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 20 of 27.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, taxis and private hire cars (PHCs) are meant to carry passengers for hire and reward and should not be used for the conveyance of goods for reward without the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) prior approval. This is to ensure that taxis and PHCs remain available to provide point-to-point (P2P) services for commuters. Drivers found violating these rules may have their vocational licences revoked. Thus far, LTA has not found any driver in violation of these rules. LTA will actively enforce against such offences and will not hesitate to take firm action against the perpetrators. Taxi and PHC operators that are interested in allowing their drivers to perform courier services on a limited trial basis may approach LTA to discuss such a possibility. LTA will work with them to assess the feasibility of a trial, how it should be scoped to ensure minimal impact on P2P availability, as well as the conditions necessary to safeguard commuter interests, for example, ensuring the vehicles have the appropriate third-party insurance coverage required under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act.”
“Persons, including body corporates, who cause death by a negligent act can also be charged under the Penal Code. Persons who have been found guilty may face imprisonment for a term up to two years, or a fine, or both. This could include persons who were negligent in maintaining their vehicles, thereby directly leading to a fatal accident. MOM's Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) also provides for the payment of compensation to employees for injury or death suffered in the course of their employment. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the compensation payable could be up to $262,000. In addition, accident victims can also seek legal recourse by taking those responsible for causing the accident to task through civil lawsuits. In summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do have a comprehensive framework of vehicular inspections and laws to hold vehicle owners responsible for ensuring their vehicles are roadworthy and safe. In 2016 and 2017, there were a total of 85 fatal accidents involving heavy vehicles both on-road and on worksites – 85 fatal accidents over two years. Less than 5% of these accidents involved claims of mechanical failures, of which, some are still pending investigations. More often, heavy vehicle accidents are primarily caused by driving behaviour. Even as we take errant drivers to task, it is even more important that we continue to work with companies to promote a safe driving culture and ensure that drivers have sufficient rest. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." (proc text)] Adjourned accordingly at 6.42 pm”
“The companies are incentivised to ensure that their heavy vehicles are well-maintained, because those which fail the inspection will not be allowed to be used until the fault is rectified. This will have an impact on their business operations and the companies will also have to bear the costs of additional inspections. With regard to Mr Murali Pillai's suggestion to mandate a preventive maintenance regime, our view is that it is not necessary to be prescriptive about the maintenance regime as our inspection regime is already very frequent and stringent. LTA takes an outcome-based approach, which balances the imperative to create a safe working and commuting environment with the regulatory burden on vehicle owners. Such an outcome-based approach also leaves room for new technologies to be brought in very quickly to improve maintenance regimes and improve safety, rather than being very prescriptive of the technology and the process. The Member has asked about the Government's powers to prosecute businesses which do not properly maintain their heavy vehicles and, as a result, cause fatal accidents. Under the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA), employers have a duty to take adequate measures to ensure the safety and health of their employees at work. This includes the proper maintenance of equipment used by their workers, including heavy vehicles. Employers who fail in their duties under WSHA, regardless of whether it is an individual or body corporate, may be prosecuted. In the case of an individual, the employer may face a fine of up to $200,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. In the case of a body corporate, the employer may face a fine of up to $500,000. This is under section 50 of WSHA.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for raising his concerns about the safety of heavy vehicles. Indeed, safety is an important part of these operations. And my thoughts and condolences to Encik Slemat and his family. It was a tragic story that was shared with us. Today, LTA requires all in-use vehicles to be regularly inspected at LTA-authorised Inspection Centres (AICs), ensuring that they are roadworthy and that emission standards are met. These inspections are conducted every six months to a year, depending on the type and age of the vehicles. As the vehicles age and as they are used more intensively, frequency of inspection goes up. These inspections cover key vehicle components and systems, such as brakes, steering, tyres and exhaust systems, to ensure that they are in good working order. Besides these regular inspections, LTA and the Traffic Police also have powers to call up vehicles for ad hoc inspections to ensure their safety and roadworthiness. Heavy vehicles tend to be used more intensively and are, therefore, more prone to wear and tear. We have imposed statutory lifespans on heavy vehicles to ensure that the population of heavy vehicles on our roads stays young. Except for public buses, most heavy vehicles are subject to a maximum statutory lifespan of 20 years, after which they must be deregistered and can no longer be used on our roads. Public buses are subject to a shorter statutory lifespan of 17 years because they are very heavily used. It is the vehicle owners' responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are properly maintained and pass LTA's vehicle inspection requirements. In the case of heavy vehicles that are typically used for commercial purposes, the responsibility lies with the companies that own these heavy vehicles.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, once again I thank the Members for supporting this Bill and the good work that our TSIB officers do, and for bringing up these key and important issues in the operations of the maritime, air and, in the future, rail sectors. I beg to move, Mr Deputy Speaker. [(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)]”
“So, where there is, for example, conflicting information that is coming in, TSIB has to make the decision about what would be their recommendations and justify these in their report. Ms Sylvia Lim asked particularly about the issue of making the draft report available. This is a practice that has been happening in the aviation industry, particularly, internationally, and the commercial players see value in this because it increases public confidence in the safety of the processes – their processes as well as the international agreements. It should be seen not as a vetting of the final report but as a completion of the fact-finding and analysis of the information that is there and how experts interpret what has happened. But ultimately, the positioning of where TSIB sits within the Ministry, its protections under the law, and the structure of their operations as regulated by this Bill give it that independence from commercial interests. I am sure there will be an attempt to put across vested interests and lobbying and so on and so forth. But it is precisely because of that, that we need to ensure that there are protections for the Director of TSIB and the officers of TSIB to have that independence when they issue their recommendations in their final report. Ms Joan Pereira asked about the penalty for failing to respond to safety recommendations. This is not the penalty for a safety lapse. This is a penalty for failing to administratively cooperate with TSIB and respond to safety recommendations. It is not as a punitive penalty for a safety lapse for an incident, which is a matter not for TSIB to determine, but for the Police or for the agencies or the regulators to investigate and determine as needed.”
“The reason why the coroner's inquiry has an exception made for it is because the purpose of the coroner's inquiry is to determine the cause and circumstances connected with the death without necessarily framing a finding as to determining a question of criminal, civil or disciplinary liability. However, this barrier against disclosure is not absolute. Under clause 43, paragraph 4, the High Court may order the disclosure of the restricted information if it is satisfied that this is necessary. But ultimately, it is the coroner's prerogative to decide whether it is necessary to wait for the conclusion of the TSIB investigation before making a decision about the cause of death, the verdict on the cause of death. This is not under TSIB's remit, it will be up to the coroner to decide, and the coroner will be aware that this investigation is happening and the coroner will have to make that decision. There are issues with respect to the coordination of multiple investigations from multiple agencies. So, the agencies involved have developed a standard operating procedure to make sure that they adhere to their own regulatory framework as well as to allow the investigation to proceed. If there is sharing of information, it is done within the regulatory and legal frameworks for each investigation and for each agency. Indeed, during the course of the investigation, TSIB will engage with the parties concerned to deliberate the information collected to analyse the contributing factors and to try to make some preliminary recommendations. But ultimately, the drafting of the report is by TSIB. TSIB has to take full responsibility for those recommendations and stand by them.”
“So, TSIB will be mindful not to detain these vehicles for longer than necessary. With respect to the issue of costs, today already, air incident investigation costs and expenses are recovered from owners and operators whose aircraft are the subject of investigations. So, clause 18 is really looking for parity across a number of domains just to make sure that the same approach and same treatment are applied. The examples of the types of costs were asked, for example, the cost of conducting specialised tests, recovering and storing the wreckage as well as administrative and operational overheads of conducting the investigation. Ms Sylvia Lim, in particular, asked about the information that will be obtained by TSIB in the course of investigation. So, the requirement is that the information is used solely for the purpose of improving transport safety. That is why the Bill is crafted in the way it is, in order to maintain that opportunity to have a free flow of information without the fear that the persons giving that information will be penalised. So, in order to do so, the TSIB staff, as well as former staff who are involved need to be distanced from judicial proceedings. They cannot be compelled to give evidence in civil or criminal proceedings related to the incident. Further to that, some information, such as onboard recording information, cannot be disclosed. This is the international practice. The final part of this component is that the investigation report is inadmissible as evidence in Courts and proceedings, with the exception of the coroner's inquiry, and that is to stay consistent with the fundamental purpose of these transport safety investigations.”
“So, protocols have been developed and they will extend across all these different interagency boundaries to deal with issues around sensitive information, to allow these investigations to proceed. Members brought up the issue of the exemption that the Minister for Transport can order through the Gazette. This will only be exercised in highly exceptional cases and it will not be taken lightly. This exemption arises from the fact that there is an international requirement for the provisions of the Bill, which provide TSIB with a significant amount of powers and require the reports to be made public, and we do want to make sure that when it is necessary from a national interest, that certain vehicles can be exempted from those provisions. It will be done through an order in the Gazette and will not be taken lightly. In the past two years, TSIB has initiated an average of 17 investigations into aviation and marine incidents per year. Each investigation takes approximately one year to complete. TSIB institutes its own investigations. There is no transfer of investigations from other agencies, and there will not be as these new domains are investigated. These will be independent and separate investigations. Mr Louis Ng asked about the detention of vehicles under clause 30, which empowers the Director to detain a transport vehicle for the reasons given. There is no expressed cap on the duration of detention. Clause 30, paragraph 5, explicitly says "The Director must not detain a transport vehicle under this section for longer than is necessary and reasonable to exercise any other powers under this Act." The transport vehicle can only be detained for both what is necessary and reasonable to facilitate the investigations.”
“But in this case, we wanted something, apart from LTA, to investigate LTA-contracted services. I hope that answers the Member's questions. This independent assessment of safety issues and recommendations would run in parallel to any potential Traffic Police investigation. The TSI Bill does provide for the investigation of incidents involving unmanned aircraft, unmanned vessels, unmanned rail vehicles, and, at the Minister's direction, unmanned buses which operate on services contracted by LTA. There were a number of questions about military vehicles and exemptions. This is a requirement under international agreements that transport safety investigations are not conducted into occurrences involving only military and state transport vehicles. So, as part of that international agreement, we have had to then put in that exemption clause. But we do have jurisdiction to investigate the occurrences between one of these exempted vehicles and one which is not, that is, one which is a civilian vehicle. One of the Members asked about what are the circumstances in which the SAF would request TSIB to conduct an investigation into a transport occurrence that involves a Singapore military ship or Singapore military aircraft. I think that is an issue for them to answer. TSIB is available as a pool of resources and expertise that are there, so, if there is a need for this particular type of safety investigation and we are resourced to be called upon by the SAF. If the investigation involves information that is relevant for national security, there are already protocols in place, and that came out of the experience that the Air Accident Investigation Bureau had, working together with the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF).”
“But we are not looking to do this by transferring people across different parts of the Government because these types of capabilities will be needed in other agencies and in other entities, because there is an ongoing need for investigations, for disciplinary processes, enforcement and regulations, and so forth. So, we want to build up a separate arm of capability. The objective of TSIB is really just to focus on the safety standards, looking at the causes, drawing safety lessons, preventing recurrence. As has been noted, we have included the provision for TSIB to be activated to investigate incidents involving LTA-contracted bus services. The question was raised about why not all buses, why not all major incidents? So, again, I would reiterate, there are plenty of other organisations and agencies that can investigate – the Police; LTA itself can conduct an investigation; the Minister for Transport can also convene committees and Commissions of Inquiry, for instance. So, by constituting TSIB, it is not that all investigations will only happen under the remit of TSIB. It is a very specific and particular type of investigation that will happen under TSIB, and all the other agencies that can continue to investigate incidents and systems will continue to have that opportunity to do so. The reason why we have looked at the provisions specifically for LTA-contracted bus services, firstly, it is about the systems associated with it. You need something which is a fairly complex system to begin with organisationally to justify this type of investigation. Secondly, ordinary road accidents usually are about human error and the opportunity is there for the Traffic Police as well as LTA to investigate.”
“It also allows the deepening of the investigation expertise, for example, in the human and system factors. TSIB is staffed with very experienced and competent investigators, currently with aviation and maritime industry experience. So, this industry experience is something very significant. While they have been in industry, they have had the experience of operating some of these safety issues, of designing safety policies within their agency, within their commercial organisation. So, they bring to bear, when they come and work under TSIB, all of those years of experience. The director has 20 years of experience and is a fairly senior person, and it is that level of expertise that we will need to have. Some of the Members asked about training and capability development. The investigators attend both local as well as foreign training courses to update their knowledge of transport systems, to sharpen their investigation capabilities. And the training is ongoing; it is not just merely at the point of entry at TSIB. They go on attachments with TSIB’s counterparts. Indeed, we are able to and have brought in both volunteer investigators as well as appointed overseas experts, depending on the nature of the incident and the case that is being investigated. A whole series of resources will be brought together, depending on what is needed. The number of people, however, that we need here in Singapore in order to do this, while they are very talented and have deep expertise, is probably not a number that will justify a single training centre. So, that is not something that we are currently planning on. We are planning to build up our rail safety investigation capabilities over the next two years through the recruitment and training of rail safety investigators.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Louis Ng for their support for the Transport Safety Investigations Bill. This arena of transport safety investigations is very specialised. It is a fairly unique process; it has been tested in practice; it has an international application. It arose really from our obligations under some international treaties, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). This Bill brings together the work that has been already ongoing. TSIB was administratively created in August 2016, coming out of the Air Accident Investigation Bureau. They have been doing the work already but this Bill will facilitate that work. It brings it together under one legislative framework, and it enables the investigators to effectively perform their safety functions, improve transport safety, and be in accord with international practices as well as our international agreements under one legislative framework. Many countries have a similar multi-modal transport investigation agency – Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, the US. Having a multi-modal transport safety investigation agency allows the cross-sharing of best practices and resources. While there is a need for domain-specific industry experience, engineering experience, safety operation experience, there is a significant amount of cross-sharing in terms of legal practices, cross-border issues, and how one interfaces with other Government agencies, among other things. So, there is a need for deep specialisation – aviation experts, maritime experts, subsequently rail experts. But there is also a need to bring them together administratively, and the experience from overseas shows that this works.”
“Information obtained by TSIB in the course of their investigation is to be used solely for the purpose of improving safety and not by the judicial system whose purpose is for blame or liability. Clause 18 of the Bill specifies that the expenses incurred by TSIB during an investigation is recoverable from the owner or operator, or both, of the transport vehicles involved in the incident. To enable the findings and lessons learnt from TSIB's safety investigations to be shared with as many people as possible, clause 20 of the Bill requires TSIB to make their investigation reports publicly available. Clause 21 of the Bill prevents the TSIB's reports from being used for disciplinary or criminal purposes. Accordingly, the TSIB's draft reports are inadmissible in all Courts and proceedings. Reports of completed investigations are also inadmissible in all Courts and proceedings except a Coroner's inquiry. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“To ensure that investigators are able to effectively perform their roles, clauses 26 to 31 of the Bill confer on TSIB investigators the necessary powers, including powers to access occurrence sites, gather information and records, take possession of evidence, and require medical examinations of persons involved. Clause 23(5) specifies that these powers are exercisable by TSIB investigators only when and to the extent authorised by the Director of TSIB. Clause 43 of the Bill prescribes limits on the disclosure of restricted information collected during an investigation. This limit on disclosure is important in order to encourage the free flow of safety information in transport safety investigations and is also necessary in order to meet international requirements. Examples of restricted information include witnesses' statements, medical or private information, voice and image recordings and their transcripts, analysis of information and draft final reports. This clause, however, does not prevent transport regulators and other agencies from conducting their own investigations to obtain similar information directly from the source. Subsection 4 of clause 43, however, allows the High Court to order the disclosure of any restricted information, if the High Court is satisfied that any adverse domestic or international impact that the disclosure might have on any current or future investigation is outweighed by the public interest in the administration of justice. Clause 44 provides that TSIB investigators are not compellable to give any evidence or provide any expert opinion in any proceedings except to a Coroner's inquiry. This reinforces the purpose of the Bill, which is not to ascribe blame to any person or organisation.”
“It will standardise the procedures for the conduct of investigations and apply the same set of safeguards on the treatment of information obtained during an investigation. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me highlight the key provisions of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill states the purposes of the Bill, one of which is for the prevention of future transport occurrences and not for ascribing blame to any person or organisation. Clause 15 makes clear that TSIB may investigate incidents involving any combination of modes of transport vehicles, and between civilian and military transport vehicles. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair] Clause 16 of the Bill sets out the scope of TSIB's investigations, which include incidents involving civilian aircraft and vessels. When TSIB has built up its rail accident investigation capabilities, they will also conduct safety investigations into domestic and international railway incidents which happen on or after a date set by the Minister under clause 5. When directed by the Minster for Transport, TSIB may also investigate incidents involving certain land transport incidents involving buses, such as those operating under the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) public bus services contract. As is the case under the existing legislation in the Air Navigation Act, clause 16 of the Bill will continue to allow TSIB to investigate an incident involving only military aircraft engaged in a flying display in Singapore organised by civilians.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Singapore is a vibrant transport hub. We have world-class air and sea ports that connect us to the rest of the world and an extensive public transport system that enables our people to move around efficiently for work and leisure. Ensuring safety is a key focus of our transport system. We set high safety standards through legislation and regulations and close oversight of our transport operators. Our transport operators also employ technology, train their personnel and run safety campaigns. Despite these measures, incidents happen. When they do occur, it is important that we learn from them, identify the causes and take measures to prevent a recurrence. We do this by conducting safety investigations. As these investigations aim to identify lessons and not to ascribe blame, they enable those involved in an incident to freely share information in a truthful manner without any fear of being penalised. The Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB), a department of the Ministry of Transport, will be the authority responsible for conducting safety investigations into air, sea and certain land transport incidents. The Transport Safety Investigations (TSI) Bill will be the single legislation that governs the conduct of safety investigations. It will facilitate the TSIB's work and enable TSIB investigators to effectively perform their safety functions. Currently, TSIB conducts safety investigations into air and marine incidents. The TSIB Bill will extend the no-blame safety investigation principles, processes and best practices from the air and marine sectors to the rail sector.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. As far as the first question on how we can be sure that a vehicle is safe, in my answer to the Parliamentary Question (PQ), I have listed the many steps and considerations that we are taking: a given technology, a given process and a specific entity, organisation or company, from a limited road trial to an extended road trial and a complex environment road trial. And some of these steps we have not come across yet. We have a phased approach, a tiered approach, and that is how we will be gradually increasing our confidence in the safety of any given technology or platform. We must also consider what it is that we are comparing them against. Absolute safety is very hard to determine in any situation or any technology. And the reality is that human-piloted vehicles are not absolutely safe and we do see a significant number of accidents. One of the key concerns about how we develop AVs is to make sure that our roads, over time, become safer. So, it is not just about making sure it becomes as safe as today, but safer than today, and that is the destination we wish to go to. For the second part of the question, yes, if there is a technology that we are not convinced will provide that level of safety as well as the opportunity to learn from any near misses and incidents so that it can improve its safety over time, we will, of course, hold back and study further and improve as we go along. That is our primary concern as well.”
“Mr Speaker, 14 autonomous vehicles (AVs) are currently authorised to conduct trials on roads in one-north, NUS and Singapore Science Parks 1 and 2. To ensure the safety of all road users, trials must fulfil stringent requirements. The vehicle must pass a safety assessment to demonstrate that it can adequately handle basic manoeuvres and come to a safe stop upon the detection of an obstacle. Initial AV trials will only be conducted on lightly used roads, such as those in the one-north district. Further trials in more complex environments will be allowed when AVs are able to demonstrate a higher level of competence. All AVs being tested must be accompanied by a safety driver trained to immediately take over full control of the AV when required. All AVs must have a vehicle fault alert system that will alert the safety driver of any faults, and allow the control of the vehicle to be immediately transferred to the safety driver. LTA will only waive the requirement for a safety driver after AV developers have convincingly proven the competence, reliability and safety of their technology. LTA also requires the AVs to be fitted with a "black-box" data recorder, which stores video footage and collects key data, and to have the required insurance coverage against third-party liability and property damage before the AVs are allowed to be tested on our public roads. We are mindful that AV technology is evolving rapidly. We will review these measures regularly and enhance them if necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, the matter as to whether or not that was done appropriately or inappropriately really depends on the terms and conditions of the service agreement. I do not know if it would be for me to comment about whether the service agreement between the users and oBike was appropriate. Whether the practice as a whole was fair or unfair, actually again, it is a matter for MTI and the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore to look into and perhaps make a decision about and take further action thereafter. 1.30 pm”
“I think it is possible. But I think this issue falls under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act which is overseen by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). The short answer to the Member's question is yes. But as to how that plays out and what actions are taken and so forth, I think I would have to ask the Member to file the question for MTI as to how this might be managed in a way to serve the needs of Singaporeans as well as the businesses.”
“Certainly, oBike, like all private companies, will need to comply with the Personal Data Protection Act. So, when they have no longer any use for the data that they have collected on their customers or their subscribers, and once they have settled all the issues with refunds and so on and so forth, there should be a full expectation that they remove all that data. The other question was how many accounts they have. They had a fleet size of 20,000 to 30,000, and oBike has reported that they had just over a million users.”
“The imposition of this new licensing regime is a recalibration of the light touch that we have taken in this phase.”
“I thank Mr Seah Kian Peng for the questions. The first, whether it can be easier to get refunds, it is ultimately oBike's responsibility to refund the user deposits and I think we should not minimise that it is something for them to settle, something for them to seek out means and ways to serve their consumers and serve their customers as best they can. We will continue to watch that space. As far as the light touch is concerned, I do agree with the Member. I pointed out, it has not actually been that long since these business models appeared; it is just over a year. From a business point of view, there does need to be some runway for the business model to evolve, for the finances to be settled down, so we have to get the balance correct. Where there are issues which are critical or dealing with personal safety, yes, we should be far more aggressive. Where it is about social disamenities and behavioral change, perhaps we also need to learn the lessons so that, as a regulator, as well as potential future operators, we can find a way to best serve future customers and consumers of such a service. Because, ultimately, these types of bicycle-sharing services are good for us because it will allow Singaporeans to make use of bicycles to close that last-mile gap in personal transport. It is also good for health; it is a possible leisure activity. So, we do not want to remove these services in particular, and I think the general point that the Member is making is about how we need to have the right calibration between a light touch approach as well as leaving room for innovation and dealing with the social disamenities is absolutely correct. That is exactly what we are doing now.”
“Going forward, LTA will monitor and strengthen the licensing regime as necessary, as well as work with relevant organisations, such as the Personal Data Protection Commission, CASE, the National Parks Board and the Town Councils on public education and outreach, so as to strike the right balance between the viability of the industry and the interests of users and the general public.”
“LTA and the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) have met oBike to emphasise the importance of refunding user deposits and removing their bicycles from public spaces. On 1 July 2018, about one week after oBike announced its exit, oBike's Chairman Shi Yi had publicly and personally committed to a full refund of user deposits. oBike is now working out a process with CASE to refund user deposits. I would like to emphasise again that it is oBike's responsibility to have a concrete plan to refund user deposits and remove its bicycles from public spaces. If LTA has to step in to remove its bicycles, we will impose fees on oBike for doing so. LTA and CASE will continue to engage oBike on its responsibilities. Concurrently, as the company is in liquidation, CASE has advised that affected consumers should file their Proofs of Debt against oBike with the appointed liquidator, FTI Consulting. Those who are unsure about how to file a Proof of Debt may contact CASE or the appointed liquidator for assistance. Following oBike's exit, MoBike announced on 29 June 2018 that it would be waiving deposits for its Singapore users. With this change, none of the licence applicants require user deposits. If the operators eventually do require user deposits when the licensing regime is implemented from October this year, LTA will study the need for bicycle-sharing operators to place a security deposit or performance bond.”
“Mr Speaker, oBike's sudden exit from Singapore has inconvenienced many Singaporeans. It has raised some concerns and questions. Let me address them comprehensively. First, oBike has attributed its decision to Government over-regulation. I suppose that is a convenient excuse. Dockless bicycle-sharing services offer Singaporeans a convenient travel option. We had deliberately adopted a light touch regulatory approach at the start, so as not to kill off this new innovative business model prematurely. Now that we have actual experience of both the benefits, and the significant social disamenities caused by indiscriminate bicycle parking, we have decided to tighten regulations. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will license bicycle-sharing operators under the Parking Places Act, so that only operators with responsible and sustainable bicycle management plans can operate in Singapore. The licensing regime will reduce indiscriminate parking by requiring operators to internalise the costs of the social disamenities caused by their businesses, failing which, they should not be operating at all. We are mindful to minimise compliance costs for operators, as they could, in turn, be passed on to users. LTA finalised its regulations only after extensive consultation with the bicycle-sharing operators, including oBike. We note that several operators have expressed their support for the new regulations. Our licensing regime will kick in by October 2018. Licence applications closed on 7 July 2018 and LTA has received seven applications. LTA will evaluate each application based on the strength of the proposal, especially the plans to minimise indiscriminate parking. Secondly, allow me to speak about the consequences of oBike's sudden exit from Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 12 to 15 together.”
“I thank the Member for the question. I need to study the matter and I will do so. If the Member has specific instances of drivers who would like to apply, maybe he can write to me and I could follow up on that.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. To the first point, ride-hailing, when it goes as intended, is a simple process. But the regulation of this space has to take into account what happens when things go wrong, when accidents occur, when other things occur on the roads, pedestrians and so forth. So, when things go wrong, there is a need to interface with members of the public, members of the emergency services, rescue services and security services. I take the point that ride-hailing, when it works well and works as designed, it is a simple process, but it operates in a fairly complicated environment, and how we regulate all the users of that environment will have to take all of that into account. As for longer-term contracts, the Land Transport Authority and the agencies do work with the drivers who are applying, to help try to see what is the remediation that can be applied to help them obtain the PDVL. If there are specific cases that the Member is interested in, he can perhaps write to me and I could follow up on how we might assist these drivers.”
“Mr Speaker, the passing rate for the Private Hire Car Driver’s Vocational Licence (PDVL) test is about 80%. Private hire car (PHC) drivers must be able to read and speak simple English. This is so that they can navigate roads and buildings, the names of which are primarily in English. This also ensures that the drivers can communicate effectively with all commuters, both Singaporeans and tourists. This is why the PDVL course and test are conducted in English. There are no plans to conduct the tests in other languages.”
“Our land transport system connects people with their jobs; goods with markets; connects ideas together with opportunities; and brings friends and families closer together in communities. It is essential to the experience of living in this wonderful tropical island that Singapore is, the city-state that we call Home. And this, our public land transport system, is one of the key defining characteristics of our home. [Applause.]”
“We may have to prioritise transport connectivity to these areas so that economic activity is made available close to Singaporeans' homes. That seems reasonable but that will have an impact on our overall planning on our priorities, where we will allocate transport connectivity and resources. Again, we will need to have that conversation. In going forward with these three big ideas, we assume that we must go in the direction of being car-lite and that we have to emphasise and encourage people to think about walking, cycling and riding as part of the solution. And as we do so, it will have benefits. It will have benefits through our system in terms of the loading capacity and the congestion. It will have benefits to our health in terms of our ability to get a bit more exercise in our day whether it is walking or cycling and it will have benefits to our environment in terms of the emissions as well as our carbon footprint and energy consumption. But again, if you feel a need, a desire or some knowledge on the basis of which you want to challenge those assumptions of going car-lite or talking about walk, ride and cycle and how we address these solutions, we want to hear your views. We will consult widely and ask for public input through many channels. We are setting up an advisory panel with representatives from commuters, workers, academics and disruptive businesses and many more to address our needs for the Land Transport Masterplan going forward, to make recommendations to the Government and to report back to this House, where I anticipate we would engage in a robust and dynamic debate with many strong opinions on our transport system.”
“But at the end of the day, you use your phone seamlessly and your experience is relatively blind to the various commercial providers you engage with. Similarly, if you use cable: who owns the cable, who owns the telco, the subscription that you have paid for and perhaps your pay per use, pay on demand that you have subscribed to. All these are different entities, but the solution to you is integrated, is seamless. So, you can have a functional outcome of Mobility-as-a-Service and that is where we want to go to, where the state, the Government, has the lightest possible intervention and regulatory touch, in order to make these different components synchronise together. What will it require? It will require us to set some standards around safety, but also around inter-operability. It may be necessary for the state to just build a handful of products to interface software, to share data, to put up an API. But, ultimately, we want to allow that space to be present for businesses to thrive in. Secondly, we need a transport system that caters to the diverse needs of all commuters and empowers all to use our system independently. When we think of that aspiration in the light of the changing mobility challenges, the changing demographics in age especially, this is going to have an impact on resource and resource allocation. How do we do this in a way that is fair and feels just to Singaporeans? We will need to have a conversation on this. Thirdly, we will develop stronger connectivity to the regional centres that we talked about – bring jobs and daily activities closer to home. But as we do that, as we prioritise these centres in order to drive the economic activity there, in order to drive investment there, we may have to invest ahead of demand for our transport connectivity.”
“In some places, people talk of Mobility-as-a-Service (MAAS). What do they mean when they talk about Mobility as a Service? The implication is that you will have multi-modal transport. Perhaps a shared bicycle to the MRT station. The MRT takes you to a destination at which point you have a point-to-point car waiting for you that will take you eventually to your place of work. That journey should be seen ideally as one journey, as opposed to three separate journeys. Perhaps you can arrange and make a decision about how long it will take you, how much it will cost you on one app, or one platform, or one decision point. Ideally, pay for it using a single-solution. That end-to-end transportation solution is referred to as Mobility-as-a-Service. There are calls that we should do this as a Government. There are people who feel that this idea should be driven by the state. But, ultimately, if we do so, we would remove commercial opportunities. We will remove the opportunities for businesses to come in with their ideas and their ability to drive innovation and innovative practices. And frankly speaking, if you look at what we have today, we have a mixture of state-provided solutions, platforms, services and assets as well as industry-provided, business-provided services. That seamless feel, that integration from end-to-end of your solution and your service, it does not have to all be provided by one entity. If you look at, for example, what people do on their phones: someone sold that to you, you have got your telecommunications subscriptions, the service that you are accessing, if it is a journal or a website, you may have a subscription.”
“Or the choice around our behaviours: how we choose to board the bus or the MRT, how we choose to stand or sit, how we look out for each other on the roads. We have a plan and we know what we have to do. We know where we have to get to. But how we get there, how quickly and at what cost, what are the priorities? These are the things that we need to hear and we want to hear your views about. We want to continue to consult widely. Please get involved. Please come and let us know, add to those 850,000 emails and phone enquiries that we have. Frankly, if you have a view not just on this journey that I have described but also the destination, if you think that that shape of a strategy, that shape of a big plan about where we want to get to, if you have views on that, let us know. Let us have that discussion and let us have that contest of ideas, so that we can generate the best possible public Land Transport Masterplan for Singapore. We want to hear. With our efforts, we think we know what Singapore needs. But if you are in a position to know better, please, come to us with your proposals. What is the direction, where is the destination? Currently, what is our vision and what are we trying to achieve? We want to provide a seamless land transport system, one that can easily integrate new and innovative mobility solutions as they emerge. Whatever we have seen in the last few years, whether it is about the point-to-point industry, private hire cars, bike-sharing and, now, e-scooter sharing, who knows what is going to happen in the next five years? Whatever comes along, we need to find a way, we need to design our public transport system in such a way that whatever comes along will be easily integrated and be part of the solution.”
“Some of our new behaviours, the rise of online shopping, this idea that you will have goods delivered to your door instead of going down to the shops, this has disrupted traditional freight movement. Direct shipping has lots of benefits. It is extremely convenient, it means we have access to goods from around the world but, again, it causes potential disamenities. You need space for the delivery trucks to come in, drop-off points for people to leave those trucks while they take those goods in, lockers. And we will need to think about how we calibrate that balance between the convenience for the consumer, the demand for that convenience and the congestion that it generates, even as we maintain the opportunity for new business models to be developed. People are developing new types of jobs – flexi jobs, flexi place, telecommuting – and these shifting patterns of behaviour will also affect how our land transport system is used. Taking all this feedback into account, looking at these changes, looking at these challenges, we are embarking on the next phase of developing our land transport masterplan. And, as always, as we have done, repeatedly, we want to do so in consultation, in collaboration with Singaporeans from all walks of life: families, workers, parents, grandparents, industry, academics, activists, grassroots. We want to bring everybody into this process because this matters to our land transport system. It makes it relevant and responsive to the needs and aspirations of the public. But also because, the public, we, have a large role to play in making an effective and pleasant land transport system. Whether it is the choice of the route, the choice of our transport modality, the choice of how and at which time of day we travel.”
“But just like that one regulation had impeded and hindered my commuting journey, when it comes to issues of accessibility, when mobility is a challenge, it does not take much to get in the way between the intent or the idea and the ability for someone with a mobility challenge to effectively use public transport independently. A small step misaligned, a small design flaw and it gets in the way of a functional outcome that is necessary for that person or that family. And families need to be considered, specifically, for the future of our public transport system. We need to be increasingly family-centric if we are going to take our car-lite approach seriously, then families with small children especially, need to be able to navigate our public transport system effectively, comfortably and see it as a viable alternative to owning a car. The changes in our economy are going to affect how we deal with our land transport plans. We see the new centres of employment that Minister Lawrence Wong talked about recently: Jurong Lake District, Punggol Digital District, Sembawang, Woodlands and Changi. These areas will need to have a greater degree of access to them to bring in those flows of workers. We need to make viable, full transport, this vision to have employment close to home for Singaporeans. But not every Singaporean who works in those new areas will live in those areas. We will need flow to those areas and we will also need flow between those areas. These changes to the patterns of flow of people will affect how we design our connectivity nodes and the main pipes for our land transport system.”
“Finally, we have to address market failures, such as the example I gave around bicycle-sharing services; while this is an important service, it provides that last-mile connectivity, it is welcomed by its users, but the negative externalities of the errant parking, the discarded bicycles, cause significant problems. We then had to have the Parking Places (Amendments) Bill to introduce the licensing regime. So, in this area then, what are the changing circumstances, the changing environment and the new opportunities that we will need to respond to for our land transport system? Well, we have seen and we will continue to see developments around the private hire car industry, the point-to-point industry – Uber, Grab and various other players. The introduction of those algorithms and their changes to the fares available and the opportunities that commuters took advantage of have been welcomed but they have also driven disruptions and changes to our taxi industry and the people who drive the taxis. We have seen the growth of on-demand bus services and bicycle-sharing services and are likely to develop new products, new solutions, to meet those needs and those aspirations that commuters have. Simultaneously, we have had a sense of increasingly diverse needs. We have an ageing population, an increasing number of commuters with mobility challenges and we will need to look at increasing accessibility. We are proud of the number of our services, stations, trains and buses which are wheelchair-accessible or barrier-free.”
“It affects our economy, it affects our happiness, it affects our social life, it affects our family life and our kids’. Transport for education; 15.4 million journeys daily. It supports 1.1% of our GDP, creates 123,000 jobs. This is an important part of our daily experience. But the Government's role in this is not just about operating and effectively managing a feedback channel. We have to act in a certain series of dimensions. We have to firstly safeguard the public interest. In this, we have to look at basic infrastructure, the core components, roads, tracks, stations, depots, railways. These are large long-term investments. And difficult, if not impossible, for a purely commercial interest to take the right kind of perspective, the long-term horizon and balance out the public interest with the opportunity for profit. We also, in the same space, have to think about regulations and safety standards, service quality; we have to ensure that the equipment is maintained and lives up to performance, using levers, such as licences and contracts. But we do not want to remove profit completely. We want to ensure, through our second thrust of work, that we level the playing field to allow private enterprises to step in, to allow businesses to develop new models of work, new commercial operators to come in, to minimise the regulatory barriers and to use as light a touch as possible to have the benefits of commercially-driven innovation and fair practices and a competitive environment for business, to bring to bear those benefits that are available for our land transport system. This can be about the services, the direct provision of services for transport; it can also be about the auxiliary services around transport, inter-operability of the modality of payments, for example.”
“We engage with industry, people who operate our services, the people who run research and development programmes, the trade associations and the unions on policy, regulatory and operational matters. We have engaged with local communities, grassroots organisations, grassroots' leaders, advisors, interest groups and activist groups. My colleagues and I in Punggol may have contributed significantly to some of those 850,000 enquiries over the last year, my apologies to my new colleagues in MOT and LTA. Over the same period of time, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Faishal Ibrahim has started and led the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, now in its second term reviewing the effectiveness of the interventions that they have introduced. They engage in a process of consultation that requires in-depth interviews with a wide range of commuters, pedestrians and active mobility users. A public survey that went out to over 5,000 people, focus group discussions with hundreds of people. Similarly, we have had the Family-Friendly Transport Advisory Panel co-chaired by the Chairman of the PTC, Mr Richard Magnus, as well as our colleague Mr Sitoh Yih Pin. And similar consultative exercises for our Land Transport Master Plans 2008 and 2013. Online surveys, focus group discussions, an international advisory panel, grassroots organisations. Singaporeans have been whole-heartedly engaging in this process, enthusiastically, and, sometimes, not so pleasantly, but, in general, with a view to improving our system and processes and making this work better for them and for our country. This is no surprise because our land transport system is a significant part of our lived daily experience.”
“Over the last couple of years, we have seen the technology around digital motors and battery technology improve to the point where a significant number of power-assisted bicycles have appeared on our roads and e-scooters have appeared on our pavements as a result of which we had to have the Active Mobility Act, dealing partly, amongst other things, with which device goes where and which pedestrian commuter or mobility solution has the right of way. We have seen the appearance of bicycle-sharing service operators, dockless bicycle-sharing service operators. This has significantly improved the last-mile connectivity, but it has also disrupted plans that we have had for docked bicycle-sharing services. It has created a whole set of disamenities and complaints and concerns. The number of HDB cycling towns has now increased to nine, with the paths and associated bicycle parking spaces. And some years ago, finally, I was able to take my folding bicycle on public transport at all times. None of these happened because of any one speech. Many Members of this House have spoken on these matters, many volunteers, many activists, have made representations and there continues to be an on-going serious, significant channel for public feedback. MOT and LTA received, in this year past, more than 850,000 enquiries and points of feedback. In that same one year, 1,000 media enquiries and 200 media releases. A constant process of engaging with academics who are interested in this space. And the academics are a combination of engineers, public policy academics, but also economists and urban planning specialists.”
“There have been new industry models that have affected our public transport framework. We have the Bus Contracting Model where the Government owns all the assets. This model allows us to be far more responsive to changes in ridership, to the needs of commuters, to drive better competition, better efficacy and better efficiency. We have the new Rail Financing Framework, again, hoping to deal with issues of responsiveness and contestability in the market, putting a different emphasis on renewal of assets and the financial sustainability of our public transport infrastructure. We have seen an expansion in capacity, a $1.1 billion programme, the Bus Services Enhancement Programme for 1,000 Government-funded buses, improving capacity for 70% of bus services. We have seen the introduction of City Direct Services, shorter waiting times, new rail lines which have either been built, opened or for which construction has started in Downtown Line, the Thomson-East Coast Line, Jurong Regional Line, Cross-Island Line and extensions to many existing MRT lines. We have seen that trial of free MRT rides in the early morning. All MRT stations now have barrier-free access. All trains have space for a wheelchair and handrails in the central carriage. All bus interchanges are barrier-free: 97% of bus stops and 96% of buses have wheelchair access. And by the end of the year, 2018, this year, we will have 200 kilometres of covered linkways under the Walk2Ride programme.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of thanks to our President for her Address. Sir, my first speech in politics was in November 2009. At that time, I was a volunteer and an activist with Mr Sam Tan at his Radin Mas branch. There was some tea involved, not all of which was drunk. The next thing I knew, I was invited to deliver a speech at the PAP party convention in November 2009. I made a speech about a couple that I had met who ran a bicycle shop and from whom I had bought a bicycle. The speech was about the way they had run their business, they had pivoted to a new business model; and the opportunities that they saw, I suppose, today, I would have used terms like "disruption", "SkillsFuture", "resiliency". But really, my agenda was to talk about cycling and to put across the idea that cycling had an important role to play for commuters. I had a pet peeve about cycling. I had been cycling as a commuter for some time and I found great difficulty as a result of one rule. And that rule was that I was unable to take my folding bicycle on the MRT, except at some very peculiar hours, very early in the morning. And this one rule got in the way of my ideal commuting solution. So, I used that platform to talk about how we should allow folding bicycles on the MRT at all times. Since then, I have made many speeches. Some of them were related to transport, the Bus Service Enhancement Programme, free rides on the MRT in the morning as a way of dealing with congestion, and several more about cycling. Nine years later, I find myself posted to the Ministry of Transport (MOT). Never let it be said, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Members of this House do not have a sense of humour! Much has changed in that time.”
“The option of allowing a re-sit can be understood as being fair. It was a full examination and these were candidates that did not have the opportunity to have their submissions marked. The issue, I suppose, is really to look at those candidates who had a presumptive grade assigned. If you look at that subset, the technique that was used is something that has been used and the model has been developed quite robustly. One can imagine that, on a regular basis every year, there are candidates who, through illnesses or unfortunate circumstances, are unable to submit every component of an exam. In this case, it is only one out of four components of the exam which went missing. Between MOE, SEAB as well as Cambridge Assessments, we have not just a single model but a number of mathematical and statistical models derived to predict, I suppose, or triangulate the final performance of a candidate. This is something we have developed over time. The three bodies involved did their analyses on this occasion and also backchecked the analyses with respect to the outcome for these candidates. It was felt that this was a reasonable proxy. But the choice was then given to the candidates should they wish to re-sit the paper. In the process, none of the other candidates, who had their scripts properly marked and went through the process, were in any way disadvantaged.”
“Sir, each year, about 900,000 scripts are sent to Cambridge Assessment for marking. Cambridge Assessment has shared that this is the first time examination scripts were stolen and it is taking this unfortunate incident very seriously. Cambridge Assessment has assured the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) that they will review their processes to ensure the security of examination papers and scripts and safeguard the integrity of our national examinations. This includes a full scrutiny of the courier services offered by its suppliers. I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his suggestion of using technology to reduce the risk of physical movement of examination scripts. Indeed, SEAB is studying the option of scanning and marking answer scripts electronically. This would potentially reduce the risks, such as theft or misplacement, associated with transporting hardcopy examination scripts. However, given the large volume of answer scripts and number of subject papers offered each year, the implementation of the scanning and electronic marking of answer scripts would have to be carefully considered.”
“If we talk in general terms, we do want some opportunity for privacy, for some opportunity of parental consent and for the child to have some control over the issue, especially if it is an issue that is resolved and is no longer causing any problem or affecting the child. On the other hand, for the same circumstance, you can make an argument that the educators in the Secondary school need to know on the basis of the child's risk of something happening. But not to be prescriptive again, is whether to perhaps remove entirely the family and the child's ability to have some input into that process of privacy. It is a case-by-case basis. We take it and, in general, we would hope that the education service could play a role in helping these children.”
“Sir, the training of teachers involves a number of components with respect to behaviour, cognition, interaction with peers, as well as interaction with adult authority figures, how the students react to and interact with the rules in the environment of the school. It is not something that is an aside; it is something central to how teachers are trained to react to and to interact with the behaviour of students. So, as part of that training, coming out of that, abnormalities of behaviour, abnormalities of adjustments, abnormalities of coping are very much part of what would be considered the core of teacher training. Certainly, a multi-agency approach is taken. I think the Member was asking about the way in which the teachers work with other agencies. But, of course, this is predicated on the consent and understanding of both the students and the family and whether the teacher is aware of the child's condition. There are instances where they prefer for this information not to be shared and to work with community partners or healthcare partners and not actually discuss this with the teacher. It is hard to say whether this is ideal or optimal, because it is a very wide field, and there will be circumstances where it is appropriate for the family, for the child to make that decision and keep the matter private. But, in general, it would be better if the teachers could be involved in this process. But I do not think we want to be prescriptive about this process. Lastly, on the issue of the handover of information from the Primary school to Secondary school – again, it depends on the specifics of the case, about the extent to which the educational professionals are aware of the child's mental health issues.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of students suffering from depression or other types of mental health conditions is difficult to determine as students and parents may choose not to disclose the student’s condition for a variety of reasons. Some remain undiagnosed due to a lack of awareness of the mental health condition or for fear of stigmatisation. Mental health problems among students, including depression, are often the result of multiple factors, including relationship issues at home or among friends, difficulties in coping with high expectations or different demands in school, experiencing setbacks in life or having a family history of mental illness. MOE has been working with agencies, such as MOH, HPB, Institute of Mental Health and MSF, to provide support for our students. Schools monitor the socio-emotional and mental well-being of students, primarily focusing on social and emotional learning and building strong support networks. Our teachers are equipped to identify students in distress, provide timely support and refer them to the school counsellors for counselling support. Those requiring further assessment and intervention will be referred to medical professionals.”
“I thank Dr Tan for the questions. We are reviewing the contracts with our commercial providers, both with respect to the incident as well as with what we will be engaging in going forward. Secondly, as far as stress testing is concerned, yes, indeed, the testing process does include putting the system under some degree of stress and load. In this instance, there were several factors that occurred simultaneously which resulted in a combination of an interaction between two pieces of software and an unusually high load all at the same time. So, this particular instance was not something that was envisioned or tested against. But in general, the system is tested against conditions of stress and load. But, again, we will review and update our procedures, going forward, having learnt from this incident. On the analysis about the two-factor authentication, we will study the issue with respect to the text messages. We were not aware that there is a particular problem at the moment. It may be that the delay varies over time as the load varies over time. So, at particularly busy periods, there may be some lag. This busyness cannot always be associated with the Singpass system itself. There may be other instances of the telecom co-providers being under load, which may also result in some lag. In the long term, our plans for the two-factor authentication on National Digital Identity would, hopefully, get around this with the Singpass Mobile approach that we have briefly described.”