive approach to help these food delivery riders. We were able to do this four days after announcing the ban. We are heartened that the three food delivery companies stepped up to co-fund with the Government the e-scooter Trade-in Grant to help the riders transition to other devices. And we empathise with the affected riders. We received feedback that many of them have found the package of measures reassuring and useful. We have approved to date more than 3,700 applications for the e-scooter Trade-in Grant and about one-third of the riders have already successfully switched to an alternative device, with the rest expected to do so in the next couple of months. I would like to express appreciation for NTUC’s proactive efforts to develop the Delivery Rider Kit for food delivery riders, a five-day training programme to upskill the riders, helping them develop greater confidence in switching to PABs on the road and complementing the Government’s efforts in promoting safe riding behaviour. Mr Ang Hin Kee had some suggestions to build on NTUC’s existing training modules when LTA implements the mandatory theory test requirements. These are good suggestions and we will leverage our good relationship with NTUC to see how we can best operationalise this. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to unequivocally state that active mobility remains an important component of our long-term vision for the land transport landscape.”
“This could include putting in place measures to check the age of customers hiring the devices or individuals who are borrowing the device or locking the device so that it is only available for one's own use. Where individuals are concerned, they should make sure that the device is not readily accessed by underage individuals. Mr Dennis Tan had asked about an issue associated with underage riding and the liability of the rider versus the supervisor. If an underage rider commits an offence, it will not fall on the supervisor to be liable for that offence, for example, speeding or reckless riding. But the supervisor can be held responsible for improper supervision if he or she did not take reasonable and practical measures to ensure that the underage rider would not commit such offences. As Members have noted, there have been many calls to improve public path safety as well as fire safety arising from use of these devices. We have taken these concerns very seriously and which is why my colleague Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min delivered the Statement on PMDs in August to address these concerns and established that we would have to tighten our regime if the situation did not improve. And the situation did not improve over a number of months. Accidents continue to rise in number and severity. Hence, we had to fundamentally review how we envisioned active mobility devices co-existing safely with other road and path users. So, we made the difficult decision to ban e-scooters from footpaths. We had to move decisively in order to prevent more deaths and more accidents. We were mindful of the impact the move would have on e-scooter users, especially for those who had come to rely on it for their livelihoods.”
“At this point in time, it is 16 years and only apply to e-scooters. This is something that has been called for repeatedly by many Singaporeans and AMAP as well, and we have fixed it at 16. Many families enjoy outings using these devices together and we want to allow for this. Hence, the idea of a supervising adult for the underage rider. But the supervising adult must behave responsibly. We do not want to be overly prescriptive about what the supervising adult must do. Sensible measures include staying close to the young rider, maintaining a proper line of sight to the rider, knowing and educating the rider of the appropriate rules and regulations, and taking appropriate measures to stop the rider if they are committing an offence or may get into an accident. We are developing guidelines to educate these supervising adults on how to properly supervise the underage rider. Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Louis Ng asked about the penalties for the underage rider. If I can reiterate what I said in my opening speech, these penalties only provide the limit of the possible sentence. The Courts retain the discretion to consider the circumstances of the case, including the age of the individual and the laws on sentencing of young offenders found in the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), in deciding the actual punishment to mete out. Regarding the question from Mr Louis Ng about section 23B of the Active Mobility Bill which introduces an offence of inviting, allowing or facilitating underage riding of devices, the principle is to ensure that device owners or device-sharing operators take responsibility for the use of their devices, including ensuring that the devices are not used by an underage individual.”
“We will continue to ramp up enforcement efforts to ensure compliance to our rules. LTA has caught more than 130 e-scooter riders since 1 January 2020 for violating the footpath ban. We will continue this approach to deter errant riding and ensure safety. There have been suggestions for our enforcement officers. Indeed, we will continue to train them and equip them to handle different scenarios through more robust rules of engagement and better training. This includes strategies to tackle cases, such as evasive riders. I am sure the Members appreciate that I am not going through the specifics of our enforcement strategy and tactics because we do wish them to be as effective as possible. But it does include the further use of technology, as suggested, including, for example, mobile closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has suggested that we have an upper age limit for seniors. There are no current plans for that. For people who have difficulty walking, we have made provisions for PMAs to be used. We would encourage those seniors who have difficulty with their mobility and need assistance and who may have the sort of healthcare problems that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had brought up, to use a PMA which are safer and more stable, and not a PMD. But if I may move to underage riding, the minimum riding age would be introduced for e-scooters as a subset of motorised PMDs first. Mr Darryl David asked about the powers under section 23A allowing the prescription of different minimum ages for different classes of PMDs. This is really to give us some flexibility because we cannot anticipate the new types of devices that may arise in the future. It allows us at the time to put in the appropriate regulations where necessary.”
“Assoc Prof Walter Theseira has several suggestions which we will study in some detail and I think they are very reasonable ones, indeed. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the balance between the business and employer. Potentially, it could be either, but the business would need to ensure that the employee or the rider, if the business is hiring the device out, has evidence of this third-party liability insurance if they are not themselves providing it. Mr Louis Ng asked about the courses of action. We have no intention to introduce new courses of action beyond what is available today. Today, victims of accidents on public paths can seek compensation from the rider for injury and losses suffered through civil proceedings, settlements and other private arrangements. Mr Alex Yam has asked about non-compliant PMDs. Currently, there are 54,000 non-UL2272-certified registered e-scooters. Fire safety issues remain a concern. I reiterate that from 1 July 2020, these non-UL2272-certified devices will not be allowed to be used on all paths. I encourage all owners of a non-UL2272-certified and a non-registered PMD to dispose of that PMD before the end of March 2020. Currently, that disposal does not cost the rider or the owner anything. That is almost certainly going to change and incur some fee after the end of March. After 1 April 2020, there will also be a mandatory inspection regime for e-scooters to verify compliance. Mr Darryl David, Mr Alex Yam and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the testing regime. Firstly, it will apply to all users. How we will operationalise this theory test and enforcement, we are currently working out these operational details and we will release more information once we have worked this through with the operators.”
“We also regulate the PAB devices in the same way we have a framework for the devices, the riders as well as businesses. All PABs must be registered and only the LTA-approved models are allowed to be used in Singapore. The restrictions on these devices prevent sudden accelerations and increases the predictability of a PAB rider to other road motorists. They also have to comply with the device safety standard European Commission EN15194 for electrical and fire safety. We will continue to monitor the use of PABs and take further steps if necessary. I would point out one issue brought up by Mr Alex Yam. The sale of non-UL2272 PMDs was actually stopped in July 2019. And the use of non-UL2272 devices will be stopped in July 2020. So, there will be a one-year period for that turnover. If I may now move to the issue of insurance. This was brought up by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Alex Yam, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Louis Ng. Ideally, yes, all users should have some form of insurance covering the rider himself and any victim. There is a practical problem, however – there are few active mobility-related insurance products available today. AMAP had consulted widely on this issue and they have recommended that the Government take a staged approach, starting first with imposing insurance on businesses before extending it to individuals. We do want to progress in this direction, provide a critical mass of demand and allow the insurance industry to develop more affordable and comprehensive products. We will continue to work with AMAP and the insurance industry. But in the meantime, we strongly encourage all active mobility device riders to purchase such insurance to protect themselves from claims.”
“So, to the Member's specific question, if there are individuals with walking difficulties, there are other devices which perhaps, for want of a better word, are not as "medicalised" as a motorised wheelchair that may be more suitable for someone who perhaps is not in such a serious condition. And it will be more appropriate for them to use such a device, rather than to have a very, very different process where the individuals then requires a waiver for something like an e-scooter. And that is the way that we will try to help these individuals. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked several questions about PABs. The aim is to ensure that there are different options available and that device users can choose the best mode of transport based on their needs. So, the motorised PMD users can continue to ride on cycling paths or can switch to bicycles if they want to ride on footpaths. For this process to work, there has to be some ability for individual users to address their own level of comfort, their need for speed, as it were, and how they will make the choice between a PAB, a bicycle or a PMD. But whatever it is, we have to have a robust framework to ensure safety. On the roads, the PABs will be regulated and already currently are regulated by LTA and the Traffic Police (TP). We do not allow underage riding on PABs. There is no opportunity for the similar type of adult supervision of an underage rider. PAB riders already have to be 16 years of age or above. But going forward, PAB riders will need to pass a theory test covering on-road regulations and the Highway Code and be licensed by TP. And when riding on roads, all PAB riders must comply with road traffic regulations, such as travelling in the direction of traffic, wearing helmets and riding safely.”
“To be clear, these safety directives are for operators, not individual hires. Mr Louis Ng asked about the recourse for consumers who have paid deposits to shared mobility device companies. Currently, none of the licensed device-sharing operators collect user deposits. This may change. The Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill, therefore, proposes to give LTA the power to prohibit licensees from collecting user deposits, if the need arises. We shall watch and see how this space develops. Mr Alex Yam asked about how we would police these shared user device businesses for compliance. There are a number of ways. The first is that the regular ground enforcement, of course, will pick up issues of non-compliance when the customers of these businesses transgress. Operators, as part of their licensing process, will be required to demonstrate that they have processes in place to ensure that the users that they hired out their vehicles to, for example, have the appropriate test certificate, and this will include tourists. The operational details of how these tests will be administered both to people who have devices and new device owners and tourists, will need to be worked out. We will make some announcements in due course. But, importantly, we will have to work with the operators and businesses to make sure that this is something effective. But we intend for this to cover all riders. If I could move to the personal mobility aids that Mr Darryl David, in particular, brought up. The ban of motorised PMDs on footpaths, let me state once again, does not apply to PMAs. Such PMAs do not only include motorised wheelchairs. There are also other types of devices, such as mobility scooters and so forth.”
“And I will convey his suggestions to MOM which oversees the Employment Act. But the way in which we address this will need to be based upon our tripartite partnership. We will leverage upon this going forward and we, in the transport family, will play our part. Ms Anthea Ong, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Mr Louis Ng have asked about information sharing and specifically, the issues around section 23 of the Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill. This enables information sharing between the licensed device-sharing operators to effectively impose a collective ban on individuals who persistently park active mobility devices improperly. There are measures in place to protect individual data and privacy, and the information sharing must be limited to the extent necessary to implement this ban. For all other usage of data that is not for the purposes of this ban, PDPA will continue to apply in full force to all the operators and they are required to comply with existing data protection and privacy standards. LTA will assess the robustness of their systems and processes in place as part of the licence evaluation process. There were some questions from Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong about the issuance of safety directives by the Minister for Transport. This provision is already in place today. It is intended for exceptional circumstances to allow us to tackle urgent issues of safety expeditiously. But once it is clear what the solution is, we cannot just carry on renewing the safety directives repeatedly. We will address the problem through legislative amendments. So, that is precisely what we are doing today. For example, today, there is a safety directive in place to disallow the usage of e-scooters for licensed device-sharing operators.”
“If I could now move on to the specific points and questions raised by the Members. Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Ong Teng Koon brought up some issues to do with the companies' responsibilities. We do agree that companies which engage riders of active mobility devices in the course of work have a social responsibility to ensure path safety both for their riders as well as the general public. And that they must put in place the right incentive structures to encourage safe riding, as has been pointed out by a number of people. These include sufficient time to complete their deliveries and a structure that dissuades speeding or the breaking of rules. Companies should also ensure their riders use devices that comply with our active mobility regulations. We will require all companies who employ or contract with active mobility device riders to ensure that their riders are covered by third-party liability insurance for bodily injury and death. This will protect victims in the event of accidents. We strongly encourage companies to help their riders obtain personal accident insurance coverage. Some, as has been pointed out, already do so and we hope our tripartite partners will work with us to encourage others to follow suit. The issue of the "gig economy" and self-employed persons is significant and it is something that will cut across a number of industries and domains. It is also complex and it lies, unfortunately, well outside the scope of these Bills. I do sympathise with Mr Ong Teng Koon's suggestions and the way in which he has highlighted the difficulties and challenges of this space. Indeed, it does affect a number of workers which we interface with from the transport sector. But there are many other "gig economy" and self-employed persons as well. We do need to look at this.”
“Walking enables them to access all the amenities of the town as well as our public transport infrastructure. So, while we may or may not get every part of this regulatory approach exactly right today, we have some flexibility to adjust. The key thing that we want to do is to ensure safety of this space for all users and the base of people walking in this space which is far, far larger. But the ability of one PMD rider who is errant behaving poorly in this space, affects a very large number of people walking along that same path. The third general point I want to make is that there were several comments relating to a cultural change or internalising a behavioural change. I agree and I support those sentiments. Indeed, if we do have a culture of looking out for one another, regardless of whatever is our modality of transportation, of ensuring that we have some public spiritedness about our shared spaces, indeed, it will be a lot safer for everybody and a lot more pleasant. This is very, very difficult to do and it takes a lot of time and we may not always reach the end of the journey very easily. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira talked about driving. We have had a very strict regulatory regime for cars here in Singapore for many years. I think we would all agree that we have not reached the end of the road in establishing the kind of driving culture that we desire. The fourth point, generally, is the issue of cycling infrastructure. There were several questions about the infrastructure plans that we have, the design, the approach that we are going to take. These will be addressed in our Committee of Supply debate and we will have a fairly detailed discussion about it. I do not propose to go into the details today.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members for their suggestions and their support for the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill and the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill. There were many issues raised, reflecting the wide spectrum of views on this topic. I will make a few general points before I start to answer the Members' questions. First, is that despite all of the Members who spoke supporting the Bill, some of their views were entirely contradictory. There were Members asking for increased enforcement, increased regulations and an even tighter regime than we are proposing. And there were some Members suggesting that we are going too far. Similarly, around the issue of children, access to different devices and so forth. That there are contradictory views from Members reflects the difficulty in this space. Nevertheless, all the Members supported the need for the regulatory regime that we are proposing, recognising that this approach will provide a framework for the riders, the device operators, the businesses and a coherent approach to making our paths as safe as possible for pedestrians as well as these riders. The second general point is around walking, and I make reference to Prof Lim Sun Sun's speech as well as some of the others, such as Assoc Prof Walter Theseira. While we may be interested in the numbers of PMD riders, and Members have asked questions about how many there are and how many accidents and how many are compliant and so forth, we must remember that there are far, far more Singaporeans who are using that space to walk. And actually, that is the single, biggest way in which people are closing the first-mile and last-mile gap through walking.”
“We aim to minimise compliance costs and make the registration process easy. Apart from tightening regulations on active mobility device users, retailers, businesses and device-sharing operators, the Bill makes several miscellaneous amendments. These include extending the offence of giving false information to cover all applications that persons make to LTA under AMA, beyond just applications to register a PMD. Mr Deputy Speaker, the active mobility landscape will continue to evolve and our regulatory framework must similarly adapt. We must continue to adjust our regulatory approach to keep pace with technological and market developments. It is a long-term effort. These two Bills together make sure that we have an approach that covers the device riders, retailers, businesses and device-sharing operators, with the principle of establishing public path safety as the primary intention, and provides us the tools and measures to intervene further should they become necessary. This set of Bills will ensure safer paths for Singaporeans while promoting active mobility. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Secondly, docked device-sharing operators will be regulated under the class licensing regime rather than the regular licensing regime at the start. Class licensees do not need LTA's explicit periodic approval to operate, and only need to register with LTA soon after commencing operations. Class licensees will also be subjected to a smaller set of regulatory requirements, such as installing speedometers on their active mobility devices. This light-touch approach is because these docked operators, such as those who operate from a physical shopfront or who have built racks where their devices are affixed to, cause less parking disamenities due to their use of docking infrastructure. They generally have to incur higher initial infrastructure costs, which naturally restrict the scale of their operations and, correspondingly, their safety impact. Notwithstanding this, LTA will have the flexibility to shift such operators into the regular licensing regime subsequently, if there is a need to do so. Even for docked device-sharing operators, we will take a calibrated approach. As a start, we intend to apply the class licensing regime only to docked device-sharing operators using motorised active mobility devices, and not to those using non-motorised devices which have fewer safety concerns. Therefore, as a start, docked bicycle-sharing operators will not be required to have a regular licence or a class licence. Nonetheless, LTA will have the powers to impose the licensing regime on them as necessary. We are aware that this class licensing regime will apply to some existing and currently unlicensed operators and will engage these operators further to discuss the implementation details and to provide sufficient transition time.”
“We will take a calibrated approach in applying the safety requirements, depending on whether the operators are offering for hire motorised or non-motorised devices. The current process whereby operators have to demonstrate their ability to meet our regulatory requirements under a sandbox licence before being able to graduate to a full licence, will continue to apply. As bicycles are non-motorised and pose less of a safety concern, as a start, we will subject dockless bicycle-sharing operators to requirements that deal with parking matters only. Thus, for now, dockless bicycle-sharing operators regulated under the existing licensing regime will not experience any changes or additional requirements. There is a need to regulate device-sharing operators who offer for hire motorised devices differently from those who only offer for hire non-motorised devices because of the increased risk of harm to the rider and to the public. Presently, there is a Ministerial safety directive in force under PPA, as a result of which LTA does not issue any licences to PMD-sharing companies and does not accept new applications for PMD-sharing licences. Moving forward, LTA will continue to assess the public path safety situation and the readiness of the industry when assessing licence applications by those who offer motorised device-sharing services. Appropriate safety requirements will be imposed if licences are granted for this group, which may include ensuring that the motorised devices are equipped to accurately identify the device location and travelling speed, and ensuring that the devices only operate in limited geographical spaces specified by LTA. LTA will also be able to require operators to ban users who have committed serious offences from using their shared devices.”
“Today, we see a variety of operators using different devices, including motorised ones, causing problems with parking and safety. For example, there have been operators who provide e-scooters for hire on private land and these devices are subsequently observed on public paths. Different business models are likely to be developed in the future. Thus, it is necessary to update our regulatory regime. The Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill will expand the current licensing regime in the PPA in three main ways. First, we will extend the scope of the regulatory regime beyond controlling indiscriminate parking to also focus on public safety. This will ensure that operators also play a role in improving the safety of public paths where their devices may be ridden. Second, we will expand our licensing coverage to all active mobility device-sharing services, for devices that can be used on public paths. It will not matter whether the devices are intended to be parked at public places or not, nor whether the hirers are the general public or only a segment of the public. Third, we will have the powers to introduce a class licence regime to allow us to apply a differentiated and light-touch regime on operators whose business model or operations may pose less safety or parking concerns. Overall, this regime will result in a more comprehensive solution to cover different types of operators, but also allow us to take a calibrated approach to regulate them, depending on their individual characteristics. Firstly, the Bill allows for different classes of licences to be granted. All operators who offer dockless devices for hire will be regulated under the regular licensing regime.”
“We will also introduce higher fines for corporate entities that cannot be subject to imprisonment. Hence, for the offence of selling a non-compliant device for use on public paths, we will further double the fine to $40,000 for a first-time offender that is a corporate entity. Businesses using active mobility devices on paths have a responsibility towards riders and members of the public in the course of their business. To provide victims greater recourse to compensation, we will require certain businesses to ensure that their riders are covered by third-party liability insurance for death or bodily injury to any person that the rider may incur when riding on public paths. We will start by imposing this requirement on our device-sharing operators who are licensed under the Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill and businesses which employ or contract with riders who ride active mobility devices on public paths for work, such as food delivery companies. Our approach is based on AMAP's recommendation to adopt a staged approach, starting first with imposing insurance requirements on certain businesses before extending it to individuals. We are working with AMAP and the insurance industry to study how best to extend such insurance requirements to individual active mobility device riders. Sir, if I may now move on to the Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill. Businesses which provide active mobility devices to be ridden on public paths as part of their business have a special responsibility. The device-sharing licensing regime, which was established in February 2018 under the Parking Places Act (PPA), focused on tackling indiscriminate device parking, particularly by shared bicycles. It regulated device-sharing services that operate in public places.”
“First, to complement the mandatory inspection regime for e-scooter owners, we will also require retailers to send e-scooters for inspection to certify that they comply with the prescribed device criteria before they are allowed to register, display, advertise or sell these e-scooters. Such an arrangement will benefit consumers for an assurance that the e-scooter they purchase is compliant. We will retain the flexibility to extend this to other active mobility devices in future if necessary. Second, we will strengthen LTA's ability to enforce against illegal modifications. Today, the controls over illegal modifications only cover modifications done to an active mobility device belonging to another person and done in the course of business. This means that an individual can circumvent these controls by claiming that he or she is modifying their own device, or is modifying the device as a friend for free. We will expand Part 4 of the AMA to cover all modification activities on active mobility devices that are allowed for use on public paths, whether or not undertaken in the course of business. This is because all illegally modified devices can pose public path safety and fire safety risks. Third, errant retailers who sell non-compliant active mobility devices have a disproportionately large impact on public path safety. To send a strong deterrent message, we will significantly increase penalties for retailer offences. For example, the penalty for selling a non-compliant device for use on public paths will be increased by more than four times, from $5,000 and/or three months' imprisonment to $20,000 and/or 24 months' imprisonment, for a first-time offender who is an individual.”
“LTA will be rostering e-scooters that are already registered and declared as UL2272-certified for inspections. LTA will also periodically call up certified and registered e-scooters for re-inspections every two years to ensure that they remain compliant and are not illegally modified. We will also require active mobility device owners to take extra care to ensure that their devices are not illegally modified. If an owner had his or her device inspected and certified to be compliant, but the device was subsequently found to be non-compliant while in their ownership, the owner will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have either modified the device, or caused the device to be modified. Most device users are largely law-abiding and ride responsibly. However, LTA's enforcement officers detected about 4,900 offences in 2019. This is not acceptable. To send a stronger deterrent message to this group, we will increase the maximum penalties for certain offences. We will generally double the penalties of key user behaviour offences. For example, the penalty for a first-time offender caught speeding on public paths will be doubled from $1,000 and/or three months' imprisonment to $2,000 and/or six months' imprisonment. Apart from users, retailers must also behave responsibly when advertising and selling active mobility devices. In 2019, there were 28 instances where retailers were caught for various offences, including displaying and advertising non-compliant active mobility devices. We will tighten this regulatory regime for retailers in three ways.”
“Failure to do so constitutes an offence. We will publish some guidelines to educate supervisors on how to properly supervise the underage rider. Second, we will tackle distracted riding by tightening user behaviour requirements. Under the new section 22A, it will be an offence to ride or drive any active mobility device or vehicle on a public path while holding a mobile communication device and operating any of the communication device's functions. This is already the case today for motorists under the Road Traffic Act (RTA) and we will further extend the RTA to cover all vehicles used on roads, including bicycles. A person who is holding and using a mobile communication device may be distracted and may not have both hands on handlebars or steering wheels, both of which affect their ability to effectively control the device or vehicle when it is moving. We will update and clarify provisions to take into account new technological developments in mobile communication devices, such as wearables. As a general rule, we will continue to allow such devices to be used, so long as the user is wearing the wearable device in accordance with the manufacturer's design while riding. Third, we will put in place additional measures to ensure that users only use compliant active mobility devices on public paths. The current registration regime only requires e-scooter owners to declare that their devices are compliant. Through the new sections 35A, 35B and 35C of the Bill, we will introduce a mandatory inspection regime, starting with e-scooters. Riders will only be able to ride on public paths, e-scooters that have been inspected and certified to be compliant with the prescribed device criteria, such as those relating to weight, width, speed and UL2272 certification.”
“As PABs are also allowed to be used on the roads, PAB riders will similarly be required by the Traffic Police to pass a theory test before they can ride on roads. Active mobility devices are generally very easy to operate and so we are starting first with a theory test. This is a calibrated approach to improve awareness of rules and regulations while managing the regulatory burden on device users. If necessary, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will have the flexibility to introduce other types of tests, such as practical riding tests, in the future. Under the new section 23G, even if riders have passed the earlier tests, LTA can also require them to take the new tests. We will also introduce a minimum riding age for motorised PMDs, starting with e-scooter riders. As a general rule, persons under 16 years old will not be allowed to ride an e-scooter on cycling paths. While the Act prescribes both a possible fine and jail term if a rider commits this offence of underage riding, these are maximum penalties. Our Courts retain discretion in imposing punishment, having regard to the circumstances of the case and laws, such as the Penal Code and the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA). The only exception to this underage riding provision is if the underage rider is riding under proper supervision by an appropriate supervisor, as recommended by AMAP. As a start, we will require the supervisor to be at least 21 years old. For example, if an adult wishes to supervise an underage rider to ride an e-scooter on a cycling path, the adult needs to take reasonable and practicable measures to ensure that the underage rider does not ride in a way dangerous to people or property and abides by the path riding rules as per Parts 3 and 3A of the Active Mobility Act.”
“Collectively, these two Bills will help us to build a regulatory framework for a safer and sustainable active mobility landscape here in Singapore. The two Bills will give us powers to effectively regulate individual active mobility device users, retailers, businesses and device-sharing operators, all of whom have a role to play to ensure public path safety. The rules and regulations governing user behaviour were developed in consultation with the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP). This body has representatives from seniors, youths, device users and grassroots leaders. AMAP also regularly consults other stakeholders. The Panel has made further recommendations to strengthen regulations on active mobility device users. We have studied them and announced that we will accept them. We will tighten the regulatory regime for device users in three ways. First, we need to ensure that riders are mature enough and have a sufficient understanding of the rules to behave responsibly. This is especially important for riders of motorised active mobility devices, which have the potential to travel fast and cause great harm to others. To improve awareness of the rules, regulations and expected safe-riding behaviours, we will require riders of certain active mobility devices – which we call “test-needed-to-drive vehicles” in the Bill – to pass a theory test before they are allowed to ride. We will start with e-scooter and PAB riders. Those who successfully complete the required tests will be issued a competency test certificate. It will be an offence to ride an e-scooter or a PAB on public paths without this competency test certificate.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the term "active mobility devices" refers to personal mobility devices (PMDs), power-assisted bicycles (PABs), bicycles and personal mobility aids (PMAs). Such active mobility devices and new business models for the sharing of these devices have changed the way Singaporeans commute. In 2017, the House passed the Active Mobility Act (AMA) 2017, which allowed bicycles and PMDs to be used on public paths, including footpaths and cycling paths, and for PABs to be used on cycling paths. The take-up rate of active mobility devices grew dramatically over the last three years. These devices provide a cheaper, cleaner and more convenient commuting option. But as the device population grew, there were concerns about whether our infrastructure and regulatory framework were adequate. In November 2019, we reviewed our regulations and took the difficult but necessary step to ban e-scooters from footpaths. Since then, footpath accidents involving PMDs have reduced by 52% and sentiments towards public path safety have improved. The Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill 2020 gives effect to our earlier announced intention to extend the ban on footpaths to all motorised PMDs. With the amendments in this Bill, only non-motorised active mobility devices, such as bicycles and kick-scooters and PMAs, will be allowed on footpaths. The exception for motorised PMAs is for the benefit of those who have difficulty walking. We recognise this connectivity loss for motorised PMD users and we are ramping up our cycling path infrastructure building plans so that Singaporeans can continue to benefit from active mobility devices. We will announce more about these infrastructure plans during the Committee of Supply debate.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, this Bill is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill 2020 or the "Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill". With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on both Bills take place together. This will allow a holistic debate and enable Members to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with.”
“On this matter, as several that I have highlighted, I think Ms Anthea Ong needs to establish what the facts are and what the timeline of those facts are. The articulation of those issues, the explanation and the clarification that were provided by the Government agencies, after quite a significant period of consultation, established the facts, the timeline and the chronology quite robustly. I do not think we should add to any confusion in this debate. The facts that Ms Anthea Ong is referring to were already in the public domain at the time that the clarification was issued.”
“Ms Anthea Ong may be asking about a particular fact. If I understand the timeline correctly, that disclosure was made initially by Ms Sua and TOC. So, I think the question is misdirected to me. So, would Ms Anthea Ong like to rephrase her question?”
“Oh, public interest, the Member asked me about public interest. Well, I would put it to Ms Anthea Ong that there is no public interest served by protecting a falsehood about Government processes and policies when it comes to social welfare and medical care. If the Member can persuade me that that is so, I would be very surprised. And I do not think the Member can persuade many people that there is some benefit to be gained about perpetuating disinformation and falsehoods about medical care, welfare benefits, social services, processes. The public interest served here is for the public to be well-informed about what is actually happening in our Government's processes and policies.”
“The second half of Ms Anthea Ong's question, Mr Deputy Speaker, has already been addressed in a number of Parliamentary Questions that I have personally answered and we have brought a discussion to this House. I do not think there is anything extra in her question nor in any answer that I can give to that, between the Government's Instruction Manuals and the fact that these laws do exist under the Public Sector (Governance) Act. I am sorry, what was the first point that the Member wanted to ask?”
“Certainly, there are many numbers of channels and feedback routes which I have described in my previous answer. Citizens can approach their Member of Parliament, they can approach anybody and they can use any of these means, including a public discourse, should they wish to pursue the matter. PDPA notwithstanding and my answer notwithstanding, none of this prevents or is meant to discourage a citizen from seeking redress from a complaint. It is merely that, should a complaint occur in the public space and as a result of that complaint, the public has been misinformed, inaccuracies have been stated, then those inaccuracies need to be stated in public in a way that is unambiguous and the facts robustly explained to everybody.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The issue at hand is, of course, that these types of public declarations, whether anonymised or not, are going to be unusual in nature. There is something about the case or the complainant or the interaction, which does not quite fall into Standard Operating Procedure, nor lend itself to a protocol; otherwise, we would not be in this situation. The second thing is that, as a result of this, it would be inappropriate for us to constrain the agencies' response to an inaccurate or outright false public statement. Thirdly, in a way, which as the Member had pointed out, may open itself to manipulation and further downstream ambiguity, disinformation, whether inadvertently or deliberately. So, I think I have articulated in my answer the principles under which public sector agencies are expected to operate; the principles which citizens can expect of the Government in dealing with this matter. The bottom line is that should a complaint of this nature occur in public, associated with disinformation and which impacts the way in which the Government processes Government policies that serve citizens are being misrepresented, we should expect agencies to reply in public and disclose information so that we can set the record straight and make sure that Singapore and Singaporeans are well informed.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not have a date to announce at this point in time.”
“Mr Speaker, I am glad the Member has made it clear that he is not criticising the EIA that has already been done because it was indeed holistic and comprehensive, involving a robust panel of advisors as well as a wide variety of stakeholders. It is a useful set of information for us to then consider how best to align the CRL. It is not the only factor that is taken into account. Indeed, in making the decision, economic and many other factors will have to be taken into account.”
“Mr Speaker, the Member Mr Dennis Tan's Parliamentary Question was about the EIA but his supplementary question, if I understand correctly, is about the larger question about how a decision is arrived at for the CRL alignment, and whether the EIA done thus far is sufficient. He has not provided a criticism of either the methodology or the process, or the experts, or the people that have been involved in the EIA. So, as far as the EIA is concerned, it is limited to the projected plans and designs of the CRL and its interaction with the Central Catchment Area. It is not designed to take a whole-of-economy or whole-of-biome approach. Those are things that, having had the EIA, the stakeholders, the Ministry, the various agencies involved have to take into consideration, including, for example, the economic impact. I just want to have some clarity. Is the Member suggesting that we redo the EIA because he fundamentally disagrees with the methodology and the findings? Secondly, is he advocating for a specific choice in the alignment of the CRL? Thirdly, I would just make the point that if the question is how might climate change or change in biodiversity interact with any given technical study limited to one specific part of our biome, that is a moving target. That would be something that you can never be satisfied you have done enough because the next study, say, two or three years henceforth, the climate will have changed. Factors affecting our biodiversity will have changed. These are things that academics have to continue to study even as we make our decisions about how to build our public transport system. So, perhaps, the Member might clarify what exactly he is criticising on the EIA and is he advocating for a specific choice for the CRL.”
“Their feedback has helped LTA develop a comprehensive set of measures to mitigate the potential impact during the construction and operation of the CRL. There are no plans for a further EIA.”
“Mr Speaker, in 2013, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) engaged a global specialist consultant to embark on a comprehensive and extensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a segment of the Cross Island Line (CRL) near the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). The study was divided into two phases, with the first phase focusing on the environmental impact of undertaking site investigation works on the CCNR. The second phase of the study focused on the potential environmental impact of the construction and operational phases of the CRL. Together, they would provide a complete assessment of the environmental impact of the project. Findings from Phase 1 of the EIA concluded that the site investigation works, with the implementation of mitigating measures and controlled access, could be carried out with moderate impact on the few parts of the nature reserve where these works were to take place. They were gazetted in February 2016 and were widely reported in the media. The Nature Groups were also invited to observe the actual conduct of the site investigation works in the CCNR. Phase 2 of the EIA took a further three years and the findings were gazetted in September 2019. Phase 2 of the study was conducted based on a robust set of engineering schemes, which were independently reviewed by an International Panel of Advisors. The report concluded that both underground alignment options are feasible with appropriate mitigating measures. LTA has posted a copy of the report on its website for public viewing and feedback. In undertaking the EIA, LTA engaged with stakeholders for both alignments. These included discussions and site visits with the Nature Groups as well as local grassroots leaders and residents who may be affected.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestion. The steps we have already taken will mean that new devices and new imports need to be compliant and need to be registered. So, going forward, any new device would need to be compliant and registered with our current framework. And so, the likelihood is that what we are dealing with is the errant behaviour by people who have previously brought in very large devices, very fast devices or have illegally modified the devices. It is something to consider. We will look at it. But given the number of these devices that are already here in Singapore, on our footpaths and on our roads, there are other steps that we need to consider for early intervention in the first place. 12.00 pm”
“Certainly, the Police and LTA – depending on the exact location and the exact circumstances – will try to put together information from whatever sources we have to catch the perpetrators. But ultimately, the key message is that in all of these issues, what we are dealing with is a small number of very irresponsible and dangerous individuals. We need to find a way to educate them, to enforce against them when they act in this way and try to find ways to develop a new safety culture in our public spaces so that people can have the assurance of a safe experience on the footpaths.”
“I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the questions, Mr Speaker. Indeed, with respect to the Member's first question, there are opportunities for livelihood and jobs created through the use of PMDs. We want to get the right balance between responsible behaviour and making sure that our public spaces are safe for everybody. She mentioned mandatory licensing, a test involving the equivalent of a highway code as well as third-party insurance. Some of these have already been reflected in the Active Mobility Advisory Panel report that came out recently. We are studying that and we are likely to adopt some of these measures. Certainly, as we undertake a thorough review of our process, we will be including many of these ideas in that process. For the display of the registration number, indeed, the registration number is supposed to be very prominently displayed. The reality is that there are many unlicensed PMDs that are still on our paths, on our roads, on our Park Connectors, and which is why, perhaps, the Member was unable to detect the registration number easily. The registration numbers of properly registered devices are to be properly displayed so that action can be taken against errant riders if necessary. Indeed, once we have our compulsory inspection for each device, both in terms of the existing devices and then, going forward, for each device that is brought in, we will take action if an illegally modified device is detected. Certainly, then, we will also work to find and take action against those businesses that do this. Compulsory speed limit would potentially be possible if we had access to every device, and again, it is something that we will study comprehensively. The Member asked about the recourse as the fifth question, having had the experience of a hit-and-run.”
“We strongly urge owners of non-UL2272 devices to come forward early with their devices. Every non-UL2272 device safely disposed of is one less potential fire risk.”
“Mr Alex Yam asked about public feedback on the 15 Town Councils’ ban of bicycles, power-assisted bicycles and PMDs in void decks and common property areas. There have been mixed reactions, with some welcoming the move to enhance safety and others expressing concerns about reduced connectivity. There has not been a noticeable drop in reported incidents yet, as we are still in a two-month advisory period until 31 October 2019. We expect the full impact to be clearer after the Town Councils begin enforcement action. With regard to Mr Yam's question about the impact on food and goods delivery, LTA does not have such statistics. But we have not received adverse feedback from delivery companies, as deliveries are largely done via motorcycles and delivery vehicles. To Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's query, LTA had seized 161 non-compliant PMDs from July to September 2019. These included some which were illegally modified. Beyond mandatory inspections at the point of registration, e-scooters will be called up for inspections every two years. LTA is studying upstream measures, including import controls, to tackle the problem of non-compliant PMDs. LTA is also reviewing the penalties for illegal modification of PMDs and other offences. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the costs of LTA's early disposal incentive for non-UL2272 devices. Under the scheme, the Government covers the disposal costs and owners of registered e-scooters will qualify for an incentive of $100 if they dispose of their devices before 30 November 2019. Between 23 September and 3 October 2019, LTA received more than 2,800 applications for the early disposal incentive scheme and collected more than 940 PMDs at the designated disposal points.”
“Ideally, there should be a clear separation of traffic – pedestrians on footpaths, active mobility devices on dedicated paths for PMDs and bicycles, and motor vehicles on roads. Because of infrastructure constraints, we allow pedestrians and bicycles to use footpaths as a second best practical solution. New towns will allow such separation, but existing towns currently do not have many dedicated paths for PMDs. This poses an immediate challenge for PMD users. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is working with Members of Parliament to identify hotspots where we can do something quickly to improve safety, for example, by widening footpaths and installing speed-regulating strips. We will also speed up development of dedicated paths for PMDs and bicycles. Full implementation of such infrastructure enhancements will take time, years. Meanwhile, we have to make a decision on where to allow PMDs to be used, other than on dedicated paths for PMDs and bicycles – on footpaths, or on roads, or not at all until the town is ready? These are difficult choices. We will re-examine them and rediscuss with the stakeholders. In the meantime, we strongly urge PMD users to be extra responsible and mindful of others. If their behaviour does not improve, we may have no choice but to ban their usage completely from Singapore. This would be a loss. Meanwhile, LTA is working with the Town Councils to implement Pedestrian Only Zones (POZs) at all town centres. As there are implementation details to iron out, we will create POZs in stages. We will do so as soon as the Town Councils are ready. Let me now address the questions posed by Mr Alex Yam, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Lim Biow Chuan.”
“On 21 September, a young e-scooter rider collided with an elderly cyclist, Mdm Ong Bee Eng, at Bedok North Street 3. Mdm Ong sustained serious injuries and passed away a few days later. We are deeply saddened by the incident and would like to offer our deepest condolences to Mdm Ong’s family. This particular accident happened not on a pedestrian footpath, but on a dedicated cycling path where the speed limit is 25 kilometres per hour (km/h). Furthermore, the e-scooter was an unregistered and non-compliant device. It was bought online and that particular device model can go up to 80 km/h. Its usage is illegal. This accident has caused public alarm over the dangers that personal mobility devices (PMDs) pose to others and has heightened fears for the safety of pedestrians using footpaths, particularly the old and the young. We share Singaporeans' concerns. With PMD use increasing, the number of accidents involving PMDs has gone up. We need footpaths to be safe for pedestrians again. We are determined to improve footpath safety back to the levels we had before PMDs were allowed onto footpaths. On 5 August 2019, Senior Minister of State for Transport Dr Lam Pin Min explained in this House our plans to strengthen public path safety and reduce PMD-related fire risks. Given the recent developments, we will revisit these plans to see where we need to rethink our approach and to introduce additional measures. Please give us a month or two to do this thorough review. PMDs are useful devices for first-and-last mile connectivity, if they are used responsibly. But their usage must not endanger device users and pedestrians.”
“Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 12, 13 and 14 together, please?”
“Indeed, we will. I would say, though, that the nature of this problem and the market, the services that are provided out there is not quite as Ms Anthea Ong had characterised it. The Member is right. There may be five or six, or potentially a lot more providers. But there are a number of agencies, offices, whose task it is to help you navigate that space. Patients or clients should not have to keep working through the fragmentation, as the Member has described. The other way of thinking about it is, there is a variety of service providers that are working in different niches to address different client needs, different route needs and different demand needs. It is probably useful that we have an approach like that. This is because, today, one of the fundamental problems we have in this space is an inadequate supply of personnel. We will have to work to make sure that that gap is closed as well. So, there is work ongoing and I will work with my colleagues to see what else LTA and MOT could do to help in the transport space. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Janil Puthucheary]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”