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 18 of 27.
“Indeed, and as I have made quite clear, I agree with Mr Louis Ng on this, and it is my personal stance. One point is that it is not that there is no safety. It is possible to assure the safety of that child, and that is currently a choice that parents have to assert. Bring a child seat along into a taxi. It is not that it is not possible. It is whether people choose to do so. I would like to do more work in this space to see how far and how quickly we can perhaps engage with operators, drivers. The difficulty for taxis though is, truly, that it means they have to carry something with them at all times, and this significantly restricts the options that they have in terms of what they can have as customers. I would also point out that in our public consultation, a fair amount of the concerns came from the commuting public themselves. If you have three children, as I do, of different ages, and each of them needs a different-sized car seat, potentially, it would be impossible for us to take a taxi unless the taxi had three different child seats in it. If you are a family of five, then you would have to split up into two taxis. But if you are an individual adult looking after three children, it would mean that it would then be impossible for you to get into a taxi which only routinely carries one child seat. And then, what do you do with your other two children? These are some of the scenarios that were thrown up by the commuting public in our public consultation. And so, we were unable to engineer a compromise. We do feel that there is an opportunity for safety to be secured, as is today. Yes, it could be better and we would like to do more work on it. And I would encourage Mr Louis Ng to participate and help us to get this work done.”
“And again, our approach will be that as long as there is adequate choice, relatively good dynamics within the market, we will let it be and see what happens.”
“For multi-homing, the space is evolving. The different services that multi-homing providers and mobility-as-a-service providers are offering, on the face of it, may look similar, but actually have very different underlying business models. But if I take the simple example that the Member had suggested, where it is simply about aggregating information and a platform decided to prevent their information from being provided on that aggregated platform, that, in the first instance, would not necessarily compromise our regulatory outcomes that we are trying to achieve, provided it did not then subsequently lead to either the drivers not being able to drive across the platforms, or the commuters not being able to find the information to take rides. If you have to launch two apps to compare prices, I think that would be okay. But if you cannot fundamentally install the app on your phone because another app is there, it might be a step too far. So, I think, for now, we want to step back and let this market evolve. As I have said, for the multi-homing space, the mobility-as-a-service space, there is probably a fair number of iterations to go through before we get the right industry model. So, we probably do not want to constrain or intervene too much. On the second point of price discrimination, in truth, it happens already. If you are a regular customer for one of the apps, you can apply a discount code, you can apply points that you already have. The effect, though, what it means is that you will get the same ride as someone next to you who is using the app at the same time, to arrive at a similar destination, for a different price. So, that situation already exists today.”
“Indeed, I thank Mr Ang Hin Kee for that suggestion to not create a taxi that is three times more expensive that nobody wants to pay for. We do need to address needs. We do need to find a way to make sure that all the needs are met. But not all the needs need to be met in the same way, by the same platform, or by the same service. The approach that we are taking is to allow both street-hail and ride-hail to co-exist, and for subclasses, particularly, for ride-hail services to co-exist, so that the commuter, regardless of whether they are an individual or a family, or a PWD or a person with medical risks, will, in the system and the network, be able to find a service that matches their needs. It does not mean that every single service, every single vehicle has to be exactly the same. That is on the ride-hail side. On the street-hail side, clearly, it is different because you cannot prebook your ride and you do need a certain minimum level of acceptable service that is a common denominator across the variety of needs. That is why the regulations specify the minimum boot size for taxis, for example, so that luggage can be carried, or a folded wheelchair can be carried. There is a point where these regulations become inappropriate. So, for example, the taxis are not required to be multi-purpose vehicles (MPVs). We take that approach, and we do so in partnership with various industry stakeholders. We want to ensure that there is enough fluidity to make sure that a variety of services are available to serve everybody’s needs.”
“Each step of the way, we took calibrated decisions based on the circumstances, taking into account stakeholder and public feedback. The sector must and does continue to innovate and evolve to meet the needs of commuters and drivers. We will continue to monitor the developments in this space and strike a balance between what to regulate and what to leave to the industry. The aim is always to ensure that commuters and drivers benefit, and the businesses continue to have the space to innovate and grow. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. 5.52 pm”
“They have contributed their views extensively; they have provided feedback; we have refined our regulations, hopefully to better meet the needs of the commuter and the industry. Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Ang Wei Neng, who spoke a little bit about this, will be happy to know that we will be removing the Taxi Availability (TA) standards and we will let the market drive availability of services instead. We are also lowering call booking Quality of Service (QoS) standards. All of these will reduce compliance costs for taxi companies and, ultimately, we hope will also benefit the taxi drivers. We have institutionalised the way in which we work with the industry. We have established through LTA a tripartite platform to discuss strategic and regulatory issues for the PHC sector, in addition to the existing one that we have for taxis. This is something that Mr Ang Hin Kee himself has called for and has participated very actively in. Mr Ang Hin Kee will also be happy to know that we will extend the current dispute management system for taxi drivers to include PHC drivers. This will take effect in June 2020. We hope that this tripartite approach of bringing the partners together can continue, so as to address the issues of benefits for the drivers and vocational licence holders, address the issues of driver welfare, driver income, what is the appropriate role for the industry, and how we can make sure that the regulations look after the drivers as well as look after the commuters. Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been a long ride! We started with introducing a registration regime for the third-party taxi booking service operators in 2015. We then licensed PHC drivers in 2017.”
“PHCs will continue to be bidded in the COE market like private vehicles. This will allow us to maintain some flexibility in our PHC pool, so that private cars can continue to be converted to PHCs and vice versa. So, they should be drawn from the same COE pool. We will continue to monitor the situation. Ms Anthea Ong spoke passionately on the transport needs of PWDs and vulnerable persons. We agree that our transport sector as a whole does, indeed, have to cater to the needs of all Singaporeans. It is not entirely clear that the taxi and PHC sector alone can meet those needs, especially those with specialised needs. So, for dedicated transport by VWOs and transport subsidy schemes, we will continue to work closely with our colleagues in MSF and MOH to ensure that all commuters are taken care of. We agree with Ms Anthea Ong about the importance of making sure that we address the environmental concerns in this sector as well. Under LTMP 2040, all taxi companies have committed to 100% cleaner vehicles by 2040, and this is an industry-led target under LTMP. It is a commendable first industry-led target. And some of the PHC booking providers and car rental companies have also done the same and committed to making their entire fleet run on cleaner energy by 2040. Again, this is another area in which the commuter and the consumer can perhaps assist in asserting some pressure as well. But I think it is important that we continue to work with the industry to address the environmental concerns of the transport industry. Speaking of working with the industry, the role of the operators, the associations and the drivers in this review has been very important.”
“If we try to constrain and constrict either the operator or the driver too much, firstly, it may reduce the attractiveness of this job and people might find it difficult to enter the job, and it may constrain the supply of drivers and may, ultimately, affect prices. So, we do have to look at that quite carefully. But I think, in general, eight hours, on average, full-time drivers. There were some suggestions about driving age. Mr Ang Hin Kee, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Yee Chia Hsing and Mr Ang Wei Neng made several suggestions about who should be eligible to be a PHC driver. We agree that this is not an area where we need either foreign manpower or any significant excess of manpower. Since April 2019, we have stopped issuing PDVLs to Work Pass holders. But the other issue of raising the minimum age is not quite an easy decision. There is no common consensus on what this age should be. Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested 30; Mr Yee Chia Hsing suggested 25. On one hand, raising the minimum age will affect the number of drivers in the P2P market and, in turn, reduce the taxis and rides available to commuters. On the other hand, there are not that many drivers who are in this age bracket. Only 4% of PHC drivers are between the ages of 20 and 24; another 12% between 25 and 29. Many of them are part-time drivers. It is not very clear that we necessarily need to raise the minimum age. But in general, I think the concerns brought up are valid. We are going to review the size of the driver pool against the needs of the P2P sector and will study the issue of the driver's age carefully. We will certainly consult all the stakeholders before making a considered decision. On the COE regimes for taxis and PHCs, we will make no change.”
“The role of the commuter and the consumer in moderating the behaviour of our various operators here would be very, very important. For fare evasion and overcharging, we will step in to deter and prevent fare evasion and overcharging. Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Ang Wei Neng raised some examples. There are some areas they raised where it would be more appropriate for the operators to take action, including being clear to drivers about commissions charged, handling cancellations by commuters or drivers or even lost-and-found services. Mr Dennis Tan also raised a question about video recordings. This is already regulated today. LTA has stringent regulations in place around the installation of these devices and the access to the recordings and none of this is dependent on the Bill before the House today. There is already a seven-day limit on the retention of footage today. There were a few other issues that do not lie directly under the provisions of this Bill. But let me just address some of them in terms of how we are thinking. Driver income and welfare: we do not have comparable data for other cities. I think Mr Ang Hin Kee made an important point that if we were to intervene in this space, there will be consequences and tradeoffs in respect of some of the other factors, such as the cost of rental, the fares that are available. I would just point out that the average time worked for full-time drivers is about eight hours. It is not unreasonable. But unfortunately, that is an average and it does not give us the full picture of a very wide range of working hours. And that includes the very occasional work that some of the PHC drivers do. We do need to allow that space. Someone might choose to do one or the other.”
“Mr Leon Perera also asked about flat fares. I wish to point out that today, flat fares are already offered by a number of operators and, again, like some of the other suggestions, we would encourage that this become a differentiating factor, a potential competitive advantage of one operator against another. Building on what Mr Gan Thiam Poh has suggested, our fare regulations will ensure that there is transparency at the point that the commuter chooses the ride. This must be made clear to them: what the fare is or that there is going to be a metered fare in the case of a taxi. The intention is not for PTC to start regulating fare levels nor setting caps nor providing algorithms. The fare levels are an important part of the process to influence the supply and demand for P2P services. Many of the advantages and benefits that we have seen over the last few years, and that Members have spoken about, have come about precisely because the fares have been allowed to work as an efficient resource matching mechanism, ensuring that rides can be found during peak hours. There are many forms of services, each requiring different fare levels. Given the breadth of service offerings and the dynamic nature of these offerings, we think we best leave it to market forces. That means that, ultimately, potentially, the most important controls would be the choices made by consumers, by commuters. The operators are, indeed, very alive to this, very sensitised. If you have any doubt about this, one of the operators, Members would know, offers a durian delivery service. They have not taken maximum advantage of surge pricing for this because, I suppose, they assume that, if they do, there will be a public outcry about the price of durians at peak season.”
“Amongst the general commuting public, the opinion was divided; amongst the operators, the opinion was divided and amongst the drivers, the opinion was divided. We were trying to, but we have not been able to engineer a compromise in time for this Bill and we thought we would move ahead with these provisions in the Bill today. The matter is alive, we continue the conversation, we will study the matter further. One of the reasons why we thought we could move forward with the Bill prior to settling this matter is that there are already the opportunities today for parents to ensure that their children are in child seats. When they book a PHC, they can indicate that they need child seats. Secondly, they have the ability to bring their own seats with them when they take a taxi. So, one of the considerations was that child seats today are already available and accessible to parents. The argument can be made that it needs to be more widely available, and that has been made by some Members. I actually personally agree. The question is, how to make sure that that is something that the industry can carry and the market can support. We will continue to work on this and I hope Members would be able to support us going forward in trying to achieve that. On fares, there were questions on fare-related regulations by Mr Louis Ng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Joan Pereira, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Mr Ang Wei Neng. We are amending the PTC Act to extend its purview over PHC fares. We have to be very clear what our regulatory approach is. Some have asked us not to overreach, whereas other people have asked us to impose an upper limit on fares. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also suggested that we should prevent operators from offering the same service to different customers for different prices.”
“Taxis then have an even higher average annual mileage of about 130,000 km and so we will retain the requirement that they be inspected every six months. Thirdly, for safety, at the operator-level, I have explained in my opening speech some of the measures. We do want to ensure that the responsibility for safety is taken up by the operators. This cannot be the responsibility of the driver only. And so, part of the operators' responsibilities is to provide data to LTA, to update the safety measures and to encourage their drivers to drive safely. These are some suggestions the Members have made, including Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Ang Wei Neng. To answer Mr Ang Wei Neng's question, we are still reviewing the data requirements for licensed operators. We will work with the industry to make sure that those are reasonable and useful. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam made some suggestions about emergency buttons on P2P apps and how operators should respond to emergency reports. Actually, operators are already starting to take the initiative and offer these types of services. It is a space in which they can compete against one another for the provision of services to commuters. We encourage other operators to step up. On child seats, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan suggested requiring taxis and PHCs to be fitted with child seats when ferrying children below 1.35 metres in height. I must say that when we started consultations for this Bill, there was the sense that this was perhaps something that we could move on and was something we wanted to move on. So, we consulted the public and the stakeholders quite extensively. The opinions were very divided; and it was not that the opinions were divided for one group of people against the other.”
“Drivers are required to have held a driving licence for two years before they can obtain a PDVL, or for one year before they can obtain a TDVL. Mr Yee Chia Hsing suggested that owning a car or renting a car may be necessary to ensure that drivers are safe. However, just owning or renting a car actually does not necessarily make you any safer. And so, we have, therefore, not imposed this and we do not have any plans to do so. Ms Joan Pereira asked about health screening, which is another way of ensuring driver safety. We have regular medical check-ups and driving fitness tests for taxi and PHC drivers aged 50 and older. This is more than what is required for private drivers and this is in addition to the mandatory health screening and training requirements at the point at which they obtain their vocational licences. So, we will continue to monitor this and review our regulations, if necessary. The other thing I will point out is that there were some suggestions that younger PHC drivers are more dangerous. In fact, the data does not support that at all. There is no data to suggest specifically that younger PHC drivers are over-represented in the accidents. At the vehicle-level for safety, we are also making some changes. Today, the PHC inspection regime is the same as that for private cars, ranging from once every three years to annually based on the vehicle age. However, in future, all PHCs will be required to go for annual inspections. Taxis will continue to be required to go for six-monthly inspections. The reason for this differentiation is that the annual mileage for PHCs is almost three times that for private cars at about 48,000 km a year. So, they need to go for more frequent inspections than the private cars.”
“In looking at such sandbox proposals, LTA will study the specific product and use the full scope of legislative instruments and varying regulatory requirements as appropriate. The Codes of Practice were brought up and, indeed, we will consult heavily with industry. We have actually already begun. We have a number of fora to do that and I will explain a little bit about that later on. We encourage the operators to participate in the drawing up of the Codes of Practice. Without spending too much time, clause 30, subsections (2) and (3) of the Bill expand on the different areas that the Codes of Practice could potentially cover. Several Members spoke about the importance of ensuring safety. We agree this is really very important. Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked about normalised accident rates. This is in contrast, I think, to the data that Mr Dennis Tan had said, suggesting an increase, which is "un-normalised". Actually, when we normalise the data, in other words, we take into account the number of kilometres (km) travelled and the number of taxis that are available, there has not been an increase. In 2013, for taxis, there were five accidents for every 10 million km travelled. Five years later, in 2018, this has not changed. The number for PHCs is only slightly higher at six accidents per 10 million km travelled. So, when examining the data, we do have to normalise and, once we normalise it, we see that there has not been a significant change. But we do have to ensure that safety remains at top of mind for the drivers and also for the operators. So, we have to have measures for safety at the driver-level, at the vehicle-level and at the operator-level. At the driver-level, we have the vocational licence requirements and we have had that in place since 2017.”
“On Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question on private chauffeured services, such as those provided by limousine companies versus electronic applications, both are considered ride-hail services because the key differentiating factor is that there is a matching between a ride and a commuter, and that ride is prebooked for the commuter. So, they will fall under the ambit of the ride-hail services and be subject to similar regulations. Mr Ang Hin Kee asked about carpooling activities. Carpool operators are also considered ride-hail service operators. However, they are not operating at the same scale and are operating for a different outcome: ostensibly, an informal way for drivers to give rides to friends and neighbours. We, therefore, have different regulations for carpool operators and we would not be subjecting them to a full licensing regime, provided they continue to operate as carpool operators, as opposed to a full ride-hail operator. So, if a carpool operator has more than 800 vehicles on its platform, we will license them as a sub-class of ride-hail service operators and they will be required to ensure that the drivers comply with carpooling regulations so that their carpooling is carried out on a restricted non-commercial basis. As we collect data and as we examine the market, if those conditions are breached, we will not hesitate to take firm action against the drivers or the operators that have contravened those regulations. I agree with Mr Ang Wei Neng that innovation is, indeed, important and both street-hail and ride-hail service operators have been innovating and we assume will continue to innovate. We are certainly open to the sandboxes for both street-hail and ride-hail services, and the proposed regulatory regime clearly allows for both.”
“Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also brought up a general point about harmonisation across the street-hail and ride-hail services. We cannot have an entirely harmonised market; otherwise, you would not have differentiation between street-hail and ride-hail services. Today, the fundamental point is that we still believe that there is a role for street-hail services. There are differences in the kind of vehicles that are needed, the training of the drivers for street-hail and safety, and also the operations associated with a fleet of vehicles under one livery, supporting one brand. Which is really very different from the operations for ride-hail services, which is about the matching of resources and the appropriate algorithms for that supply and demand. So, there is a fundamental difference between what we see as a street-hail operator today and ride-hail operator today. We are trying to harmonise some of the regulations. When we look at the regulations for drivers and vehicles, there is already quite a lot of harmony, and we will continue with that. But for the operators, there needs to be a little bit of differentiation. To the point about the responsibility between CCCS and MOT, well, very clearly, CCCS will have oversight over the competition issues and will continue to do so. And to address a similar point made by Mr Leon Perera, after the Bill is implemented, CCCS will examine the matter, and they will have to come to a decision about how the Bill applies to the previous stance that they had taken with respect to Uber and Grab. Let me now address some of the specific issues Members have raised about the scope of the licensing regime.”
“Our priorities are to make sure that commuters have good, high-quality and safe services; that the interests of drivers are protected in seeking economic opportunities in the space; and thirdly, that the operators are encouraged to innovate and new operators are encouraged to come in. How will we do this? We have to look at some of the controls that we have and some of the levers that we have over ensuring that the market encourages new entrants and innovation, that there are protections for the drivers and the commuters, and especially that the structure protects, ultimately, consumers from excessively high charges as well. What are the things that we can do? We can make sure that the barriers to entry for new operators are low; in particular, the way in which they engage with the main resource, which is the drivers. The removal of driver exclusivity would be the main lever to ensure the barrier to entry for new operators in the space is low. The next thing that we should do is help commuters to make choices. Some of the regulations that we are putting in place to make sure that the way in which fares are communicated to commuters is transparent and upfront, will effectively allow multi-homing for commuters, that the commuters themselves are deciding amongst the variety of offers and which to choose. If this is insufficient to achieve the right kind of outcome, we may then have to intervene further. But we hope that by allowing drivers the choice of who to drive for and commuters the choice of which ride to take, this would effectively give us a multi-homing market and achieve some of the outcomes that we want. There may be more to be done, but we will watch and see.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Before I go into addressing the specific issues raised by the Members, I would just like to make a few general points. The P2P sector is very innovative and rapidly evolving. There is already a wide range of services available. The operators themselves continue to evolve their service provisions and business models on an ongoing basis. This has resulted in benefits to commuters, who have many more options, as Members have highlighted repeatedly. We have today, PHCs with child seats, wheelchair-friendly services and we have the availability to book taxis with flat fares. Members have raised a wide range of issues. For some, like safety, LTA does need to and will step in to regulate and ensure basic standards. When we intend to do so, LTA has consulted widely, and where there was consensus or where we could engineer a compromise amongst the various tripartite partners and stakeholders, we did. There are some issues which we could not move on for now and which we will continue to work on. I will elaborate a little bit on that. But it is not necessarily desirable to regulate all aspects of the P2P sector. For some of the issues, like fare caps and the extent to which we have to push environmentally friendly vehicles, there needs to be a role for the market to play as well. We need to get the right balance between what we regulate and what we leave to the industry, ensuring that our regulations are fit for purpose, but commuters benefit and businesses continue to have space to innovate and grow.”
“In addition, we will amend the PTC Act such that the offences of fare evasion and overcharging extend to PHC trips booked through licensed ride-hail service operators. This is to deter such behaviour, to protect commuters and to protect drivers. Lastly, the Bill makes related and consequential amendments to update provisions in certain Acts and to clarify our regulatory intent. Sir, this Bill sets out a forward-looking and flexible regulatory framework for the regulation of P2P services and providers in Singapore. We will open licence applications for street-hail and ride-hail service operators in February 2020, and the new regulatory framework will commence in June 2020. This will help to facilitate an open market to support the development of responsive P2P services, while also providing sufficient regulatory oversight to protect the safety and interests of commuters and drivers. It is a necessary piece in our long-term vision for a well-connected and convenient land transport network. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the stakeholders who took the time and effort to contribute invaluable feedback during the consultation process – operators, drivers, the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and members of the public. This feedback has allowed us to better understand commuter, driver and industry needs and has helped to shape a better Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The Bill also includes other standard regulatory provisions, such as requirements for operators to keep records, and to provide relevant information and data to LTA. Operators who fail to comply with LTA’s regulatory requirements will be liable for financial penalties, suspension or even revocation of their licences. Mr Speaker, today, the Public Transport Council (PTC) has regulations to standardise taxi fare structure, while leaving fare amounts deregulated. However, there are no such regulations for PHC fares. Fare evasion and overcharging for PHC trips are also not prohibited, unlike for taxi trips today. Given the rising proportion of trips by PHCs, we are amending the Public Transport Council Act (PTC Act) to give PTC the powers to extend today’s taxi fare regulatory approach to PHC fares. The amendments will empower PTC to safeguard commuter and driver interests in the area of taxi and PHC fare transparency in the following ways. Firstly, for street-hail trips, there will be no changes to existing fare regulations. Street-hail service operators will continue to be required to charge metered fares for street-hail taxi trips, in accordance with the fare structure now set by PTC. This allows commuters to compare fares across taxi operators more easily. Secondly, for ride-hail trips, licensed ride-hail service operators can continue to offer metered fare trips using taxis, as is the case today. Licensed ride-hail service operators will also be allowed to independently set flat fares for ride-hail trips using taxis and PHCs. The only requirement is that these flat fares for taxi and PHC bookings by licensed ride-hail service operators must be provided upfront to commuters. We will allow licensed operators to adjust both metered and flat fares.”
“The Bill also gives LTA powers to issue emergency directives to all P2P operators, including licence-exempt service operators. For example, LTA will be able to prohibit operators from using vehicle models which are found to be defective and, therefore, pose safety risks. Thirdly, in regulating the P2P sector, we will keep the market open to support the development of innovative and accessible services. We have benefited from having an open P2P sector, with increased ride availability and improved service standards. We should continue to allow market forces to drive service delivery and improvement. As the market has evolved, LTA will adopt a light regulatory approach towards service standards and will streamline regulatory requirements where possible. This will help to lower compliance costs. We intend to prohibit operators from offering exclusive arrangements to "lock in" drivers that, in effect, prevent them from driving for other operators. This is because such arrangements make it difficult for new players to enter the market and naturally favour incumbent operators. This is detrimental to driver and commuter interests. We will, however, make an exception for operators who directly employ drivers, as full-time employment is inherently exclusive. In line with our vision for an inclusive transport sector, we will ensure that P2P services continue to remain accessible to all commuters. For now, LTA will continue to require taxi companies to provide call booking services. This ensures that those who may not be comfortable with an online booking process or an app, will continue to be able to book trips using a phone call.”
“It will be an offence for any person to provide street-hail or ride-hail services without a licence or an exemption. If convicted, they may face a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to six months, or both. A further fine of up to $500 will be imposed for each day that the offence continues after conviction. It will also be an offence to drive for these illegal operators. The Bill has provisions for LTA to have regulatory oversight over the entire P2P sector. This includes the ability to regulate new business models or P2P services involving new vehicle types. This will allow LTA to respond quickly and effectively to rapid technological and commercial trends in the sector. Secondly, our licensing regime will require operators to ensure the safety of commuters and drivers. We will extend today’s safety-related regulations for taxi operators to all licensed ride-hail service operators. The need for enhanced safety measures is an area that industry stakeholders and members of the public agreed is of critical importance. The Bill will give LTA the powers to set safety requirements on licensed operators. LTA will track the number of accidents and driver offences that occur when a driver carries out a trip for a particular operator. Operators whose drivers have committed too many accidents or offences can be penalised through regulatory sanctions. This is to ensure that operators play their part to encourage safe driving behaviour and reduce driver offences. Operators must also ensure that the vehicles used to provide P2P services are able to pass the requisite vehicle inspections and are roadworthy. This ensures that operators play their part to keep the vehicles they deploy well-maintained and serviceable, for the safety of commuters, drivers and other road users.”
“Today, we already regulate drivers through the Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL) and Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence (PDVL) process. We currently also regulate vehicles at the vehicle level. What this Bill sets out to do is to regulate the operators by regulating them on the basis of the service they provide, not on who the operator is. Mr Speaker, let me now elaborate on the three key areas of the proposed licensing regime for operators that carry out P2P services using taxis and PHCs. First, our licensing regime focuses on the larger operators, given the wider impact they have on commuters and drivers. This will also manage regulatory costs for smaller ride-hail service operators and will allow small, new and innovative services to emerge. Today, all taxi operators have a minimum fleet size requirement of 800 taxis to ensure that they can provide an adequate level of service to commuters. Moving forward, this requirement will continue to be imposed for street-hail service operators – no change. We will also license all ride-hail service operators with 800 or more vehicles on their platform. Ride-hail service operators with fewer than 800 vehicles on their platform will be exempted from the need to obtain a licence. Nevertheless, we will continue to impose basic safety regulations on them to ensure commuter safety. These operators must ensure that their drivers and vehicles are appropriately licensed and insured. LTA will continue to have the powers to issue a suspension order under the Road Traffic Act to prohibit drivers from driving for these exempt ride-hail service operators if their participating drivers fail to meet this requirement. We will continue to safeguard commuter safety via the separate licensing of drivers and vehicles.”
“First, we will license PHC booking service operators. Currently, LTA already regulates taxi operators under the Road Traffic Act (RTA), and third party taxi booking service providers under the Third Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act (TPB Act). Like taxi operators, PHC booking service operators have an equally important responsibility in ensuring commuter and driver safety in the course of their operations. The Bill will give LTA the necessary regulatory levers to ensure that the PHC booking service operators discharge these responsibilities. With this change, LTA will have regulatory oversight over all major P2P operators in Singapore. Secondly, we will regulate P2P operators based on whether they provide street-hail or ride-hail services. Currently, LTA has one set of regulations for taxi operators, which generally provide a mix of street-hail and ride-hail services, and another set of regulations for TPB service providers. However, street-hail and ride-hail services have different characteristics and need to be regulated differently. This will ensure that our regulations are fit for purpose. Given the growing proportion of ride-hail trips, it makes better sense to have one set of regulations for all street-hail services and a different set of regulations for all ride-hail services, regardless of the type of vehicle used. This means that taxi operators will be required under our new regulatory framework to hold separate licences for their street-hail and ride-hail services. PHC booking service operators and TPB service providers will be licensed as ride-hail service operators. LTA will also be able to issue different sub-classes of street-hail and ride-hail service licences, such as for operators offering different types of services.”
“Commuters also prefer street-hail services for shorter trips as it is more efficient to street-hail a taxi than to wait for a booked ride. Almost all respondents in a recent Customer Satisfaction Survey were satisfied with P2P services. The increased efficiency of matching drivers with commuters has benefited drivers as well. Drivers have a higher chance of finding commuters and can also reduce the amount of time spent cruising without a passenger. All this demonstrates how market-driven innovation can benefit commuters and drivers. Members can easily appreciate that if there were to be excessive regulations, this may compromise the current environment and the current situation. But it is also important to understand that these benefits can also easily be lost if there is insufficient regulatory oversight. For example, operators may compromise commuter and driver safety at the expense of profits. Operators might also try to compete by "locking in" drivers using exclusive contracts, which would affect market contestability which, in turn, harms commuters by increasing prices. Mr Speaker, it is timely for us to review the regulatory framework for the P2P sector, and to put in place legislation that will help to maintain the current balanced position we enjoy. This Bill has benefited from extensive consultations with operators, drivers, the National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, members of the public and the GPC. Their feedback, suggestions and active involvement have improved this Bill. The framework aims to protect the safety and interests of commuters and drivers, while facilitating an open and innovative P2P sector. Sir, let me now outline our overall approach to regulating the P2P sector.”
“This is in contrast to what we label "ride-hail trips", where the ride is booked in advance. Prior to 2013, this booking was usually done by a phone call or text message and accounted for only a small proportion of rides. Long wait times and a lack of available taxis, especially during peak hours, were common complaints. The commuter experience has significantly improved. Today, there are about 20,000 taxis and 45,000 PHCs, providing many more P2P options and improved service standards. With the convenience and popularity of ride-hail applications, commuters have benefited. Today, more than two-thirds of all P2P are ride-hail trips, of which 30% are carried out by taxis. The matching of demand and supply has also been enhanced through these ride-hail apps. As a result, commuters now enjoy shorter waiting times for both street-hail and ride-hail trips. For example, the waiting time for a taxi booking has fallen by about two minutes in 2016, to just under seven minutes in 2018. Dynamic fares have also allowed better matching of supply and demand, with higher prices during peak hours and also lower prices during off-peak hours. This allows commuters to have a range of options at different price points. Commuters have also benefited as operators innovate to attract passengers through pricing strategies, trip incentives and value-added services. There are even specialised services to meet different commuter needs, from families with young children to commuters with pets. Street-hail services will continue to have an important role and LTA's data shows that commuters prefer street-hail services in areas with a higher concentration of commuters and taxis, such as central areas and around Changi.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." A few months ago, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) launched the latest Land Transport Masterplan (LTMP) outlining our vision for a well-connected and convenient land transport network by 2040. Taxis and private hire cars (PHCs) are very much part of this vision and complement our bus and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) networks. Today, about 6% of all journeys are completed on taxis or PHCs, which make up the point-to-point (P2P) sector. In many other cities, the introduction of PHC booking service operators has led to disruptions, strikes and protests by taxi drivers. Here in Singapore, the Government, operators and the driver associations have worked closely together to address the challenges that came about as a result of technological disruption and the emergence of new players. The regulatory framework has evolved gradually and smoothly, in partnership with our tripartite colleagues. Today, we enjoy a P2P sector that is able to meet the needs of commuters and drivers, as well as our broader transport objectives, while also allowing innovation to thrive. This healthy balance is only possible with responsible operators, sensible commuters and safe drivers and, in addition, the active involvement of our colleagues from the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport led by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and his deputy, Mr Ang Hin Kee. Prior to the entry of the ride-hail platforms into Singapore in 2013, P2P services were primarily delivered by 28,000 taxis. Taxi drivers would mostly cruise around or queue at taxi stands to look for and pick up passengers. These are what we call "street-hail trips".”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his questions. The audit findings from 2009 to 2011 were largely about the systemic processes around IT systems, namely, whether the agencies have put in place the right kind of internal reviews and oversight. The 2018 to 2019 findings were largely whether individuals were able to easily comply with the manual implementation of processes and policies that were already in place. So, the two audits in 2009 and then subsequently 10 years later, both covered vendor management and access rights, but from very different perspectives. In the latter case, it was largely about the individuals' ability to comply with sometimes very onerous or very complex policies. In the first instance, 10 years ago, it was largely about whether the agencies had processes in place and whether they were reviewing those processes adequately. As for the first question, I do not know if there was one specific factor that I can point to. But I would be happy to get back to the Member about what triggered the audit. My assumption would be that this was part of the ongoing review that public agencies would take for risk mitigation, where areas of concern are audited.”
“If the suspension continues, more flights may be cancelled. Singapore Airlines (SIA) does not have the Boeing 737 Max aircraft. Four foreign airlines were also operating the Boeing 737 Max aircraft to Singapore. As they have limited services to Singapore, they have been able to maintain normal operations using other aircraft types, except for Shandong Airlines which has had to suspend its operations to Singapore. CAAS will continue to work with the Changi Airport Group, SIA and SilkAir and other affected airlines to minimise the impact on passengers.”
“Mr Speaker, we are shocked and deeply saddened by the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 on 10 March 2019 and also the earlier crash of Lion Air flight JT610 on 29 October 2018. Both disasters involved brand new Boeing 737 Max aircraft during the first 15 minutes of their take-off. Our condolences and thoughts go out to the families of the victims. In aviation, ensuring the safety of passengers and crew is paramount. This is why the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) suspended operations of all variants of the Boeing 737 Max aircraft into and out of Singapore on 12 March 2019. CAAS will only lift the suspension when it is fully satisfied that all safety concerns relating to the aircraft type have been adequately addressed. During the suspension, CAAS will not allow airlines to register new Boeing 737 Max aircraft. There is currently no evidence of safety issues with other Boeing aircraft. CAAS has been communicating closely with Boeing and the United States' Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), as well as other regulators, including the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, on the safety issues of the Boeing 737 Max aircraft. Even as investigations into what caused the crash are ongoing, Boeing has decided to introduce a design change to the aircraft's Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System as soon as it gets the go-ahead from the FAA and other leading aviation regulators. CAAS is closely monitoring this and will ensure that SilkAir incorporates the fix once it is available. With the suspension, SilkAir's fleet of six Boeing 737 Max aircraft have been grounded. SilkAir had to cancel or adjust some flights, affecting about 300 passengers a day. These passengers have been offered either refunds or the option to be rebooked on other flights.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker, could I take Question Nos 17 and 18 together, please?”
“Mr Speaker, we are shocked and deeply saddened by the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 —”
“Indeed, Mr Chairman, we have a rough timeline. So, today, we have about 70 km of roads in one-north being used for on-road AV testings. So, it is in a "live" environment. Those vehicles, the operators that do that, have already pretested these in facilities like the Centre of Excellence for Testing and Research of AVs-NTU at NTU, to establish the basic safety. The next phase, having established the on-road safety, is then to integrate these AVs into "live" operations. We have committed to making that possible in three towns by 2023: Tengah, Jurong Innovation District and Punggol. What that would mean is that we will have autonomous buses as a sort of 'live" service, integrated with the other bus services that are available. 4.45 pm The issue of autonomous cars – so, there are two different types of AVs – autonomous cars for private vehicle ownership, we do not have a timeline at the moment but we are actively engaging with the industry, we have made calls for proposals and we are working with a number of partners to establish what are the regulatory changes that we need, what is the local capability that we need. And perhaps, in the future Land Transport Master Plan, we might be able to announce something. But at the moment, we do not have a timeline for that. So, clear timeline for revenue service for autonomous buses; at the moment, no timeline for autonomous cars.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for his suggestions. PTC works closely together with LTA. So, when we are looking across the industry, we are working together, with LTA as a regulator and the PTC looking out for fare affordability and services to citizens. In the Member's earlier speech, he made comments about integrating services, for example. There are a number of aspects to integrating services. There is a regulatory component which LTA does take on, in terms of how we might integrate different aspects of our regulatory framework. And PTC will continue to look out for the interests of commuters in terms of fares and fare affordability. So, I do not know that necessarily. I would agree that we need to reconsider the role of PTC at this point in time. There is a working relationship that appears to be working quite well. Perhaps, as new models of public transport or as new models of P2P, business operations or integrated services come along, we will continue to study and try to find the right response. But I take the Member's point that we need an integrated series of solutions to link the different modalities of transport together.”
“Mr Chairman, Mr Dennis Tan asked about the need for diesel tax as a nudge towards achieving LTMP 2040 goals given that we in the Government have committed to a clean public bus fleet and the taxi operators have already committed. The short answer is yes. I hope the Member agrees, firstly, that achieving a cleaner vehicular fleet is important for our personal health and the health of our city. That is not going to happen without some nudges and some economic incentives. So, we need a regulatory structure in order to get there. It is quite telling that despite the fact that we in Government have committed to an entirely clean public bus fleet by 2040 as have the taxi operators, not all the private hire car operators have agreed. It is not an easy decision to make. There are some costs and some difficulties associated with that. Secondly, we need a solution today. We need to start moving in that direction today and not wait until 2040 to find out whether we are moving in the right direction or not, or whether we have gotten there. Thirdly, diesel is not only used in taxis today. We have commercial vehicles, goods vehicles and private buses as well. And so, this is an important part of the vehicle population and we will have to persuade the owners, drivers and operators of these vehicles to move along with us on this journey towards a cleaner fleet by 2040. It is not going to happen just because we have asked it to happen. It has to make economic sense and some of that is going to have to include something like a change to the price of diesel which we recently introduced.”
“Mr Chairman, I have to answer Mr Ang Hin Kee's question about the private hire vehicle drivers. In the first part, Mr Ang Hin Kee asked about the operators forming an association because the drivers are already part of NPHVA. Well, certainly, we can engage with the operators and the business to do this. Potentially, we have a number of businesses that can get involved with the P2P space. Some would be traditional taxi companies and transport operators; some would be the very new mobility operators that we have seen coming to Singapore. But potentially, even tech companies could get into it. So, it is not a very clear industry as to who would be a partner. We will engage with them all, and if there is a need to form an association, we may have to look for some assistance to chair the committee and so forth, but we will definitely be engaging Mr Ang Hin Kee to help us engage in this process. The age limit for the Private Hire Driver Vocational Licence (PDVL) is something that has been raised in the feedback that we have had as part of the consultation process for the P2P regulatory framework. It is not something that we are clear about what the right thing to do is at this point in time. It is clear that there is a discrepancy in the age between the PDVL for private hire car drivers and the Taxi Drivers Vocational Licence for taxi drivers. We will have to look and see what will be the reasonable thing to do. We will continue to engage with the industry, as well as the drivers, to see how to deal with this. It is something we are studying and we will come back to Mr Ang Hin Kee and the House when we are ready with more information.”
“Mr Chairman, it is not that everything has to be developed before we bring in an MRT line or a transport service, but it is the confidence around the ridership. So, there is no single development or facility that will say this is the right thing to do or this is the wrong thing to do. We have to look at the total expected demand. For Tuas South, yes, in the long term, there may be a very different demand picture from what we expect today. But on the basis of what we are currently projecting, it is not something that we can justify at this point in time in the medium term.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Mayor Low Yen Ling for the question. We are in this position today because Mayor Low and her grassroots leaders have worked hard with our agencies, as well as with MND and the various agencies, to look into how development can be brought into that area and new facilities can be created, new opportunities can begin, as a result of which, we can now justify the ridership for Hume MRT station going forward. So, we do need some time to pass for the developments, justifying the opening of Hume MRT station to occur. On top of that, it is not just that we have to open Hume station, but we have to build Hume station, and that would take some time. There is going to be architectural works, earthworks, ventilation shafts, and we have to do so together with the other developments around the area so that we do not obstruct some of the new things that are coming up. So, we will try our best, but I am pleased to repeat that we will be opening Hume station by 2025.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Ang Wei Neng for the question. He asked how many households are within a 10-minute walk to an MRT station today. The proportion today stands at 64%, that is, 64% of households are within a 10-minute walk. On how many current trips to the city take less than 45 minutes, if someone stays within 800 metres of a train station, 10-minute walk, three-quarters of those peak period train-only journeys are completed within 45 minutes. But if you are looking at all peak-hour public journeys today, only 55% are completed within 45 minutes. The second point the Member asked about staggered working hours, yes, LTA and MOT, we will try our best to encourage people to adopt staggered working hours. It will be another strategy to help smoothen out the load and the demand on our public transport system.”
“However, offset conditions, such as the transfer of technology, which are prohibited under our international obligations, are not the only way to achieve this. Many of our local companies are already partnering LTA on civil construction projects. Hock Lian Seng and Lum Chang Building Contractors are two such companies which initially partnered other international contractors and made use of these opportunities to grow their experience and capabilities. Today, they take on complex rail and road infrastructure projects on their own. Our procurement process must continue to be open and fair, so that more such opportunities are afforded to our local contractors. Our local companies gain from contracts with LTA. This gives them the experience they need to go beyond our shores and secure overseas work. ST Electronics is one such example. They started growing their rail capabilities by performing works for the North-South and East-West Lines in the 1980s. And now they go on to secure contracts overseas and are a major supplier of Passenger Information Systems for railways in several countries. Looking ahead, there will be more such opportunities, and we look forward to the continued involvement of local businesses. Mr Chairman, we are committed to building a world-class land transport system for Singapore. LTMP 2040 is yet another step in this journey together with Singaporeans to build the kind of land transport system we want for ourselves and our future. It is not just about the shared space or being a social leveller that the public transport system is. It is not simply about building the roads or buying the buses or the trains or building new types of land transport systems. It is about bringing Singapore together.”
“We recently completed our public consultation exercise on 21 February. Members of the public have expressed strong support for the policies that we intend to roll out as part of the new regulatory framework. We agree with and will respond to the call for a more inclusive P2P sector and will work closely with the industry on this. More details will be provided in the coming months. Mr Chairman, our land transport sector will continue to create opportunities for Singaporean workers and businesses. Mr Melvin Yong asked about efforts to support public transport workers and meeting future challenges in the land transport sector, including the development and deployment of AVs in future. We will continue to work with unions and industry partners to help workers respond to these emerging technologies. In February 2018, we launched the Land Transport ITM. Under this ITM, the Government is working closely with the unions and operators to upskill our workers to equip them with the capabilities to do their jobs efficiently and effectively. This is being done through our Institutes of Higher Learning, as well as through the Singapore Bus Academy and Singapore Rail Academy. We have also established the ITM Tripartite Steering Committee co-chaired by NTWU and LTA to identify interventions to help workers respond to these emerging technologies. I would like to congratulate our local operators, SBST and SMRT, on signing the Memoranda of Understanding with NTWU to raise the competencies of their train and bus workers. This cooperation between company management and unions is critical to developing a future-ready workforce. Our businesses will also benefit. I agree with Mr Ang Wei Neng that developing local capabilities is vital to ensuring industry resilience.”
“Part of this involves streamlining, where appropriate, the regulatory differences between street-hail and ride-hail services, such as the taxi availability services that Mr Ang Wei Neng has raised. More details will be made available later this year. These principles will lay the ground for a safe, open and contestable P2P sector. New players and different business models will be able to enter and start providing P2P solutions for our commuters. Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Ang Hin Kee had made suggestions about market size and P2P fares, and we will study their feedback. Our intention is not to regulate every single aspect of the P2P market, but to allow market forces to shape some of these more efficiently and to let competition drive innovation. Ultimately, commuters and drivers will be able to benefit from better services. This will help us to achieve our 20-Minute Towns and 45-Minute City vision. As Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Ang Wei Neng are aware, our review has been happening in consultation with the industry, as well as the Labour Movement, represented by NTA and NPHVA. As we enter the final stages of our review, we will continue to work closely with our tripartite stakeholders to manage disruptions, consider the feedback received, keep in mind the need to protect commuter interests and also taking into account suggestions, such as Mr Ang Hin Kee's, to protect driver interests. We will do so while streamlining regulations and managing business costs. Mr Ang Hin Kee will be pleased to hear that LTA will be establishing a Private Hire Car Tripartite Committee to complement the existing Taxi Tripartite Committee. Together, these will provide platforms for LTA, drivers and operators to discuss strategic issues concerning the P2P sector.”
“Commuter satisfaction with P2P services continues to remain high. More than 99% of commuters surveyed by PTC were satisfied with taxi and private hire car services in 2018. Such a positive outcome is only possible with responsible operators, sensible commuters, safe drivers and sound policy. In particular, the National Taxi Association (NTA) and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA) have played important roles in helping our drivers adjust to technological transformation in the P2P space. Private hire cars are now an important part of our land transport system, accounting for about 45% of all P2P journeys. In 2018, there were more than 120 million trips completed on private hire cars alone. We are in the process of reviewing our regulatory approach for the P2P sector to ensure that commuters can continue to benefit from a robust and safe P2P space. Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Ang Wei Neng spoke about the ongoing P2P review. Let me take this opportunity to give Members the broad principles of the revised regulatory framework. We intend to introduce a new licensing process for all P2P operators focusing on three key areas. First, we will prohibit operators from tying down drivers through exclusivity arrangements, except for those operators that employ drivers. The majority of P2P drivers will then be free to choose which operators to drive for, thus ensuring that the P2P industry continues to be a viable and sustainable sector to make a living in. Second, we will focus on commuter safety, where all P2P operators will have to play their part to keep commuters and drivers safe. Third, we will minimise business and regulatory costs for operators and drivers.”
“The pilot was successful and LTA is now working with MasterCard and Visa on the full launch of ABT under the branding of "SimplyGo". Starting April 2019, all MasterCard users with compatible contactless cards or mobile phones can use these on our buses and trains. We plan for Visa to be used on public transport later this year. With "SimplyGo", commuters will have the option of carrying one less card for transport, or maybe no cards if they use their mobile phones, and not having to do card top-ups. AVs are another area which can allow us to reinvent how land transport is provided, such as dynamically routed services. AVs will also help us to create new job opportunities in the transport sector. ST Engineering Land Systems is conducting a trial of autonomous buses and partnering SBST to deploy a few of its bus captains as safety operators. While the widespread deployment of AVs is still years away, such trials give us an early sense of the requirements for the new job roles that will be created. I agree with Assoc Prof Walter Theseira that our regulatory frameworks must also be flexible enough to guide the flow of technology without constricting it. We must strike a balance between protecting the public interest, achieving our broader transport policy objectives, allowing innovations to thrive, meeting the needs of commuters and creating jobs for transport workers. We need to be clear about what, why and how we want to regulate. How we have evolved our planned regulatory framework for the P2P sector is a good example. The rapid growth of ride-hailing applications has disrupted the P2P sector in many cities, leading to strikes, driver unhappiness and commuter inconvenience around the world. Here in Singapore, we have been relatively fortunate.”
“Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min will elaborate further on some of the initiatives planned to encourage more commuters to incorporate healthier modes of transport into their daily routines. While we plan to improve speeds and convenience, I agree with Miss Cheng Li Hui that safety cannot be compromised. Our bus safety record has improved over the past year. Our public buses had an accident rate of 0.11 accidents per 100,000 bus service kilometres in 2018, a third lower than the 0.15 in 2017. But every life lost on our roads or paths is one too many. We must work towards reducing land transport fatalities. To do this, we will introduce more pedestrian-friendly features, such as Silver Zones, to reduce vehicular speeds. Secondly, we will introduce signalised right turns at all traffic junctions where it is feasible. Third, we are exploring enhanced safety management systems, such as anti-fatigue, collision warning and blindspot warning systems, to aid our bus captains. These will provide audio cues or vibrations to keep the driver alert, and they are already a standard requirement for our public buses. Mr Chairman, many of our LTMP 2040 strategies rely on technology. Technological innovations in recent years have increased mobility options for commuters. There are also better journey-planning applications, including LTA's MyTransport.SG mobile app, to help commuters plan multi-modal journeys. This, in turn, has improved the accessibility and utilisation of public transport. We have also used technology to make our commutes easier, such as through Account-based Ticketing (ABT). Since March 2017, LTA has partnered MasterCard to test the use of contactless bankcards on public transport under the ABT initiative.”
“00 pm These planned infrastructural enhancements and the inclusion strategies will complement efforts towards the Panel's third key recommendation on Healthy Lives and Safer Journeys. A comprehensive suite of public, active and shared transport options will reduce our reliance on privately-owned vehicles and contribute towards a healthier environment. This will complement ongoing initiatives by different Ministries to improve the health of Singapore and Singaporeans, including through the reduction of vehicle emissions. For example, we work with the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources on the Vehicular Emissions Scheme and the Early Turnover Scheme to encourage owners to use cleaner vehicles. The electric car-sharing programme, jointly supported by LTA and the Economic Development Board, is another example. Under this, BlueSG will roll out a total of 500 charging stations equipped with 2,000 charging points nationwide. To date, BlueSG has installed 687 charging points. The Government will also take the lead in building a cleaner transport system. By 2040, we will upgrade all our public buses to cleaner energy sources. I am pleased to announce that key industry players in the P2P sector are also following the Government's lead. All the taxi companies and some of the private hire car booking providers and car rental companies have committed to making their entire fleet run on cleaner energy by 2040. This is the first time that we have an industry-led target for LTMP. Apart from a healthier environment, we will continue to encourage active mobility as a way to meet Singaporeans' aspirations for a healthier life. Supporting this will require us to change the way we plan towns, to make active modes of transport more convenient.”
“We, in MOT and LTA, are collaborating with other agencies on upcoming key developments, including the Jurong Lake District, Jurong Innovation District, Woodlands North Coast and the Punggol Digital District. These will be well connected by Transit Priority Corridors. We do not have any of these yet, but we are going to build some. These will have features, such as dedicated turns and lanes for public and private buses, as well as other types of connectivity, apart from the Transit Priority Corridors to link these developments, such as the new rail projects which we have already announced, that is, the Thomson East-Coast Line and North-East Line extension. Taken altogether, the redistribution, these Transit Priority Corridors, the work that we are already doing on the MRT lines will shorten our daily commutes to work and play and take us closer to our vision of 20-Minute Towns and a 45-Minute City. The second key recommendation by the Advisory Panel is to build a more Inclusive Transport System. Through the LTMP public consultation process, Singaporeans have expressed their desire for a land transport system which is inclusive and welcoming to all Singaporeans. This means a culture where commuters look out for one another, especially those who are more in need. Singaporeans acknowledged that achieving this gracious commuting culture is a shared responsibility between the Government, transport operators, transport workers and commuters. I am heartened that Singaporeans are willing to play their part, and my colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng will later elaborate on strategies to make our land transport system a more inclusive and friendly space for all Singaporeans. 3.”
“As for Jurong Island, there are no plans to extend the MRT onto the island itself. However, workers will benefit from the future Jurong Pier Station, which is located only a short distance away from Jurong Island Checkpoint. Once the JRL is completed in 2028, they can travel on the JRL to the Checkpoint before transferring to a shuttle bus or company transport taking them through security and onwards to the various industries on the island. For example, if we were to put a station on Jurong Island itself, it is unlikely to create any added convenience or time savings because the workers would still have to go through the Checkpoint security and transfer to an onward last-mile shuttle to their final destination, given how spread out the developments are on the island. So, we will have to balance the effectiveness of such a solution and the costs. Mr Chairman, we cannot achieve our vision of 20-Minute Towns and a 45-Minute City through infrastructure developments alone. Our public transport system is built to support peak travel demand during the short two-hour window on weekday mornings and evenings, as many Singaporeans living all over the island commute to jobs in the city centre. We need to optimise the distribution of jobs and housing across the island. This will reduce travel times as more people live closer to their workplace. This is, in fact, another way of redistributing peak travel demand and make better use of transport infrastructure, as noted by Assoc Prof Walter Theseira. Today, there are already regional centres in Tampines, Woodlands and Jurong East that are well connected to nearby amenities and jobs.”
“Since then, these new development plans have been made, partly because of the advocacy and the engagement by Mayor Low Yen Ling and her community leaders for the redevelopment of the Rail Corridor and the transformation of the nearby Bukit Timah Fire Station into a Gateway Node for the surrounding nature and heritage attractions and other developments. With all these, there will be sufficient ridership to justify opening Hume station. Likewise, further addition of new bus services in Bukit Gombak will depend on the pace of development and ridership growth in the area. We are also studying other rail projects beyond 2030 that will bring us closer to the “45-Minute City”. These will be announced when the LTMP is launched in a few months. As Sitoh Yih Pin has pointed out, it is important that we continue to exercise financial prudence as we develop our land transport network. In deciding which areas to extend our rail network to, we will have to balance between managing costs and benefiting the most number of Singaporeans possible, taking into account the characteristics of each area. As an example, I would like to address the suggestion by Mr Arasu Duraisamy that we study the feasibility of a new MRT line to Tuas South and Jurong Island. For Tuas South, the area is still in the initial stages of development and there is not enough ridership in the near to medium term to support an MRT line. Nevertheless, we have taken steps to improve bus connectivity to the Tuas South area. With the opening of the Tuas West Extension in June 2017, LTA launched two new public bus services in the Tuas South area, that is, services 247 and 248. When the Jurong Region Line (JRL) and Cross Island Line are completed, workers in Tuas South will benefit.”
“We will also study the extent to which ODPBs can improve first- and last-mile connectivity to allow even more Singaporeans to benefit, regardless of their proximity to an MRT station. Such dynamically routed bus services have the potential to reduce travelling and waiting times for intra-town journeys and allow commuters to enjoy more seamless commutes. To achieve a 45-Minute City, I agree with Mr Ang Wei Neng that rail must continue to be the backbone of our public transport network. Even as we pursue our ambitions, I am happy to report that we are on track to achieve the targets set in our last LTMP. The announcement of the Jurong Region Line in 2018 and the first phase of the Cross Island Line (CRL) earlier this year puts us yet another step closer to having eight in 10 households within a 10-minute walk from a train station. This was the previous LTMP target to achieve in 2030, 10 years before the outcomes that we are hoping for in LTMP 2040. We will continue to review and expand our rail network where there is sufficient ridership. Mayor Low Yen Ling and her residents would be delighted, I hope, to know that we have plans to fully fit out and open Hume station on Downtown Line 2 (DTL2). [Applause.] By 2025. [Laughter.] Hume station was originally designed as a shell station on DTL2 as the pace of developments and ridership growth in the area did not warrant it opening with the other DTL2 stations. Mayor Low Yen Ling has worked hard on behalf of her residents, and she has worked with our public sector agencies. She has highlighted and advocated for the potential of the area and the needs of her residents. We have worked closely with her and her community leaders to see how we can improve the commuting experience for residents in the new estates.”