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 7 of 21.
“This helps to identify related TB clusters more precisely and improve our ability to prevent TB transmission. Specifically on multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB), TBCU will be implementing rapid DNA tests for drug resistance testing of all TB cases, reducing the testing duration from eight weeks to just a few hours. By ensuring that TB patients adhere to treatment through Directly Observed Therapy, it has been shown to reduce treatment failures and development of drug-resistant TB.”
“Mr Speaker, tuberculosis (TB) is an air-borne infectious disease. One can be infected with TB through close and prolonged exposure to a person with active TB, such as household members, co-workers and classmates. When infected, most will develop latent TB. Persons with latent TB do not have symptoms and are not infectious. The elderly and persons who have weakened immune systems, such as those with severe medical conditions, are more likely to develop active TB. About one in 10 healthy persons with latent TB will progress to active TB at some point during their lifetime. To control the spread of TB, the Tuberculosis Control Unit (TBCU) adopts four strategies to detect, treat and prevent transmission that are in line with the World Health Organization’s recommendations. These are: (a) Early detection and prompt treatment; (b) Ensuring compliance to treatment through directly observed treatment; (c) Close monitoring of treatment progress; and (d) Tracing and screening of close contacts of infectious cases to identify infected contacts early and offer those with latent TB preventive treatment. In addition, to prevent the importation of TB into Singapore, foreigners applying for work permit in Singapore are screened for active TB. To further strengthen TB management among the medical community, the Ministry of Health (MOH) launched the TB clinical practice guidelines in 2016. These equip the medical community with better knowledge on TB diagnostic tools, treatment regimens and public health measures for TB control. To deepen our understanding of TB transmission and develop better control strategies, TBCU is progressively implementing whole genome sequencing for TB cases.”
“I would like to thank Assoc Prof Daniel Goh for the supplementary questions. Based on our landscape scan, there are multiple transport options for centres which I have already elaborated on during my Parliament Question reply and that are assessed to be able to provide adequate transport capacity to meet our current demand. We have continually grown the capacity of specialised vans to meet the demand over the years. Even if the demand increases, centres can activate committed capacity under the AIC centralised transport service or other specialised transport operators or use private hire cars, such as GrabAssist and taxis, as an interim approach. My short answer is, we are able to meet the demand based on the current supply. In fact, we have some spare capacity, taking into account that our centralised transport service can ramp up the number of specialised vans to be made available. As to the Member's supplementary question on the collaboration between GrabAssist or with taxis, other than training the taxi drivers on how to handle such clients, if need be, should there be capacity for specialised vans that can be provided by these operators, I think we can also extend that collaboration to them as well.”
“The second question is with regard to the collaboration between AIC and the taxi operators and the private hire companies. Is the scope of the collaboration beyond just in terms of teaching the drivers how to handle wheelchair-bound commuters? Is it more than just that in terms of expanding the fleet, for example, into specialised vans and a more direct kind of collaboration between homes and the companies?”
“Mr Speaker, all eldercare centres funded by the Ministry of Health are required to provide transport services for their clients, where necessary, as part of the funding condition. This ensures that clients can access the care services they need. The Government provides transport subsidies for subsidised clients who require mobility assistance. Centres can tap on a range of transport options to serve their clients. New centres can apply for a one-time grant to defray the costs of purchasing a wheelchair-friendly van. Alternatively, centres may engage the appointed transport operators under the AIC centralised transport service to send seniors to and from the centres. AIC also works with taxi operators and private hire car operators to expand the range of transport services available to centres. For example, AIC has engaged ComfortDelgro to provide scheduled transport services for centre clients. From time-to-time, some centres may encounter short-term challenges in accessing transport services. For example, some centres may take more time to purchase and modify a van or to enter into arrangements with their preferred transport operators. When any centre faces transport difficulties, we encourage them to inform us and AIC will work with them to find alternative transport arrangements so that there is minimal impact on client placement. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State. Two questions. The first one is regarding the AIC's centralised transport service. In your view, is there any supply crunch right now in providing the specialised vans and going into the future where there is an extension of the eldercare centres?”
“I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the clarifications. With regard to the last question, there are existing procedures between and among states concerning the exercise of jurisdiction where more than one has jurisdiction. So, I think there is some understanding whereby the contracting states can decide who should be the country that actually prosecutes the unruly passenger. As to Circular 288, currently, we do have similar offences in our legislation but we do review them regularly and, if necessary, we can also include some of them where necessary. With regard to the role of the air marshal as well as the aircraft commander, the air marshals are deployed in the aircraft for a certain reason, and they have very strict rules of engagement. However, should there be a conflict, the commander of the aircraft will take control because he is, ultimately, the overall in-charge of the aircraft. I hope I have answered Mr Dennis Tan's queries. [(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)]”
“For example, India introduced a national No-Fly List in 2017, which identifies unruly passengers and prohibits them from boarding flights. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, the flight ban on the passenger ranges from three months to a possible life ban. We are currently monitoring the development of such No-Fly Lists by the other countries and will assess if it is feasible to introduce and address some of our context in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I agree that we need to stand ready to handle future safety and security threats to Singapore’s civil aviation system. The Montreal Protocol 2014 does not apply to aircraft used in military, Police and customs services. However, we can introduce new or amend legislation if the need arises. In the area of unmanned aircraft, Singapore is actively participating in international discussions on the issue of security for remotely piloted aircraft systems, including at ICAO. We will continue to ensure that we are ready to protect our aviation system from current and future threats, so as to safeguard our reputation as a safe and secure air hub. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.”
“Airlines have internal guidelines which would prevent unnecessary escalation of a dispute or misunderstanding into a serious unruly incident that would require more serious intervention. Airlines also have in place training programmes for their cabin crew. Such programmes equip them with restraint techniques aimed at not imposing unnecessary harm to the unruly passengers as well as to other passengers on board the aircraft. IATA has also provided guidance materials to assist their member airlines with the aim of preventing unruly passenger incidents from happening in the first place and to manage them effectively when they do occur. The guidance provides information on significant risk factors and recommendations to assist in the prevention and management of such events. Mr Dennis Tan asked about the role of air marshals. The air marshal, just like the commander and the other passengers, may also take measures if the air marshal has reasonable grounds to believe that the measures are immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft or persons on board the aircraft from any act of unlawful interference or commission of any serious offence. However, these measures taken by air marshals are subject to any agreement between Singapore and the country that is party to the Montreal Protocol 2014 relating to the deployment of air marshals on board an aircraft for ensuring the safety and security of the aircraft and persons on board the aircraft. Mr Melvin Yong asked if it is possible that a common database of unruly passengers be maintained among aviation authorities. Indeed, some countries that have experienced serious unruly passenger situations have introduced “No-Fly List”.”
“Mr Melvin Yong asked what would constitute as “unruly passenger”. ICAO's guidance material on this matter refers to "unruly passengers” as passengers who fail to respect the rules of conduct on board aircraft or to follow the instructions of crew members and thereby disturb the good order and discipline on board aircraft. ICAO has provided guidance to identify the incidents which involve various types of offences, ranging from assault on cabin crew or passengers, sexual assault, to illegal consumption of drugs on board the aircraft. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked for clarity on the powers of the aircraft commander under the Montreal Protocol 2014. The aircraft commander can impose measures, including restraint, on an unruly passenger and obtain the assistance of the cabin crew, passengers or air marshals. The aim of doing so is to ensure the safety of the aircraft, other passengers and their properties on board. I would like to assure Mr Melvin Yong and the House that the aircraft commander as well as the cabin crew, passengers and air marshals must act reasonably. Protection of the aircraft commander from personal liability would only apply if the aircraft commander had reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger has either committed an offence or is about to commit an offence or an act which may jeopardise the safety of the aircraft or of persons, property or order and discipline on board. The measures taken must also be reasonable. Training is important to prepare the aircraft commander and the cabin crew in properly assessing the situation and responding to unruly incidents in an appropriate manner.”
“For example, on 9 September 2016, a British Airways flight from London, the United Kingdom (UK), to Orlando, the United States (US), was forced to land in Boston in the US after a drunk passenger had tried to get off the aircraft in mid-air. While interventions had been made by the air stewards and pilot to keep him seated, it was subsequently decided to divert the flight to Boston to deplane the drunk passenger. The Bill will enable Singapore to have the relevant legal capacity to exercise enforcement powers and take the necessary action as warranted in such cases. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked who would be punishing the unruly passenger, that is, the state of landing based on where the aircraft lands, the state of registration based on where the aircraft is registered, or the state of nationality based on the nationality of the passenger, or any other jurisdictional bases that are not mentioned here. Clause 5 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts section 4 to provide for the application of the Extradition Act to offences committed on board an aircraft in flight. With the change, any offence committed on board an aircraft in flight is treated as if it had been committed not only in the place at which the offence occurred, but also within the countries exercising the state of registration jurisdiction, state of the operator jurisdiction or the state of landing jurisdiction. Any of these states in whose territory the unruly passenger arrives would be able to take enforcement action to punish him. Extradition of the unruly passenger can happen when there is an extradition treaty in place between Singapore and the state that is requesting the extradition of the unruly passenger and the requirements under the Extradition Act are satisfied.”
“The Government has included all airport personnel, from airport security screeners to check-in counter staff as part of the Threat Oriented Passenger Screening Integrated System (TOPSIS). Airport personnel that are in the TOPSIS are trained to look out for and to notify SPF when they detect any passenger displaying suspicious behaviour. With TOPSIS, airport personnel have become our eyes and ears. They support our security agencies in ensuring that Singapore remains a safe and secure environment for air passengers. Mr Dennis Tan asked about the incidences of unruly passengers in Singapore. Based on the information that I have, there are, on average, about less than 10 cases per year over the last five years, and many of these took place on SIA Group aircraft. And because they occurred on SIA Group aircraft which are Singapore registered, we have the jurisdiction to actually take action against these unruly passengers. The Montreal Protocol 2014 will enhance Singapore’s ability to handle unruly incidents on board a non-Singapore controlled aircraft. This is particularly important as most aircraft operated by foreign airlines are not registered in Singapore. For example, if an unruly passenger commits an offence on board such aircraft while in airspace outside Singapore en route to Singapore, we will be able to deal with the offender when the aircraft lands in Singapore. There are overseas cases of unruly passenger incidents that have caused disruption to flights to the extent that the pilot decided to divert the plane to land and disembark the unruly passengers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Melvin Yong for their comments and support for the Bill. Let me address the points raised. The civil aviation sector is a key contributor to Singapore’s economy. Thus, it is important for us to ensure that Singapore remains a safe and secure air hub. The Government is committed to maintaining high standards of aviation security in Singapore. This includes ensuring that aviation security measures are coordinated and consistently applied across the aviation sector. Civil aviation security policies and implementation of new measures are discussed and decided collectively by a multi-agency committee known as the National Civil Aviation Security Committee, which comprises various Government agencies, such as MOT, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and CAAS. The recommendation for Singapore to ratify the Montreal Protocol 2014 was made by this Committee. The Government agencies also engage with the industry on aviation security issues and measures. Mr Dennis Tan asked why did it take four years before we introduced this new amendment Bill. That is because there is a need to consult the industry widely. At the same time, there is also a timeline for the legislative calendar, and we tried to put this legislation up as soon as possible. The security measures are implemented by the civil aviation operators, such as Changi Airport Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd, ground handling agents, and the airlines operating in Singapore. Compliance with the measures is closely monitored and enforced by SPF. I agree with Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Melvin Yong that the airport staff have a role to play in ensuring the airport and aircraft security in Singapore.”
“Clause 6 empowers the commander of an aircraft to take certain actions, such as restraining an unruly passenger, if the commander has reasonable grounds to believe that a serious offence has been committed on board the aircraft. The commander can also obtain the assistance of a member of the crew, a passenger or an air marshal on board the aircraft in restraining a person whom the commander is entitled to restrain. In addition, any crew member, passenger or air marshal on board the aircraft, can, without authorisation of the commander, take measures under the Act against a person on board the aircraft to protect the safety of the aircraft, or persons or property on the aircraft. Clause 7 accords protection from personal liability to certain persons, for example, the commander of an aircraft, a member of the crew, a passenger or an air marshal, when such persons take action permitted under the Act to protect the safety of the aircraft, or persons or property on the aircraft. Consequential amendments will be made to the Air Navigation Act and the Police Force Act. The Bill will be brought into force in two phases. The provisions establishing Singapore's State of landing jurisdiction will be brought into force after the Bill is passed. This will enhance Singapore's ability to manage incidents of unruly passengers on flights travelling to, through and from Singapore, and give added protection to passengers on these flights before the Montreal Protocol 2014 comes into force. The remaining provisions will be brought into force on the date the Montreal Protocol 2014 comes into force, which will take place after 22 ratifications have been made. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The Tokyo Convention (Amendment) Bill will give effect to the provisions of the Montreal Protocol 2014 and strengthen Singapore's ability to address unruly behaviour on board an aircraft. It will enable Singapore to exercise the State of landing jurisdiction for offences committed on board an aircraft that lands in Singapore, and the State of the operator jurisdiction for offences committed on board an aircraft leased without crew to a lessee whose principal place of business, or whose permanent residence, is in Singapore. These jurisdictions are in addition to the State of registration jurisdiction which enables Singapore to exercise jurisdiction over offences committed on board an aircraft that is registered in Singapore. I will now highlight the key provisions of the Bill. Clause 3 enables Singapore to exercise the State of the operator jurisdiction. The definition of "Singapore-controlled aircraft" is revised to include an aircraft that is leased without crew to a lessee whose principal place of business, or whose permanent residence, is in Singapore. Clause 4 enables Singapore to exercise the State of landing jurisdiction over offences committed outside Singapore on board an aircraft that is not a Singapore-controlled aircraft, which subsequently lands in Singapore with the offender still on board. With this amendment, Singapore can treat any act or omission committed on board an aircraft outside Singapore by an offender who is still on board the aircraft when it lands in Singapore as though it is an offence in Singapore, provided that the act or omission constitutes an offence in Singapore, and take action against the offender accordingly.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The civil aviation sector is a key component of Singapore’s economy, contributing 6% of Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP). Changi Airport’s excellent connectivity to the world makes Singapore a global city and a vibrant economic hub. It also enables Singaporeans to fly to various parts of the world for business and leisure. Unruly passengers can affect the safety of air travel. According to International Air Transport Association (IATA), between 2007 and 2016, airlines reported more than 58,000 incidents involving unruly passengers on flights, or about one incident every 1,000 flights. There was an increasing number of serious incidents that resulted in injury to air crew or other passengers. As air travel grows, the problem of unruly passengers may worsen. Given the importance of civil aviation to Singapore, it is crucial that we uphold Singapore's reputation as a safe and secure aviation hub for all passengers travelling through Changi Airport. Also, as a responsible member of the international civil aviation community, Singapore must do its part to address unruly passenger incidents. That is why the Government will accede to the Protocol to Amend the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, also called the Montreal Protocol 2014 to the Tokyo Convention 1963. The Montreal Protocol 2014 expands the jurisdictional scope of the Tokyo Convention 1963, which Singapore is a party to, by extending the criminal jurisdiction of a Contracting State to include both the State of landing jurisdiction and the State of the operator jurisdiction.”
“I would like to thank Member Foo Mee Har for the supplementary questions. I think these are very pertinent questions. Besides public education, I think there are also other measures that LTA and the Ministry of Transport are implementing to make sure that the use of PMDs is safe on our paths. With regard to public education, the Safe Riding Programme has only started in February this year. So, I urge Members, as well as all Singaporeans, to be a little bit more patient. We will definitely want to step up the public education efforts. At the same time, with the Active Mobility Act being in force since May, I think that will actually serve as a strong deterrent factor for users who ride irresponsibly.”
“I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary question. As what the Minister has said, indeed, PMD use, as well as reckless driving, have become one of the hotter topics, rather than trains and buses. Yes, indeed, I think not only at zebra crossings. Even when the PMD users are actually riding on normal pathways or shared pathways, they have to exercise due diligence and considerations, as well as obey traffic rules. So, public education is important in educating some of these PMD users on how to use the PMDs in a more responsible way. If we are able to achieve that, I think it will be much safer for all users, and we will also be able to achieve our vision of a "car-lite" society.”
“In situations where there are accidents, the first thing that the victim has to do is to report it to the Police so that the necessary investigations can be done. I agree with the Member that, indeed, there has been a rise in the number of accidents involving active mobility devices on public paths. Just to give some statistics, in 2015, we have about 19 cases of reported accidents. And that has increased to 42 in 2016, and 128 in 2017. This is quite a significant increase and we are quite concerned about it as well. And in light of the increase in active mobility-related accidents, we have also engaged the Active Mobility Advisory Panel to review some of the measures that need to be taken, such as the reduction of speed limits on footpaths, whether there is a need for the usage of helmets, and there are also suggestions to dismount and push at traffic crossings, bus stops as well as in crowded areas, and suggestions on the insurance and compensation framework as well. So, I will leave to the Active Mobility Advisory Panel to advise us. They will be meeting and we will take reference from them.”
“I would like to thank the Member for his supplementary questions. The Active Mobility Act as well as the Parking Places (Amendment) Act deals with situations within public places. With regard to the Member's query as to private places, this is really up to the owners of the private places to come up with measures to prevent illegal use of such mobility devices. Of course, if these private entities need assistance, they can also approach us to step up education to educate PMD users on the right habits as well as riding safety. At the end of the day, because these are private places, it is up to the private landowners to exercise the due diligence in preventing such use of PMDs in those areas.”
“LTA has their Active Mobility Enforcement Officers who are stepping up their enforcement actions as well as patrols at all these hot spots where there is a high volume of pedestrians and cyclists. We have also engaged volunteers on the ground to look into educating users on safe riding habits as well. Thirdly, LTA is also adopting innovative solutions to manage this situation. We have embarked on a trial to study the effectiveness of mobile closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in identifying and reducing errant riding behaviour along public paths. If this proves to be effective, I think we will extend it to more places. Right now, we just piloted it to a few areas like in Ang Mo Kio, Yishun and Ubi.”
“I would like to thank the Member, Mr Dennis Tan, for the supplementary questions. And allow me to indulge in answering the very pertinent question, which I think many Singaporeans as well as users of PMDs are concerned about. We adopt a multi-pronged approach to deter reckless riding. One of the measures that we have adopted is education initiatives. We have embarked on a public education campaign. In order to promote gracious sharing of public paths, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) actually launched a wave of communications since early 2017 to raise awareness of the active mobility rules and code of conduct, as well as safe riding habits. And these safety messages have been translated into various languages, including Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, Hindi and Bengali. And LTA will continue to raise public awareness of these new active mobility rules as well as the penalties involved if such rules are violated. At the same time, LTA has also started a Safety Riding Programme since February this year to educate the participants on safe riding practices as well as the rules and conduct under the Active Mobility Act. And this Safe Riding Programme has actually two components. There is a practical component whereby the programme teaches participants how to manoeuvre the bicycles and PMDs safely as well as to react to certain unforeseen circumstances. Of course, there is another component of a didactic lecture which I have already mentioned. In addition to all these educational initiatives, I think the Member is also aware that we have enacted legislative changes, such as the Active Mobility Act, as well as stepping up enforcement actions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to address the unsafe and inconsiderate usage of personal mobility devices (PMDs), we are strengthening public education and enforcement, including the registration of e-scooters. When implemented in the second half of 2018, all e-scooters, regardless of whether they are privately-owned or shared, must be registered and have identification stickers prominently pasted on them. This will facilitate enforcement and deter reckless riding. Under the Active Mobility Act which commenced on 1 May 2018, errant users of e-scooters are also subject to strict penalties. We do not rule out starting a licensing regime for PMD-sharing services at a later phase. However, more time is required to understand their operational and safety processes as these services are relatively new and rather limited in Singapore.”
“But our life anchors often do not answer to questions of economics, even though our economics and physical well-being demand that we answer and respond to these same questions adroitly. In conclusion, the 4G leadership will have to answer these three questions with imagination, conviction and courage. How do we foster trust and cohesion between Singaporeans from different social economic classes who may lead very different lives? How do we rally Singaporeans together when the middle ground may not be so middle or grounded? How do we maintain cohesion among Singaporeans by anchoring them to Singapore as home even when we need everyone to embrace change so as to remain relevant and economically viable? As Prime Minister Lee has said, each generation has to chart its own way. Ours has just begun. With trust and cohesion as our shield and sword, we should be more than alright. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.] 6.23 pm”
“Consequently, it may become harder and politically riskier to prescribe what we think is frankly unacceptable. This may not be apparent in peaceful times, but in times of crisis and uncertainty, hard choices will have to be made. Remembering the words of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, "Whoever governs Singapore must have the iron in him." Indeed, even as a tiny red dot, we must stand up to our principles and beliefs, and we will not be pushed around. The third challenge to cohesion is change. We need to embrace change for survival. We cannot be static. We have all heard this before. But let us face it. There is a place in your heart that just warms up when you visit the same coffee shop or hawker centre that your father brought you to as a kid. You feel a sense of security and joy when you tuck into the same nasi lemak and kaya toast with soft-boiled eggs that had been made by the same folks for the past 20 years. Humans being humans, we anchor our lives to persons, places, moments and experiences that defy the imperatives of economics. These anchors define what is truly "home" to us. I will be honest: every time I see a favourite hawker retire or a coffee shop close, a little bit of a sense of "home" dies in me. Even though I can understand why he is retiring, maybe because his children have all graduated from university. Yes, change is inevitable; we either change or be changed. How we then lead Singaporeans to face and embrace change so as to stay relevant in a world of ever-shortening business and technology cycles and diminishing distances between competitors and yet keep and grow the sense of home within all of us, is a major challenge. The more shared life anchors we have, the more cohesion we have. National Service is one such example.”
“On one side, there may be families who take holidays in European ski resorts without a second thought and, on the other hand, many other families can only afford to take a coach to Malacca for holiday, if at all. These outcomes may be entirely due to a meritocratic system sorting out society and also due to market forces and may be even entirely justifiable from such perspectives, but, in the long run, what will be the effect on cohesion? And what do such outcomes reflect on the values we profess or, at least, claim to profess? The second challenge to cohesion is marshalling the middle ground. It has been said that if one can capture the middle ground, then one is usually victorious in politics. But as we have seen in many post-fact democratic societies, one sometimes wonders what is the middle ground? In most issues in the past, the spectrum of opinion of the polity could be described by a Gaussian distribution, or what we call a bell-shaped curve. If the entire chunk of the bell-shaped curve supports you, you are home. I am not sure if the bell-shaped curve is still so prevalent anymore in the multi-polar world with many different viewpoints and groups. Anyone can publish a blog or be an influencer with a following of thousands. There are now thousands of moderately loud voices versus only several very loud voices in the past. It is getting harder and harder to discern what constitutes the middle ground and what does not. Or whether the middle ground now is simply a collection of smaller interest groups, temporarily coalescing out of shared self-interest and undergoing dissolution soon after? There are now too many choices and voices. How then do we lead and foster cohesion when the middle ground is either not so middle or grounded?”
“The only basic or "daily-living" questions that admittedly still elude us a little are the high costs of living, affordability of healthcare and reliability of our public transport system. The PAP Government, whether current or future, is determined and committed to address these issues together with the people. But this does not mean we do not have challenges that threaten the very basic fabric of our society. These challenges are more subtle but no less fundamental and visceral. One major challenge is how do we maintain cohesion in Singapore? Cohesion is formed from a sense of identity, shared values and singularity in purpose. It is, unfortunately, as abstract as trust. The old challenges of race and religion to cohesion are still there. It will always be a work-in-progress in Singapore. The 3G leadership has evolved and made appropriate changes in giving voice and choice to the people and the 4G leadership should do likewise, albeit in a more challenging environment. But there are other forces at work, such as technological disruptions, the proliferation of fake news and sometimes extremist views and ideologies that we need to be watchful about if we are to protect and improve upon the cohesion we have. To me, there are three key challenges on building cohesion facing Singapore and the new leadership. Let me share them with the House. The first challenge is the widening social and income divide. The gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is becoming more pronounced. How do we keep the country going together when different social classes may be living, literally and physically, further and further apart?”
“Trust not just nurtures and edifies, but, if not betrayed, trust perseveres and overcomes. Trust, with time, reveals and discovers. Trust, is difficult to quantify or value precisely, but, in its absence, renders almost everything else worthless in a relationship. Trust endows us with courage and cohesion, which are what we need going forward. I am not talking about individual courage but courage as a nation and as a people to forge a future together. As Aristotle once said, "Courage is the first of human qualities, because it is the quality that guarantees others". Courage as a group is based on trust. Cohesion is a little bit more difficult to understand. Cohesion is not simply uniformity and does not occur just as a default option due to the lack of diversity. Of course, if a group shares the same genetic, cultural and geographical factors, then cohesion may be much easier to achieve. But the hard truth is that the hand that nature dealt Singapore is not an easy one – Our multiracialism, multi-religion and multiculturalism may be a strength, just as much as it can be a challenge. And we will always have to work through the cards we are dealt, one by one to get the best possible result. This is and will be the work of generations of leaders of Singapore. Just as our Founding Father Mr Lee Kuan Yew had reminded us, "This is not a Malay nation, this is not a Chinese nation, this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion." The challenges are many for the new 4G leadership. Some may think that existential and basic questions no longer dog us. We no longer worry about the roof over our heads, about clean water or having enough food for our children and having a chance to get a decent education.”
“After about 20 years in the mid-1980s, as the 2G leaders began to take on the day-to-day running of the country and things settled down a bit, the people were then asked to air their views. It is no surprise that the Feedback Unit, which was the precursor of REACH, was formed in 1985. This new consultative leadership, could be summed up as "Got Voice but Little Choice". We hear you, and, indeed, we want to hear from you, but we will still have to make the hard decisions because we still know better. After another 20 years, the 3G took over. The 3G team started taking over the responsibilities of running Singapore in 2001 even though the 2G leaders kept a watchful eye. The 3G team formally took over in 2004 with the appointment of the current Prime Minister. Active citizenry was encouraged and this is best encapsulated by the evolution of the Feedback Unit into REACH in 2006. REACH stands for Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home. I think some of us may have forgotten this little factoid. Active citizenry is necessary because the Government recognises that it does not have all the answers. Political and policy solutions used to be formulated for the people. In the 3G age, solutions have to be formulated and implemented with the people. The relationship has now evolved to "Got Voice and Got Choice". What about 4G? Where and how should Singaporeans and their 4G leaders go from here? Whether it is "No Voice and No Choice" or "Got Voice but Little Choice" or "Got Voice and Got Choice", one fundamental force remains over the last 50 to 60 years. And that is Trust. The trust between the PAP Government and the people has largely remained strong over the years, despite the many tests and tribulations.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address at the Opening of the Second Session of the Thirteenth Parliament. President Halimah stressed the importance of leadership in an "uncertain and volatile world" and aptly advised that the 4th generation leadership must "fire up and mobilise" the spirit and energy of young Singaporeans and grow with the people we represent. I cannot agree more. Leadership renewal is well underway with the recent Cabinet reshuffle. Singapore will transit progressively from 3G to 4G over the next two to five years. Each generation of leadership change premises a new social compact – one that is based on a set of core inclusive and shared values; one that also builds on our past and embraces our future. Confucius once said: "Study the past, if you would divine the future". An astute Singaporean political observer once shared with me this: he said that when Singapore was first founded from the embers of the British Empire and the brief interlude in Malaya, the founding fathers of the first-generation leadership saw the need to build the country and its institutions as quickly as possible, in the face of external threats and internal strife. The relationship between the polity and the political leaders could be summed up as "No Voice and No Choice". There was no luxury of space for discourse or time for discussion with the people. People accepted this because existential threats were not rhetorical questions or strategic questions to be answered but they were actually day-to-day issues that needed to be tackled in the business of running Singapore.”
“Chairman, I beg to move that the amendments* standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments clarify ways that HDB and URA can give public notice, when fixing or changing parking charges at their car parks, by publishing these rates in newspapers, publishing the charges on HDB or URA's websites, or in any other way that would secure adequate publicity. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 44, line 32: to leave out "(a)". (proc text)] [(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 8 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Chairman, I beg to move that the amendment* standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment replaces a reference to "public land" in the new section 8P with "public place", which is the specific term that is defined and used in the new Part 3. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 34, lines 31 and 32: to leave out "on public land" and insert "in or at a public place". (proc text)] [(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 7 – (proc text)]”
“Chairman, I beg to move the amendments 1 to 5* standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments make clear that LTA's power to waive parking provision requirements pertains to requirements that are stated in the rules made under the new section 22. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) (1) In page 4, line 24: to leave out "and section 6B". (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) In page 6, line 10: to leave out "Despite section 6A(1), the" and insert "The". (proc text)] [(proc text) (3) In page 6, lines 15 and 16: to leave out "applicable requirement for parking places for that private parking place" and insert "requirements in rules made (or deemed made) under section 22". (proc text)] [(proc text) (4) In page 6, lines 17 and 18: to leave out "applicable requirement for parking places" and insert "requirement in those rules". (proc text)] [(proc text) (5) In page 7, lines 21 and 22: to leave out "applicable requirement for parking places" and insert "requirement". (proc text)] [(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 6 – (proc text)]”
“Chairman, there are five amendments to clause 5, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?”
“I thank Mr Ang for the clarification. As much as possible, we will try to draw yellow boxes as near to the place of residence as possible. We also have to take into consideration the demand for shared bicycle services. If the demand is high, then we will draw more boxes. This is one area where we can actually make use of the data submitted by the bike-sharing operators to determine exactly where the high-demand areas are, and we will draw yellow boxes accordingly. [(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. (proc text)] [Mr Speaker in the Chair] [(proc text) Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 5 – (proc text)]”
“For existing developments undergoing redevelopment or major A&A works, LTA will work closely with URA to implement the new parking standards and to ensure that our limited land resources are put to good use. With regard to Dr Intan Mokhtar's suggestion on provision of parking spaces for despatch riders, LTA will study its feasibility. Mr Speaker, these amendments to our parking provision standards are timely and necessary. Since our last review of the car parking provision requirements, there has been a significant expansion of the public transport network and enhancement in first- and last-mile connectivity. The amendments in the Bill will give LTA a wider range of tools to better calibrate parking provision requirements for private developments. In summary, Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to support car-lite initiatives in a sustainable and responsible manner. Sir, I am confident that the proposed licensing regime will address the problem of indiscriminate parking and allow sharing operations to meet commuters’ needs in a more sustainable manner. The amendments to vehicle parking provision will enable us to calibrate vehicle parking more precisely, so that we can maximise the use of the limited land in Singapore. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.”
“To address indiscriminate parking of privately-owned bicycles, we will continue to provide more parking spaces and step up enforcement where necessary. Next, on the parking provision requirements. I would like to assure Ms Thanaletchimi that when determining the parking provision standards, LTA will take into account all relevant factors, including the development’s proximity to the public transport network and first-and-last mile connectivity. Developments within 400 metres of an MRT station, for example, are considered to be well-connected via public transport. For areas which are more than 400 metres away from an MRT station, there is already an extensive feeder bus network to provide first-and-last mile connectivity. Ms Thanaletchimi also asked about the impact of the new parking provision parking charges. Private parking charges are determined by the market, and may vary based on the specific parking demand, parking availability and building owners’ parking management considerations. As for HDB and URA’s parking charges, HDB and URA takes into account relevant factors, such as the costs of providing car parks, when setting car park charges at a reasonable level. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked a few questions about how we will implement the new parking standards. I would like to clarify that the Bill will allow LTA to prescribe the range of parking lots which private developers have to provide, defined by a lower and/or upper limit. This will apply only to new developments as well as existing developments undergoing redevelopment and major Additions and Alteration (A&A) works.”
“LTA will monitor their performance closely before determining whether to grant them a full licence. We agree with Mr Henry Kwek that is it important that our regulations evolve to keep up with public behaviour as well as new technology and business models. The proposed licensing regime was developed based on feedback on indiscriminate parking from members of the public, LTA’s engagement with stakeholders and interest groups, and the passionate debates we have had here in Parliament. We will continue to track the situation and engage the public and operators to review the effectiveness of these regulations. Where necessary, we can also update the licensing conditions to better address indiscriminate bicycle parking. Some Members have also raised other issues which lie outside the scope of this Bill. I would like to reiterate that the proposed licensing regime under the Parking Places Act aims to address indiscriminate parking. It is not intended to address issues unrelated to parking, such as reckless riding behaviour and cycling path improvements, which were raised by Dr Teo Ho Pin, and maintenance standards and liability issues in the event of accidents, which were raised by Mr Faisal Manap. However, I understand these are useful and pertinent suggestions. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel will be reviewing the active mobility rules to address reckless riding. Maintenance standards and liability issues are covered under the MOU with the operators and all bicycle-sharing operators under the MOU have purchased insurance for riders and third parties. With regard to Dr Intan Mokhtar's query, the licensing regime is for dockless vehicle-sharing operators and will not cover privately owned vehicles and devices.”
“To address Dr Intan Mokhtar's query on enforcement resources, we will use data and technology to enforce more efficiently. We will also cross-deploy enforcement officers where possible, to balance between sufficient enforcement presence on the ground for deterrence as well as the need for prudence and efficiency. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about recovering from the operators the costs of the licensing regime, including the cost of providing yellow boxes and QR codes. We have invested in providing bicycle parking spaces to support active mobility and our car-lite vision. Hence, we do not intend to charge operators for rental of surface-level bicycle parking spaces and will continue to allow residents who use both private and shared devices, to use these spaces. Under the licensing regime, LTA can require the operators to provide additional parking spaces if needed. As far as possible, we intend to recover the costs of the licensing regime through licence fees. Ms Thanaletchimi cautioned that the licensing regime should not result in high barriers to entry and innovation. We do not intend for the licensing regime to be unduly onerous for operators. However, the licensing requirements are costs which should be internalised by the operators in the course of their business as they reflect the social disamenities caused and efforts needed to address them. To reduce barriers to entry for new operators and encourage innovation, we are considering implementing a "regulatory sandbox" for new operators with no track record. We recognise that new operators could benefit from a trial phase as they scale up their operations and learn how to manage their fleet responsibly. They would be granted a much smaller fleet and subjected to a subset of the full licence requirements.”
“Under the Street Works Act, LTA can fine users who are identified as parking improperly. However, it is often difficult to catch users red-handed. As operators can track the whereabouts of their bicycles, they are better-placed to detect and prevent indiscriminate parking from occurring in the first place. Nevertheless, LTA will continue to see how we can better enforce against improper parking under the Street Works Act, including using information from the operators to identify hotspots for enforcement. Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested differentiating the fine amounts for individuals based on age and income. It is not possible to do so as the law has to be fair to all individuals who have committed the same offence. Ms Joan Pereira suggested imposing a fine on users who are caught using someone else’s identity to rent a vehicle when they have been banned, while Dr Intan Mokhtar suggested compulsory community work for repeat offenders. We will study these suggestions. Ms Thanaletchimi asked if LTA could consider waiving the financial penalties for operators who have done their due diligence to discourage users from parking indiscriminately. I would like to clarify that operators will not be penalised if their users park indiscriminately. Users will be penalised for parking indiscriminately through the collective ban. Through geofencing, if users do not return their vehicle to a proper parking area, they will not be able to end their trip and will continue to be charged by the operators. However, LTA will take regulatory action against the operators if they do not remove the indiscriminately parked vehicles in a timely manner, and if they do not comply with other licence conditions, such as implementing the collective ban.”
“For example, if users take a photo of a QR code and use it to park anywhere outside of the specified parking location, they will not be able to end their trip because the QR code does not match with the GPS location of the shared bicycle. Where a QR code has been vandalised, users will still be allowed to end their trip if they take a photograph of their bicycle parked within the bicycle parking area and submit it within the operator’s application. LTA will also act promptly to replace QR codes which have been damaged. At the same time, LTA will continue to study other ways of geofencing to strengthen our capabilities to pinpoint the location of shared bicycles. Third, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Intan Mokhtar spoke about the measures which will be put in place to engender greater user responsibility. I would like to clarify with Dr Intan Mokhtar that under the MOU with existing bicycle-sharing operators, LTA has worked with the operators to implement GPS-enabled geofencing and geo-tag bicycle parking spaces in their mobile applications. With this function, users can plan ahead for where to park before they start their journey. Despite this, there are still irresponsible users who choose to park indiscriminately. Hence, it is necessary to take firmer steps to deter irresponsible user behaviour. We will do so through the collective ban. Users will also not be allowed to end their trips with the operators until the bicycles are parked within designated parking areas. In other words, irresponsible users who park indiscriminately will continue to be charged until they park properly. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested that the Government hold users accountable for improper parking, instead of relying on operators to do so.”
“LTA will continue to work with JTC to implement more parking spaces in industrial areas. The data that the operators provide to LTA on the distribution of shared bicycles will also help us better plan parking provision, including providing more bicycle parking spaces at areas with high demand. I share Ms Thanaletchimi's view that the provision of shared device parking in private developments would improve convenience for their tenants and visitors. LTA is working with the operators to have them reach out to condominium managements, foreign worker dormitory operators and commercial buildings to allow for the parking of shared devices within these developments. However, the decision to allow shared devices to be parked within their premises ultimately rests with the private developers. QR codes will be installed at all public parking spaces at MRT stations, bus stops, parks and HDB estates. I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira that these parking spaces will continue to be open to all privately-owned and shared bicycles. Private users can continue to park their bicycles at these spaces as they currently do today, and operators do not have to rent these parking spaces. Allowing shared bicycles to be parked at public parking places benefits members of the public who use these services. Ms Joan Pereira also asked about how QR code-enabled geofencing would work and whether its potential downsides can be mitigated. QR codes complement the accuracy of GPS-based geofencing. Safeguards will be put in place to reasonably ensure that the scanning of static QR code geofencing cannot be "gamed". Each parking location will have a unique QR code and users will only be allowed to end their trip if the scanned QR code matches the GPS location of the parking location.”
“Section 8K imposes obligations on operators to keep accounts and records, and to provide information to LTA. This can include data on the location of each deployed vehicle, so that LTA can track indiscriminate parking and enforce more effectively by leveraging data and technology. LTA will put in place safeguards to protect the information, including implementing controls to limit access to the database. To ensure that dockless bicycle-sharing remains attractive to users, and to prevent indiscriminate parking, several Members spoke about the importance of having adequate parking, and I agree. While it is not possible for us to always have parking at our doorsteps, we are striving to have parking spaces available within a short walk of most households and key destinations. Currently, there are over 170,000 bicycle parking spaces which are well-distributed across Singapore. More than 99% of public homes and 90% of private homes are within a five-minute walk from bicycle parking. There are also public bicycle parking areas close to more than 80% of key destinations, such as polyclinics, community centres, schools and town centres. We will continue to work with HDB, Town Councils and other public agencies to provide more parking spaces where there is demand. Fifty thousand bicycle parking spaces will be added by 2020 at MRT stations, HDB estates and parks. To address Ms Joan Pereira’s suggestion of sheltered bicycle parking, we will try to locate bicycle parking spaces within sheltered areas as far as possible. However, this may not always be possible in areas with site constraints. Ms Joan Pereira will also be pleased to note that in industrial estates and business parks, JTC has already designated more than 50 parking zones for shared bicycles.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their queries, suggestions and unanimous support for the Bill. Let me first address Members' queries on the three key features of the proposed licensing regime. First, Mr Gan Thiam Poh expressed his support for LTA's management of the size of each operator's fleet by setting a maximum fleet size. LTA will review the fleet sizes regularly. Operators who manage their fleet well can apply to LTA to grow their fleet. This will ensure that they grow their fleet sizes in a more sustainable manner and are incentivised to put in place measures to manage the indiscriminate parking as they grow their fleet. LTA will use a bottom-up approach and consider each application on its own merits. This is because the fleet size needs to take into account how well each operator manages his business to maximise utilisation and minimise disamenities. With LTA managing the fleet size of each operator, operators will be incentivised to deploy their limited fleet wisely, instead of flooding public bicycle spaces with unused shared bicycles. LTA will also monitor the situation and, if necessary, step up the expansion of bicycle infrastructure. Second, LTA will be able to impose licence conditions as well as set industry-wide standards, to address indiscriminate parking. With regard to Dr Teo Ho Pin’s suggestion on the penalty framework for licensees, we will look into it as LTA works out the implementation details of the licensing regime. We would also like to assure Dr Teo Ho Pin and Dr Intan Mokhtar that LTA will take strong action against repeated or serious infringements of licence requirements, including revocation of the operator's licence. Mr Faisal Manap asked about the data requirements under the new section 8K.”
“However, this is operationally cumbersome. We are, hence, amending the PPA to empower the LTA Superintendent and HDB’s and URA’s Deputy and Assistant Superintendents to prescribe parking charges for HDB and URA car parks, via clause 7 of the Bill. In view of the volume of decisions to detain vehicles found abandoned or parked unlawfully, and to improve operational efficiency, clause 11 amends section 15 to allow the Superintendent as well as authorised officers to also make these decisions on his behalf. Mr Speaker, this Bill will facilitate more sustainable growth in the use of shared active mobility devices and allow LTA to calibrate parking provision more precisely. This will bring us a step closer to our vision of a car-lite Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Clause 12 inserts a new section 15C to make it an offence to provide false or misleading information in licence applications. The penalty, on conviction, is a fine of up to $10,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both. Let me now turn to the second set of changes proposed in this Bill, which is the management of parking provisions. PPA was last amended in 2005 and needs to be updated to prepare for a time when we will rely less on cars. Today, PPA allows LTA to make rules on the number of parking places or spaces to be provided on any type of land or buildings. Private developments have to provide a specified minimum number of parking lots. Clause 17 introduces a new section 22 which empowers LTA to make rules prescribing the range of parking lots which private developers have to provide, defined by a lower and/or upper limit. This will enable LTA to better calibrate parking provision requirements for private developments. LTA will release more details by the end of the year. Clause 5 introduces a new section 6A which allows LTA to approve proposals to provide parking lots in accordance with rules made under the new section 22. Alternatively, LTA can administratively approve parking provisions, taking into consideration factors, such as the proximity to the development of public transport facilities, or the availability of other parking places in the vicinity. This will allow developers to trial new concepts of space and land planning, and new parking concepts, such as hub car parks in future car-lite precincts. The Bill will also amend the PPA to improve the operational efficiency of HDB and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) car parks. Today, the PPA requires the Minister for Transport to prescribe parking charges for HDB and URA's car parks.”
“This means that an individual who has been found to have parked improperly at least three times in a calendar year when renting from one or more operators, will be banned temporarily from renting from all operators. The majority of users are responsible and park the shared vehicles in designated parking areas. However, there are irresponsible and inconsiderate users who do not do so. It is important to hold them accountable. Under the licensing regime, LTA can direct operators to impose a time-limited ban on users who repeatedly park the shared vehicles indiscriminately. To this end, section 8L authorises licensed operators to share among themselves information on users who have improperly parked vehicles in a public place. The information sharing will be limited to the extent necessary for implementing the collective ban. Let me quickly touch on a few other provisions related to the licensing regime. LTA will be able to leverage data and technology to improve enforcement. Section 8K imposes obligations on operators to keep accounts and records, and to provide information to LTA. This can include data on the location of each deployed vehicle so that LTA can remotely track indiscriminately parked vehicles and enforce more effectively. Section 8M also requires operators to provide information when requested by LTA for enforcement purposes. Failure to provide information to LTA under sections 8K and 8M will be offences. Section 8Q empowers the Minister for Transport to make safety directives to minimise the risk of death or serious injury to individuals, or damage to property arising from dockless vehicle-sharing services. Under section 8R, licensees or licence applicants can appeal to the Minister for Transport against certain LTA decisions under the new Part 3.”
“This will create the right incentives for operators to put in place processes to manage indiscriminate parking and ensure that each operator grows its fleet in a more sustainable manner. Second, the licensing regime will give LTA regulatory levers to require operators to manage indiscriminate parking. Under sections 8G, 8H, 8N and 8O, LTA will be able to impose and vary licence conditions on each operator, issue directions, and set industry-wide "standards of performance" on the service provided by licensees. For example, under section 8N(2), LTA will set industry-wide standards relating to the use of geofencing and on the frequency of removal of indiscriminately parked vehicles in a timely manner. Under section 8P, LTA can take regulatory action against operators who fail to comply with its directions, standards of performance or licence conditions, such as the maximum fleet size. A range of regulatory action is provided to LTA to enable a better calibrated response to non-compliance by licensees. Regulatory action ranges from reducing the maximum fleet size, imposing financial penalties of up to $100,000 for each instance of non-compliance, suspending or even cancelling licences. Clause 11 also amends section 15 of the PPA to empower appointed enforcement officers to remove and detain abandoned vehicles which were used in the provision of unlicensed vehicle-sharing services or parked in contravention of any written law. Third, LTA will direct licensed operators to work together to collectively ban individuals who persistently park improperly in public places.”
“Section 8 defines public places as state land and land controlled or managed by a statutory body, where the public has free access. Vehicle-sharing services that operate only in private land, or in areas where the public does not have free right of access, will not be covered by the licensing regime. Examples include private land, such as shopping malls, places where access requires proof of identity, such as military camps or ticketed attractions like the Singapore Zoo. Third, we will not regulate docked vehicle-sharing businesses whose vehicles must be hired from or returned to exclusive vehicle docking stations, such as Vélib in Paris or YouBike in Taipei. A bicycle rental business operating from a shop is also excluded from the licensing regime if its customers must return the bicycles hired to the shop. The nature of such services makes them less likely to cause parking-related disamenities. The licensing regime has three key features. First, LTA will manage the size of each operator’s fleet. This will be done by using its powers under section 8G to impose licensing conditions, including conditions on the maximum fleet size that each operator can deploy. Given the scale of the indiscriminate parking problem today, LTA will take a more conservative approach in setting the fleet sizes at the start. However, we will review the fleet sizes regularly. Operators who manage their fleets well can apply to LTA to grow their fleets. In assessing applications to increase fleet size, LTA will take into account factors, such as the operator’s ability to manage indiscriminate parking by its users, its fleet utilisation rate, and other relevant factors, such as the demand for the service and availability of parking spaces.”
“LTA, the National Parks Board (NParks) and Town Councils have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with bicycle-sharing operators in October 2017. The MOU contains guidelines for the responsible operation of bicycle-sharing services in public spaces and educating users on proper parking behaviour. In addition, LTA has impounded indiscriminately parked bicycles which were not removed by operators within half a day and fined operators. Since mid-last year, LTA has issued more than 2,100 removal notices and collected about $180,000 in fines and administrative fees from the operators. Despite these efforts, the problem of indiscriminate parking remains. To strengthen LTA's levers to deal with indiscriminate parking, we propose to introduce a licensing framework for active mobility device-sharing operators. I have spoken about this during my Ministry’s Committee of Supply (COS) debate earlier this month and many Members in the House have expressed their support. Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a new Part 3, which consists of new sections 8 to 8T setting out the proposed licensing regime. It will be an offence to operate without a licence under section 8C. If convicted, unlicensed operators will face a fine of up to $10,000, or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. A further fine of up to $500 will be imposed for each day the offence continues after conviction. Next, allow me to elaborate on the scope and key features of the licensing regime. I would like to highlight three points about the scope of the licensing regime. First, the licensing regime will cover dockless vehicle-sharing services for active mobility devices, such as bicycles, PMDs and PABs. Second, the regime is focused on sharing services that operate in public places.”
“This will, in turn, allow us to maximise the use of the limited land in Singapore and free up space to improve our living environment. Let me explain each of these changes in turn. The first set of amendments pertains to the licensing of dockless vehicle-sharing operators. Dockless bicycle-sharing started just over a year ago and has expanded rapidly. There are now more than 100,000 shared bicycles in Singapore. There are many advantages to dockless bicycle sharing. First, it omits the need to build expensive docks. Second, it provides the convenience for Singaporeans who wish to use a bicycle occasionally, but do not want the hassle of owning one. Third, users can pick up the bicycle at the start of a journey and drop it off at the end, which is very convenient and offers Singaporeans more travel options. This has, in turn, helped to encourage active mobility in Singapore. Unfortunately, indiscriminate parking of shared bicycles has marred this positive development. The bicycle sharing operators have exacerbated this problem as they grew their fleets too quickly in a bid to capture market share. There are also inconsiderate and irresponsible users who leave bicycles outside of the designated parking spaces. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has worked hard to address the problem. LTA has been increasing parking infrastructure for bicycles. There are now over 170,000 public bicycle parking lots at Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations, bus stops, HDB estates and parks. LTA and other public agencies plan to provide another 50,000 more bicycle parking lots by 2020. Collectively, they provide ease of accessibility without cluttering our urban landscape, a balance we need to strike even if some users prefer bicycle parking lots right at their doorstep.”