Lam Pin Min
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time". This Bill, together with the Active Mobility (Amendment No.”
“It is timely for us to put in place a regulatory framework to ensure that active mobility devices being brought into and used in Singapore are safe. This is a key step in helping us put in place a safe and sustainable active mobility landscape in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 1.55 pm”
“Clause 6 facilitates the transfer to and vesting in the financial security provider of a seafarer's rights against a shipowner as a result of any liability arising from the shipowner's obligation to repatriate the seafarer. For example, the liability to pay the seafarer's wages and entitlements.”
“Mr Speaker, to ensure a safe and high-quality blood supply for our patients in Singapore, pre-donation interviews are conducted to screen blood donors for risk factors and blood donations are also tested for blood-borne infections. However, infections can only be detected some time after the blood donors have been infected.”
“I thank the Member for that clarification. As far as I know, not all mental conditions will be excluded from blood donation. In fact, we have checked with HSA. There is a wide spectrum of mental illnesses – from very mild mental conditions to very severe conditions.”
“I think we must be cognisant that the reason why they are inmates is because of certain things that have happened, prior to that. That actually pre-disposes them to some high-risk behaviours.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,050 lines we hold for Lam Pin Min, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 21.
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 22 to 25 together, please?”
“Ultimately, PMDs offer a very convenient mode of commuting around Singapore and they are integral to our transport network and provide us with a car-lite alternative, especially for short distance trips. I would like to urge Singaporeans to be patient because many of these measures have been implemented only very recently. I believe, with time, we will be able to see significant improvements to users' behaviour as well as indiscriminate parking. With regard to the sandbox licences, more announcements will be made when we are ready.”
“I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the supplementary questions. They are more or less related. Yes, we had quite a comprehensive debate many months ago on the issue of bike sharing as well as the use of PMDs. With regard to the PMD-sharing services regulatory framework, there are several key considerations that LTA will take into account when promulgating that in 2019. One is that we will take into account recent experiences from licensing the bike-sharing operators, that is, looking into ways to prevent indiscriminate parking and the abandonment of shared PMDs. In addition to that, there are also some issues that are very specific to PMDs, like fire risks, charging issues as well as like third-party liability insurance. LTA has been making an effort to ensure that PMD use as well as bike-sharing remains safe in the community. We adopt a multi-pronged approach, one of which is public education where we work closely with the various operators to educate users on safe and responsible riding. LTA also has broad-based measures to improve active mobility safety. I think Mr Dennis Tan is also quite familiar with these, one of which includes the registration of e-scooters which will be implemented in early 2019. We also have stricter penalties for errant users. We will also be lowering the speed limit on foot paths from 15 kilometres per hour (km/h) to 10 km/h. At the same time, we will be implementing the UL2272 standard to reduce fire risks of motorised PMDs. Last but not least, of course, will be infrastructural improvement. We will be building more dedicated cycling paths as well as widening footpaths at locations where there is high pedestrian and cyclist volume.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, personal mobility devices (PMDs) provide convenient transport options for first- and last-mile connectivity. PMD-sharing services will allow more Singaporeans to use PMDs as they will not need to own or carry them around. However, it is important that operators provide such services without causing public disamenities. Drawing on the lessons from regulating the bicycle-sharing industry, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is taking a cautious approach to regulating the nascent PMD-sharing industry. Key issues being studied include fire risks and charging issues, as well as the need for third-party liability insurance. When licence applications commence next year, operators will be allowed to apply for sandbox licences for small-scale operations with limited fleet sizes. This will limit the impact of their operations and allow LTA to assess the operators' operations and ability to comply with regulatory requirements before LTA considers granting any full licences for large-scale operations in the future. The safe use of PMDs is a shared responsibility between users, operators and the community. LTA is strengthening public education and enforcement for all PMD users. LTA will also be introducing an e-scooter registration regime from January 2019 onwards. Under this regime, all e-scooters, regardless of whether they are owned by private individuals or PMD-sharing operators, will have identification stickers prominently pasted on them. This will facilitate enforcement and deter reckless riding. To ensure a smooth transition, LTA will engage the user community and will give a transition period for users to comply.”
“I would like to thank Mr Pritam Singh for the two clarifications. On the first clarification, many hospitals do have a protocol to prioritise the appointment given to patients according to the severity of the conditions. If the condition is deemed to be urgent, then the appointment given will be much shorter or almost immediate. And if the condition is assessed to be not urgent, then the appointment date given can be much further away. It could be a few weeks or a few months, depending on the type of condition. As to the feedback given by one of his residents, I would find it hard to believe that only one day in a week will be assigned for colonoscopy for subsidised patients, considering the fact that the department in SGH is actually a large one with multiple specialists performing such procedures. But I think that needs to be clarified with SGH. With regard to the second question on the number of foreign patients that were being seen in 2017, the number is actually 10,900 attendances which actually constitutes only about 1.5% of the total attendances seen in Singapore.”
“The priority of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and public healthcare institutions (PHIs) is to serve Singaporeans' healthcare needs. Our PHIs are not allowed to actively market themselves to foreign patients. MOH has also recently asked PHIs to cease any contracts with service providers to assist foreign patients referred for medical treatment in Singapore. Today, none of our PHIs have contracts with such service providers anymore. There are foreign patients who travel to Singapore to seek medical treatment on their own accord. Between 2013 and 2017, such patients make up about 1.5% of the total inpatient and day surgery attendances at our PHIs. Those whose referrals were supported by contracted service providers constituted about only 0.4% of attendances in PHIs that had such contracts. Singaporeans remained the majority of patients treated in the PHIs. Foreign patients have not impacted our PHI's delivery of services and subsidised appointment slots given to Singaporeans. In fact, the median waiting time for new subsidised specialist appointments has improved steadily from 28 days in 2013 to 22 days in the first half of 2018. MOH will continue to work with our PHIs to ensure that meeting Singaporean's healthcare needs remains our priority.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 and 5 together?”
“I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for his supplementary questions. Just to put things in perspective, there are actually several measures that LTA prescribes to ensure that the noise emission levels from buses are kept to within permissible levels. One of which I have mentioned in my reply is the procurement specifications with regard to the buses that the companies purchased. Of course, the other will be the maintenance requirements. On top of that, there are also other mitigating measures put in place. For example, our land development agency, such as the Housing and Development Board and Urban Redevelopment Authority have development guidelines to set back residential buildings away from major roads. Take, for instance, the building setback distance from expressways is 30 metres, and for major arterial roads it is about 15 metres. In addition to that, land is also set aside for the National Parks Board to plant trees and shrubs along the road to absorb the traffic noise. With regard to specific driver behaviour, fortunately, the number of pieces of feedback of noisy buses received by LTA is currently quite low. Most of them largely pertain to public bus interchanges situated near housing estates when buses are departing in the early morning hours. LTA, together with the National Environment Agency, are working very closely with the public bus operators to see how we can regulate the movement of the buses in these interchanges so as to minimise the noise emitted that is causing inconvenience and disamenities to nearby residents.”
“Mr Speaker, all public buses are required to meet the noise emission standards stipulated in the Environmental Protection and Management (Vehicular Emissions) Regulations. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) ensures compliance by stipulating stringent procurement specifications on vendors and strict maintenance requirements on public bus operators, including regular inspections to check that noise levels are within permissible limits. Meanwhile, LTA will be conducting trials with 50 diesel-hybrid buses starting in late 2018 and with 60 electric buses from 2019. If they prove cost-effective, we will be able to migrate our buses to a quieter fleet.”
“Like I mentioned, pilots are bound by the Air Navigation Order where they are not supposed to consume any form of drugs or psychoactive substances or alcohol if they are performing any flying duty. Right now, under the Air Operator Certificate requirements, Singapore carriers have to instruct the pilot to abstain from alcohol consumption at least eight hours before flight, in what we call bottle to throttle time. There is currently no random blood testing conducted in Singapore. However, there are spot checks specifically performed by CAAS during ramp inspections. And so far, CAAS has conducted over 900 such ramp inspections since 2013 and has not detected any pilot showing signs of alcohol intoxication.”
“Mr Speaker, most civil aviation regulators, including the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), hold their airlines responsible for ensuring that their pilots do not operate aircraft whilst intoxicated. Specifically, CAAS requires Singapore carriers to ensure that their pilots do not consume any alcohol at least eight hours before flight, wherever they operate in the world. In addition, Singapore has strict rules for pilots who fly out of our airports, regardless of whether they are operating Singapore or foreign registered aircraft. Every pilot has the responsibility to ensure that he does not operate a flight while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Doing so is an offence under the Air Navigation Order and carries a penalty of up to $100,000 and/or five years' imprisonment upon conviction. Based on records from CAAS, there has not been any case of pilots consuming alcohol or drugs before boarding aeroplanes in Singapore. To proactively identify and manage individuals that may have alcohol-related issues, Singapore carriers have set up peer support groups. These support groups provide a non-punitive approach for pilots to seek support and treatment. Such peer support groups are recognised internationally as an effective measure to identify such pilots at an early stage to rehabilitate them, or to remove them from flying duties where necessary. Operating an aircraft while intoxicated is a serious matter. CAAS is reviewing the regulations and procedures to more strongly deter such behaviour.”
“I would like to thank Dr Intan Azura for the supplementary question. With regard to this particular incident, it is a human error whereby a wrong application code was applied. Of course, we will put in place measures to ensure that such errors can be picked up early or even prevented right from the outset. As to Dr Intan Azura's suggestion of using new technology or block chain technology to enhance the security of such a system, MOH will seriously look into it.”
“I would like to thank Assoc Prof Daniel Goh for the supplementary question. As the error was executed as a result of the IT vendor changing the application code without informing IHiS, the fault actually lies with the IT vendor. I will leave it to IHiS to manage the situation with the respective IT vendor.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Ms Joan Pereira for the supplementary questions. The suggestions are reasonable. In fact, variants of this practice are already being done in many clinics. When medications are dispensed in clinics, it is common practice for the doctors to advise patients at the point of prescribing, for example, alerting the patients to any dosage adjustments to their regular chronic medication. And it is also the responsibility of the clinic licensee and doctors to ensure that there is proper process of verifying the prescriptions during dispensing of the medicines to the patients. The Ministry of Health (MOH) will continue to work with practitioners as well as the professional medical bodies to improve patient safety and medication safety and minimise any possible medication dispensing errors in the future.”
“Following a system upgrade by an information technology (IT) vendor for general practitioner (GP) Connect implemented on 1 September, some GP clinics encountered problems where some medication labels were printed wrongly. While the correct medication and the total quantity of medication were correctly dispensed, the system printed the wrong Unit of Measurement (UOM) on the label. Several clinics were aware of the error and manually corrected the dosage instruction on the label. Once notified, Integrated Health Information System (IHiS), the public healthcare IT agency and owner of the GP Connect system, investigated the incident, informed all affected clinics from 2 September, and provided support to the clinics. IHiS has been monitoring the situation. No further errors have been reported since 3 September. Affected patients were monitored by the clinics and, to date, there have not been any reports of adverse effects. Investigations revealed that the IT vendor had made some changes to the application code which resulted in incorrect medication labels being printed. These changes were unrelated to the upgrade. Hence, the user acceptance tests designed to evaluate the upgrade did not pick up the error. The vendor also did not report any errors from the other tests done. Since the incident, additional rounds of testing have been conducted to ensure that existing functions within GP Connect are working as designed. The "Unit of Measurement" function is also being enhanced to prevent future errors. IHiS is also thoroughly reviewing testing procedures prior to future software rollouts to prevent such occurrences. In addition, they will step up monitoring of software rollouts and improve their response to better support users.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 12 and 13 together?”
“I would like to thank Mr Zainal Sapari for the supplementary question. Indeed, these are issues that LTA, together with MOT, do grapple with to see how we can best address them and, of course, one of the ways to address this issue is to encourage PMD users to purchase third-party liability insurance. We will work with the General Insurance Association as well as insurance companies to explore ways to make third-party insurance more affordable and more accessible. We are also considering whether we can include the option of bundling third-party liability insurance into the sale of the PMDs so that when PMD users purchase their PMDs, it comes with third-party liability insurance as well. [(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 Lam Pin Min.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the comment and I agree with her that safety of the users is paramount. I have also mentioned that we will work with the Member to see how we can address some of these concerns. There can be other mitigating measures like making those vulnerable areas Pedestrian Priority Zones (PPZ) so that PMD users will exercise due diligence and caution when approaching such places and also, for road users or pathway users, to exercise caution as well to prevent potential incidents from happening. I take it that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is very passionate about this issue and that she is very concerned about the safety of her residents and so are we, and we will work with her to see how we can best address these concerns.”
“I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for that clarification. Indeed, he is right. Other than those avenues that I have mentioned, most importantly, we need to educate road users, path users as well as PMD users on the right etiquette to ride responsibly and safely. With that, we hope that such incidents or accidents can be minimised.”
“There may be many blind spots present. And for this, Town Councils can choose to enact their own by-laws relating to the use of active mobility devices in void decks. Like I have said, LTA will be happy to find out the details from Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on the incident or the example that she brought up, and we will work with the Town Council to see how we can better address some of the safety concerns in those areas mentioned by the Member.”
“I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the two supplementary questions. On her first question on compensation avenues, currently there are three ways where the victim of accidents can seek compensation. The one which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah mentioned was through a private settlement via mediation. Of course, if the parties can reach an agreement, such an agreement can be enforced via a contract. The other possible avenue where victims can seek compensation is through civil action, that is, to pursue a civil claim. For this, the victim may have to initiate legal proceedings against the cyclist or the person who caused the injury. And if the Court rules in favour of the victim, then the Court will order the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff. The last modality where victims can seek redress is to file a Police report of the incident and the Police will then carry out investigations to establish the cause and liability and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, the offender may be charged for offences like speeding or reckless riding under the AMA or for causing grievous hurt to others by a rash act under the Penal Code. If the offender is found guilty, then the Court may also decide on the compensation amount that the injured person will receive. On the second question on the Town Council by-laws, AMA applies to all public paths, including paths in Town Council areas. Therefore, Town Councils are not allowed to ban PMDs on paths or enforce any by-laws that differ from the provisions in AMA. AMA will take precedence. The only exception to this are void decks. Void decks are excluded from AMA because they are not critical for connectivity and the safety concerns at void decks are also stronger because of the layout, such as pillars.”
“To answer Mr Louis Ng’s question, OEOs are subject to broader checks and balances when exercising their statutory powers, including possible judicial review, as are other enforcement officers, such as the Police and LTA officers. Mr Melvin Yong asked about the qualifications and training of OEOs. Suitable qualifications include the private security guard licence as well as relevant security industry certifications, such as Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ). LTA will also ensure that the OEOs are suitably trained and have the necessary skillsets to carry out their functions safely and efficiently. I would also like to clarify with Mr Louis Ng that the amendment to section 50 of the AMA provides OEOs with the power to seize vehicles which are connected with offences under the AMA, such as non-compliant PMDs. OEOs will not be granted powers of disposal under the AMA. Mr Louis Ng also asked why the Bill removes the need for LTA to locate the owner prior to disposing of a vehicle under section 53 of the AMA. This is because section 50 of the AMA already requires LTA to notify the owner, if known, of the seizure. Mr Melvin Yong asked whether the proposed penalties for causing damage to road infrastructure are sufficient to deter companies. Apart from raising the fine for intentionally engaging in conduct causing damage from $10,000 to $100,000, LTA also retains the option of suing for the full cost of repairs. Mr Speaker, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken on this Bill and the many valuable suggestions and comments they have given. In summary, this Bill supports our vision for a better and safer transport system by enhancing LTA's enforcement and regulatory powers. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.”
“For those users who may require more assistance to comply, we will explore what we can do to assist them. Mr Dennis Tan also asked about whether PMA users would be allowed on roads if the footpaths are obstructed. It is not an offence for PMA or PMD users to ride on roads in such a situation, but they should travel along the road only for the distance necessary to avoid the obstruction. Ms Joan Pereira, Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Melvin Yong expressed concern about fires caused by motorised PMDs. As earlier mentioned, we intend to require all motorised PMDs used on public paths to conform to the UL2272 standard. We intend to prohibit the sale of devices that do not comply with UL2272 from July 2019, and use of these devices on public paths from January 2021. I would also like to clarify with Mr Gan Thiam Poh that this is a separate initiative from the e-scooter registration regime. Devices will be certified according to UL's testing requirements. I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Melvin Yong for their support for the amendments relating to outsourced enforcement officers (OEOs). I would like to reassure Members that we have put in place many safeguards to prevent the abuse of powers. I have earlier mentioned the explicit authorisation that they will have to receive from the Chief Executive of LTA on the powers they can exercise. They have to be in uniform and display their identification card. To address Ms Thanaletchimi’s concern, uniforms will make the OEOs more recognisable to the general public. We will also undertake publicity measures to ensure the public is aware of the powers conferred on the OEOs.”
“Legislatively, we have also provided for deregistration if LTA is satisfied that the device has ceased to be used on any footpath or shared path, and if the device is wholly unfit for further use. This is intended to cover scenarios like a deceased person's next-of-kin applying to deregister a PMD with sufficient proof of disposal, or when the PMD has deteriorated and is no longer serviceable. Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Louis Ng asked how registrants should deal with changes of ownership or when their PMDs cease to be used. If the registrant has sold his PMD to another person, he should apply to LTA to transfer the registration to the buyer. If the registrant has ceased to use the PMD, there is currently no legal obligation for him to deregister the PMD. However, it is in his interest to do so as he would otherwise continue to be held responsible for the PMD. LTA will facilitate this by reminding registrants to deregister their devices if they are no longer being used. Owners should also ensure that their PMDs are properly disposed of to prevent subsequent misuse. This will ensure that they do not face the situation of continuing liability that Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Louis Ng highlighted. Mr Melvin Yong asked how the 10 km/h device speed limit will impact genuine users of PMAs. We share his concern, too. This is why AMAP has consulted agencies involved in eldercare and with the disability community. We understand that occupational therapists do not generally recommend devices that travel above 10 km/h for the patients' own safety. AMAP also found that the vast majority of PMAs available in the market today already comply with this device speed limit. Thus, genuine users of PMAs should have little difficulty in complying with the new criterion.”
“As Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Louis Ng pointed out, ultimately, the key is for Singapore to develop a safe and gracious sharing culture for our public paths, where everyone plays a part in keeping our paths safe. I will now move on to address the Members' questions on the Bill. I thank Members for their support of the e-scooter registration regime. As mentioned earlier, applicants will have to declare that their device is compliant with the device criteria upon registration. Ms Rahayu Mahzam had suggested undertaking measures to ensure continued compliance with the device criteria. We will consider appropriate measures and will continue to enforce against non-compliant devices found on public paths. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Louis Ng asked about the parties that can register PMDs. Companies can own and register PMDs. We will take into account Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Thanaletchimi's feedback when deciding on the age for individuals who wish to register PMDs. Mr Louis Ng asked whether LTA can refuse to register PMDs for individuals who were previously convicted of active mobility-related offences. However, prohibiting the individual from registering a PMD does not prevent them from riding PMDs that they rent or borrow. Instead, it is better to educate them on safe riding behaviours. This is why we have made it mandatory for reckless riders to attend the SRP before they may compound their offence. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the circumstances in which PMDs can be deregistered. We expect the bulk of deregistrations to be due to applications by the registrant, and LTA deregistering non-compliant PMDs.”
“It is probably not necessary at the moment to have mandatory training, but we will certainly expand our outreach and engagement efforts to all members of the public. Our active mobility infrastructure also helps to safeguard the safety of path users. I would like to reassure Mr Melvin Yong that we have already started implementing measures, such as appropriate signs reminding active mobility device users to slow down or watch out for traffic. We will continue to do so. Mr Louis Ng asked about the width of footpaths. New footpaths with no adjacent cycling paths will now be 1.8 metres wide, wider than the previous minimum width of 1.5 metres. Apart from this, we are building dedicated cycling infrastructure where possible and introducing pedestrian priority zones (PPZ) at locations along cycling paths with potentially high pedestrian-cyclist interactions. We will continue to improve our infrastructure island-wide, but these will take time to implement. I would also like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the clarification on an example of disallowing the use of PMDs in Town Council areas. I would be happy to get more details from her on the case and advise her accordingly. But it will be sufficient for me to remind Members of the House that the AMA serves to ensure that all public paths are made available for the use of active mobility users, and that rules are applied consistently so that users will not be confused with different rules at different areas. I hope I have addressed the Members' concerns about active mobility safety. As with the introduction of any new mode of transport, it will take time for all user groups to adjust.”
“Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Melvin Yong have asked about online retailers of PMDs. Where feasible, LTA engages online marketplace operators to remove postings of non-compliant devices, most of which are agreeable to doing so. However, some online retailers are based overseas which limits our ability to enforce against them. Ultimately, PMD users must also exercise caution and take personal responsibility in choosing the device to buy and ride on public paths. It is in the consumers' interest to check that the devices they buy comply with the device criteria. Non-compliant devices will not be allowed to be registered, and those used on public paths will be confiscated. We will continue to monitor the situation, including studying Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Dennis Tan's suggestions to raise public awareness of the legitimate retailers who sell compliant devices and of the popular device models which comply with our device criteria. As Mr Ang Hin Kee, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Rahayu Mahzam have highlighted, educational efforts are important to cultivate a culture of safe and gracious path sharing. We have rolled out several public education outreach initiatives along with the Safe Riding Programme (SRP) for active mobility users. As I earlier mentioned, over 9,000 riders have gone through SRP since it was launched in February this year. Delivery riders, such as those from Deliveroo, have also attended the programme. We encourage all active mobility device users to attend the SRP to learn and practise safe riding behaviours. Let me also reassure Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Melvin Yong that we will continue to do our utmost to educate active mobility interest groups, schools and the migrant worker community on safe riding.”
“LTA's team of 50 Active Mobility Enforcement Officers (AMEOs) have issued over 3,000 advisories for unsafe riding on paths. With enhanced enforcement powers under the AMA since May 2018, LTA has stepped up its enforcement efforts and has detected over 1,300 active mobility offences between 1 May and 15 August 2018. The measures in this Bill, including the PMD registration regime and the empowerment of outsourced enforcement officers, will further strengthen our enforcement efforts. I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Melvin Yong for their suggestions to adopt technology in our enforcement efforts. LTA is conducting a trial to study the effectiveness of mobile closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) in identifying and reducing errant riding behaviours along public paths. We will continue to explore how technology can enhance and complement our enforcement efforts, so as to allow us to be effective while being manpower-lean. We enforce strictly against retailers in Singapore that sell non-compliant devices for use on public paths. LTA recently conducted an enforcement blitz against 18 retailers and seized a total of 18 PMDs and two PABs for non-compliance. We agree with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on the need to continue to enforce against such errant retailers and will continue to take a strong enforcement stance towards them. We also wish to inform Ms Thanaletchimi that LTA can require retailers to display notices about the different types of devices and the relevant device criteria at their premises. To address Mr Dennis Tan's concern, members of the public are encouraged to report retailers who willfully misrepresent the device specifications to LTA and we will not hesitate to take firm action against such retailers.”
“The Ministry of Manpower, LTA and the Traffic Police have issued a joint circular to delivery companies with concrete suggestions of steps they can take. Delivery companies should monitor the riding behaviour of their riders, for instance, by providing an avenue for public reporting, and also train and educate their riders on the active mobility regulations and safe riding behaviours. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Joan Pereira also spoke about increasing penalties for riders who cause serious injury to victims. Under AMA, individuals who ride recklessly can face up to $5,000 in fines and up to six months' imprisonment. Those who cause grievous hurt can face even higher penalties under the Penal Code. In the case of a rider riding rashly, he can face up to $10,000 in fines and up to four years' imprisonment. To answer Mr Dennis Tan's query, the criminal justice system has different mechanisms for dealing with offenders who are under the age of 21. I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan and Ms Thanaletchimi for raising other potential areas for review, including pillion riders, handphone restrictions and an incentive-based system to encourage safe riding. While these issues lie outside the scope of this Bill, I assure Members that we work closely with AMAP to continually review our active mobility rules and regulations, and we will take these suggestions into account when discussing the key areas of review with AMAP. I would also like to reassure Mr Melvin Yong that we will certainly monitor the situation after AMAP's recommendations are implemented, and review the measures as necessary, depending on the prevailing situation. I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheng Li Hui that we also undertake strong enforcement efforts.”
“This includes mandating the registration of e-scooters, implementing a device speed limit of 10 km/h on personal mobility aids (PMAs), mandating helmets for active mobility device users on roads, and mandating "stop and look" at traffic crossings. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Zainal Sapari, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Melvin Yong called for third-party liability insurance to be made mandatory. AMAP had considered the impact of this on the diverse group of active mobility users and determined that it was ultimately more important to prevent accidents from happening in the first place. We agree with the Panel and will instead strengthen regulations to safeguard the safety of path users. With regard to Ms Rahayu Mahzam's suggestion of tapping on the Small Claims Tribunal for personal injury claims up to $20,000, we understand that the Tribunal does not hear personal injury claims. Instead, we have accepted the Panel's recommendation to raise awareness of, and accessibility to, existing avenues of seeking compensation, such as working with the Singapore Mediation Centre on making mediation more readily accessible. As Mr Ang Hin Kee and Miss Cheng Li Hui have suggested, we will continue to strongly encourage and promote the take-up of third-party liability insurance, focusing on large employers of active mobility device users, such as food delivery companies. Some companies, such as Deliveroo, already provide insurance for their riders and we encourage all other companies to do so as well. Miss Cheng Li Hui pointed out that food delivery companies also need to play their part to ensure their riders ride safely. We agree. This is part of their duty under the Workplace Safety and Health Act.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their queries, suggestions and support for the Bill. Let me first address Members' concerns about active mobility in general before moving on to the specifics of the Bill. Several Members of the House have emphasised the importance of safety on public paths. I cannot agree more. When the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) released its recommendations on measures to enhance path safety in end-August and when the Government announced our acceptance of the recommendations in early September, we similarly heard many comments about path safety, with some members of the public advocating for PMDs to be completely banned from public paths. Mr Speaker, to address Assoc Prof Randolph Tan's question, our view is that active mobility has brought benefits to many Singaporeans. It provides more first- and last-mile options and complements the more traditional modes of transport. Active mobility devices provide new mobility options to those with walking difficulties and relatively cheap and convenient options for commuting or even for the purpose of work. Many Members of the House, including Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam, have acknowledged these benefits. Rather than banning these devices, we should strike a balance to allow us to harness the potential of active mobility while mitigating the disamenities. We have, therefore, put in place a system of rules and regulations to govern the usage of devices on public paths. Each measure should not be seen in isolation. We also complement these with strict enforcement efforts, widespread education measures and infrastructural improvements where we can. We recently accepted AMAP's recommendations to further improve the safety of path-sharing.”
“With advances in technology, many transactions and notifications can now be done via electronic means like email and short message service (SMS). In line with our Smart Nation and Digital Government strategies, the Bill amends the various land-transport Acts to allow LTA to serve notices through electronic means, instead of solely through hardcopy letters. This will simplify the notification process and enable faster response by the recipients. LTA will obtain the person’s consent, whether express or implied, for the use of the electronic mode of service before issuing electronic notices to the person. To facilitate this, LTA will also expand the use of its Vehicle Registration and Licensing System (VRLS), which currently allows persons to submit RTA applications and documents electronically to LTA, and allows LTA to serve RTA notices electronically through the system. New sections 43 and 43A of the LTA Act will expand the scope of VRLS to cover applications, documents and notices under all land transport legislation administered by LTA. The final set of amendments are miscellaneous amendments to update provisions in certain Acts or to bring them in line with other Acts. Mr Speaker, this Bill will make LTA more effective in enforcing, managing and regulating the transport system. This will provide a better and safer transport landscape for all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Another example is that the OEOs are conferred the power to examine vehicles used on public paths to ensure compliance with the AMA. The Bill demarcates what powers these OEOs can exercise. In addition, the Chief Executive of LTA will have to explicitly authorise which of the OEOs can exercise which of these powers. The Chief Executive of LTA will also have the power to specify where and when these OEOs can exercise these powers. The Bill expressly prohibits an OEO from exercising any power of arrest. It also requires them to be in uniform and show their identification cards when exercising their powers. The third group of amendments increases penalties for persons who damage public streets. There have been several major oil spills and collisions between over-height vehicles and overhead structures, such as pedestrian overhead bridges, in recent years. These endanger the safety of road users, disrupt traffic, and incur high repair costs. Under the SWA today, it is an offence to cause damage to public streets willfully, but it is not an offence if the action in question is reckless or negligent. To deter such behaviour, clause 74 of the Bill changes sections 33 and 34 of the SWA in two ways. First, it will be an offence to recklessly or negligently engage in conduct causing damage, with a penalty of up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment up to six months. Second, the maximum fine for intentionally engaging in conduct causing damage is correspondingly increased from $10,000 to $100,000. There is no change to the maximum jail term of six months. LTA retains the option of suing for the full cost of repair. The fourth set of amendments facilitates LTA’s efforts to serve notices electronically.”
“To facilitate the introduction of UL2272 as a technical standard for motorised PMDs, clause 35 introduces a new section 67A into the AMA. This allows LTA to refer to external technical standards without having to reproduce the text of the external material as part of the rule in Singapore. We will then prescribe the requirement for motorised PMDs to comply with the UL2272 standard as a device criterion under the Active Mobility Regulations. Meanwhile, we strongly encourage owners of motorised PMDs to switch to UL2272-compliant devices as soon as possible in order to minimise the fire risk of their devices. When purchasing PMDs, consumers should try to buy from reputable sources and look out for fire safety standards. Consumers should also avoid overcharging batteries, modifying their PMDs or tampering with the electrical components of the PMDs. The second set of amendments will strengthen LTA’s enforcement capacity. Today, LTA has a team of over 50 Active Mobility Enforcement Officers and cross-trained officers who enforce against errant active mobility users and indiscriminate bicycle parking across the island. However, LTA’s active mobility enforcement demands have grown tremendously over the past few years and will continue to rise as active mobility becomes more popular. To meet LTA’s increasing enforcement needs, clause 39 introduces new sections 11, 11A and 11B to the LTA Act to allow LTA to appoint outsourced enforcement officers (OEOs) to exercise limited enforcement powers. LTA will be able to contract suitable individuals to exercise limited enforcement powers against selected offences, such as indiscriminate parking of bicycles.”
“To implement this, the Bill amends section 2 of the AMA to introduce a definition of a "non-compliant mobility vehicle" as a mobility scooter or motorised wheelchair that does not comply with regulations as to the construction of the device. The Bill also amends the AMA to prohibit the use of non-compliant mobility vehicles on public paths, and to prohibit the sale of such devices by retailers for use on public paths. This is similar to the treatment of non-compliant PMDs. Apart from improving safety on public paths, we are also concerned about the issue of fire safety. There have been more than 80 fire incidents involving motorised PMDs since 2016. These pose serious public safety concerns. Currently, many of the motorised PMDs sold in Singapore do not conform to any reliable safety standard. LTA has studied the safety standards available today and determined that the Underwriters Laboratories (UL)2272 standard is suitable for application for motorised PMDs in Singapore. UL2272 is developed by an independent United States (US) certification company. Conformity with the standard under UL2272 can significantly improve the safety of motorised PMDs against fire and electrical hazards. For public safety, we intend to require all motorised PMDs intended for use on public paths to conform to the UL2272 standard. We intend to prohibit retailers from selling motorised PMDs which are not UL2272-compliant from July 2019 onwards. Existing owners of motorised PMDs which are not UL2272-compliant can continue to use their devices until end-2020. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new section 19(3) into the AMA to allow the stipulation of such a grace period of usage. The use of motorised PMDs that are not UL2272-compliant on public paths will be illegal from January 2021 onwards.”
“The Bill also makes amendments to the regulatory regime for motorised PMAs, that is, motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. PMAs enable the elderly and individuals with walking difficulties to move around. In recognition of this need, today’s law imposes fewer restrictions on PMAs. For example, there are currently no restrictions on the width, weight and device speed for motorised PMAs, and they are allowed to be ridden on pedestrian-only paths. Unfortunately, some people have tried to take advantage of this. Irresponsible retailers have been falsely advertising non-compliant PMDs, such as overweight e-scooters with seats, as mobility scooters to circumvent our PMD regulations. This is despite the fact that these non-compliant PMDs are not designed to meet the usual specifications of mobility scooters, which have seats with back support and substantial footrests as their purpose is to carry individuals who are unable to walk or have walking difficulties. In addition to irresponsible retailers, some able-bodied users are also using PMAs to circumvent the restrictions on PMDs. This problem will likely worsen if left unchecked. We have, therefore, accepted AMAP's recommendation to impose a maximum device speed limit of 10 kilometres per hour (km/h) on motorised PMAs. This will reduce the incentive for able-bodied users to switch to motorised PMAs and safeguard the use of such devices for those who have genuine needs. At the same time, this 10km/h device speed limit will not significantly impact genuine users. Most of the PMAs available today already comply with this speed limit. LTA will work closely with retailers, hospitals and voluntary welfare organisations to help PMA users adjust to the regulation.”
“The applicant will also be required to declare that his e-scooter is compliant with the width, weight and maximum motorised speed restrictions for PMDs. This will ensure that only compliant e-scooters are ridden on our public paths. It will be an offence to make a false declaration during the registration process. Once an e-scooter is registered, the registrant will be issued with a registration mark containing a unique registration number assigned to the e-scooter. The registrant will also be required to make and affix an identification mark, in the form of a sticker, prominently on the e-scooter. Under the new section 20A of the AMA, it will be an offence to ride the e-scooter on public paths without displaying the registration mark or identification sticker. This will make e-scooters more easily identifiable to enforcement officers and to the general public. The new section 59A in the AMA also introduces a rebuttable presumption regime for certain active mobility offences. This is similar to the provisions under the RTA for driver-related traffic offences. If the individual owner of a bicycle, power-assisted bicycle, PMD, motorised wheelchair or mobility scooter fails to provide enforcement officers with information about the rider after a certain offence involving that device has been committed, the owner will be presumed to have been the rider who committed the offence. The owner can rebut this presumption by proving that he was not the rider at the time of the offence, such as by showing proof that he was then overseas. This reinforces the duty of owners to ensure the responsible use of their devices, and to assist with the administration of justice.”
“Unfortunately, there are still reckless and inconsiderate riders who endanger the safety of others. Much concern has been expressed, including by Members of this House, about the increase in the number of accidents on public paths. To address this, LTA has stepped up its enforcement efforts since last year and has detected over 1,300 offences since May 2018. Several riders who have caused hurt in accidents have also been charged and sentenced in Court. To further support effective enforcement against reckless behaviour on public paths, I had earlier announced that LTA will be introducing a registration regime for electric scooters (e-scooters) at AMAP’s recommendation. Clause 11 of the Bill thus introduces a new Part 3A to the AMA, consisting of new sections 28A to 28G, which lay out the legislative framework for a PMD registration regime. The registration regime will help instil a greater sense of responsibility among owners and users of PMDs, deter reckless riding behaviour and facilitate the identification of errant users. The new Part 3A make registration mandatory for the types of PMDs that the Minister prescribes in subsidiary legislation. As recommended by AMAP, we will start with the mandatory registration of e-scooters, which are motorised PMDs with handlebars. It will be an offence to ride, or to cause or permit to ride, an unregistered e-scooter on public paths, knowing that, or reckless as to whether the e-scooter is unregistered. The applicant will be required to provide his personal particulars which will be stored in a register. This will facilitate the tracing of the person responsible when investigating offences involving a particular e-scooter.”
“This Bill has five main components: the first enhances our laws to improve active mobility safety, including introducing a personal mobility device (PMD) registration regime; the second augments LTA's enforcement capacity by empowering outsourced enforcement officers to exercise certain powers of LTA officers, in particular, for certain active mobility offences; the third increases the penalties for persons who cause damage to public streets; the fourth facilitates LTA's efforts to serve notices electronically; and lastly, the Bill makes miscellaneous amendments to update provisions in the various Acts. Let me explain each of these changes in turn. The first set of amendments enhances our laws to improve active mobility safety. Active mobility, which includes walking, cycling and the use of PMDs and personal mobility aids (PMAs), has brought benefits and additional transport options to many Singaporeans. Some individuals use PMDs to take on food or package delivery jobs, while the elderly and those with walking difficulties use PMAs to get around more easily. The AMA came into force in May this year. This laid down the framework of path-sharing rules and regulations, such as where devices can be used and what speed limits they have to adhere to. This was based on the recommendations made by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) in 2016 after extensive public consultation. There are many responsible device users and cyclists who watch out for other path users, ride at safe speeds, and dismount and push their devices at crowded areas and at traffic junctions. We have also undertaken many efforts to educate and encourage safe riding practices. Since February 2018, there have been some 9,000 participants in the Safe Riding Programme.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Land Transport Authority (LTA) undertakes a very wide range of functions which have grown over time. Among others, LTA regulates public transport operators, develops and maintains our road and path networks, regulates vehicles and devices used on our roads and public paths, and enforces against a wide range of transport-related offences. LTA is also faced with a constantly changing transport landscape. In particular, the increased use of active mobility in recent years has required LTA to step up its enforcement efforts to strike the right balance between promoting active mobility and ensuring the safety of other users of public paths and roads. The Land Transport (Enforcement Measures) Bill (LTEM Bill), therefore, amends seven different land transport-related Acts to strengthen LTA's enforcement capacity and enhance safety on our public paths and roads. These seven Acts are: (a) the Active Mobility Act (AMA), (b) the Bus Services Industry Act (BSIA), (c) the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (LTA Act), (d) the Parking Places Act (PPA), (e) the Rapid Transit Systems Act (RTSA), (f) the Road Traffic Act (RTA), and (g) the Street Works Act (SWA).”
“I would like to thank Dr Chia for those two suggestions. As to the first one, whether we will consider collecting a data of minors undergoing aesthetic or cosmetic surgery in private hospitals, we will look at this suggestion. As for the guidelines for cosmetic or aesthetic surgery for minors, we will consult the Academy of Medicine whether this would be feasible.”
“Mr Speaker, over the last five years, one person under the age of 18 had undergone a cosmetic surgery procedure, namely, a double-eyelid creation, in our public hospitals. The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track cosmetic surgeries done in the private hospitals. The Singapore Medical Council's (SMC's) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines stipulate that minors, defined as those under the age of 21, have to obtain their parents' or legal guardians' written consent prior to undergoing invasive procedures. This requirement applies to both public and private hospitals. For aesthetic procedures in particular, SMC's ethical guidelines stipulate that doctors must give patients a "cooling off" period to reconsider their decision before proceeding with the treatment. Also, they must not offer aesthetic procedures to minors, unless independent professional assessments indicate that these procedures are truly in their best interest. MOH's assessment is that these safeguards are appropriate.”
“I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for that suggestion. I think the COE bidding system does not work this way. But nonetheless, we can it take back and take a look and see what we can do about it.”
“I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I think at this point in time, we do not have an intention to prevent that. But, of course, the Ministry will continue to monitor the bidding patterns and, if necessary, we may make changes in the future.”
“I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary question. Like I have mentioned, it is not an uncommon practice for bidders to come in at the last minute to bid for additional COEs. In fact, if I look at the bidding patterns, just over the last two to three months, about 20% to 26% of the bids were actually submitted in the last two minutes of most of the bidding cycles.”
“I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the supplementary question. As I have mentioned in my reply, the last-minute bids that came in towards the end of the bidding cycle is a common practice, not just only in Category D COE but also in all classes of COEs, and this is not unusual. In fact, COE prices, like I mentioned, fluctuate based on the supply and demand. And like I have mentioned in my reply, the COE prices have come down from $8,000 to about $4,300 in the most recent September bidding cycle. With the tiered Additional Registration Fee, we have a very progressive ownership tax structure that favours buyers of motorcycles with a low Open Market Value. And I have also mentioned that we have already stopped the contribution of COEs from Category D to the Open Category. This also increases the supply of motorcycle COEs in the market. And, more importantly, besides our concern about the occasional increase in COE prices, the Government will also continue to enhance our public transport network and promote active mobility to create more commuting options for Singaporeans.”
“The majority of motorcycles also attract a much lower Additional Registration Fee (ARF) of 15% of the Open Market Value of motorcycles, compared to at least 100% for cars. COE prices fluctuate based on demand and supply. In fact, Category D COE prices have been falling steadily this year, from approximately $8,000 in February, to $4,390 in the latest September bidding cycle. While we have not observed any irregular bidding activity or market manipulation, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will continue to monitor the situation closely. We are mindful of the needs of motorcycle owners and businesses and are prepared to review the COE regulations if and when warranted.”
“Mr Speaker, for auctions with a fixed end time, it is common to see a spike in bidding activity near the closing time. We have seen this effect in Certificate of Entitlement (COE) bidding over the years and across all COE categories. For the COE bidding session ending on 8 August 2018, 305 bids were received for Category D for motorcycles in the last two minutes. These were submitted by 25 different bidders and the bid numbers were generally small. Only one bidder submitted two block bids of 25 each. The bids also came in at different price points, which does not suggest any price collusion. The Member has suggested raising the COE bid deposit and shortening the validity period for motorcycle Temporary COEs (TCOEs). Both suggestions are not cost-free to the motorcycle buyers. While raising the bid deposit may encourage dealers to be more prudent in submitting the bids, the higher bid deposit will raise costs for dealers. If the Temporary COE (TCOE) validity period is shortened, dealers may need to maintain a larger inventory of motorcycles to meet demand. This will increase business costs. High business costs will mean higher prices for the buyers. Shorter TCOEs may also make it more difficult for buyers to obtain motorcycles immediately. In designing the COE system, we are mindful that motorcycle owners have different needs from owners of commercial and private cars. Our COE system, therefore, sets aside a separate Category D for motorcycle buyers so that they need not compete with commercial and private car owners. The cessation of the contribution by Category D to the Open Category since May 2017 has helped to stabilise the supply of motorcycle COEs.”
“Centres are also advised to conduct daily health checks on their staff members and to monitor for persistent cough amongst staff members. But I must caution that, sometimes, it can be difficult to diagnose TB because many of us do suffer from a bout of cough in one way or another throughout our lifetime and, unless the cough becomes persistent, then these employees should be encouraged to approach the medical practitioner to screen for active TB. Once the staff are diagnosed to have active TB, of course, they will not be permitted to return to work until they have been cleared to be fit for work by the medical practitioner.”
“I thank Mr Melvin Yong for the two supplementary questions. Mr Melvin Yong is right to say that the prevalence of latent TB amongst the elderly Singaporeans is quite high, in the region of about 30%. The reason for that is because TB was endemic in Singapore and was very common until the 1970s. As a result, it is not unexpected to see the prevalence of latent TB to be higher within the older age group. However, he is also right to say that not all patients with latent TB will develop active TB eventually. Five percent of those who acquired latent TB may get active TB within the first two years and another 5% may develop active TB within their lifetime. Based on these statistics, it is probably not necessary and not cost-effective to do screening or treatment of all patients with latent TB. With regard to public education, yes, we have put up information on TB on our MOH websites and through press releases. In addition to that, the Health Promotion Board also runs a special social hygiene campaign to promote good hygiene practices and also to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases. During our annual World TB Day, TBCU also holds exhibitions at Tan Tock Seng Hospital to educate the public on TB. We will step up efforts on public education and we will also encourage the elderly to visit some of these exhibitions so that they are aware of the symptoms and what to look out for in case they do develop active TB. With regard to the Member's second question on the screening of employees in preschools, under the Childcare Centres Regulations, all new staff members are required to undergo a medical check-up which includes a chest X-ray and be certified free from active TB by a registered medical practitioner before they can start work in a preschool centre.”