Lui Tuck Yew
Singapore
“What they do is that they report to me on a three-monthly basis. After the December 2011 incident, I felt that the way LTA was overseeing the operators needed some improvement. In the past, we were looking at the outcomes and the indicators that we get every so often.”
“SMRT has also combed through the tunnels to ensure that there are no other leaks with water dripping onto trackside installations and will be installing data loggers at all traction power substations within the next two months to better monitor the condition of the insulators.”
“But because we think that actually it could have lasted us longer if it was better maintained over the years, therefore, you also take a discount from what the Government would otherwise have to pay. But the formulas are all set out in the White Paper. I believe I have answered the Member's questions.”
“The tight labour market is, indeed, a challenge for the bus industry. To address this, a multi-pronged strategy is needed. To attract more local bus captains, both operators have raised entry level base monthly salaries by about $400 since the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) commenced in 2012.”
“Over the past three years, there were 355 cases of fare evasion and 162 cases of passengers assaulting taxi drivers. Passengers found guilty of fare evasion may be fined up to $1,000 and repeat offenders may be fined up to $2,000 or jailed for up to six months, or both.”
“The insolvency of Alpine Bau affected the completion timeline of three stations, namely, Tan Kah Kee, Sixth Avenue and King Albert Park, and their associated tunnels.”
The complete record
Every one of 597 lines we hold for Lui Tuck Yew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“The suspected male intruder was charged in Court on 28 April 2015. To further reduce the likelihood of intrusions onto at-grade tracks, SMRT has strengthened the perimeter fencing between Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Gombak. In addition, SMRT has enhanced their inspections of all at-grade tracks. The Public Transport Security Committee, which comprises Government agencies and the operators, is also implementing a number of additional measures, including installing crash-rated bollards and strengthening structures against forced entry.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) takes into account offences that may affect an individual’s suitability to be a taxi driver. Ex-offenders who have committed extremely serious offences, such as rape, are debarred from obtaining a Taxi Driver’s Vocational Licence (TDVL) for life. Those who have committed less serious offences, such as Page: 124 housebreaking, are debarred for three to five years, after which they can apply. Other offences, such as being a member of an unlawful assembly, do not result in debarment. This calibrated approach is needed to maintain public confidence in the safety of our taxi services, especially as it is common for taxi passengers to travel alone and sometimes late in the night. At the same time, it provides ex-offenders with a second chance.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the feedback. It is something that we are mindful of. In fact, LTA has been stepping up its checks both in response to whistle-blowers as well as mystery shopping that it is doing on its own. In recent months, there were a couple of cases that we managed to catch where these people were flouting the law. Moving forward, if the Member knows more of such cases, or if taxi drivers know of more of such cases, please do report them to LTA. Like I said, we will be happy to step up the checks but also, over time, look more carefully into the issue that the Member has raised, whether there are measures that we need to take, regulations that we need to adopt, in order to arrest this issue.”
“Mdm Speaker, I think the Member has made a fair point. Overall, clause 10 gives LTA the opportunity to more comprehensively assess the potential of a possible player as well as the potential impact that an additional third-party taxi booking service has on our transport landscape. We always need to have that flexibility in order to assess the impact as well as to assess that individual applicant. But I do agree with the Member that all service providers, ultimately, need to assess the market conditions for themselves and the viability of their business case. Our approach and intent are to be light touch, to be facilitative, but we also want to avoid some of the problems that Mr Ang Hin Kee had mentioned where third-party service providers have delays in paying the drivers, refunding monies and so on, and we want to try to minimise Page: 114 those situations as much as possible.”
“If some taxi companies fall short and they claim that it is because their taxis have all been answering to all these other bookings, we can match the information provided by the third-party taxi service providers and the taxi companies. That is the intent behind some of the regulations. In a nutshell, Mdm Speaker, this Bill aims to safeguard commuter interests by implementing a basic regulatory framework for third-party taxi booking services. At the same time, we hope it provides sufficient space for those services to grow and we believe that, over time, as we have seen already, it will benefit both commuters as well as taxi drivers.”
“You choose maybe because you think it gives you a better chance of getting a taxi or, in certain instances, commuters say that "I better choose not to so because if it is too short a distance, or if it is to a far-flung place, the taxi drivers may actually prefer not to take me or respond to my booking". Mrs Lina Chiam had another area of discomfort, which is that the booking fee that third-party service providers can charge cannot exceed that charged by taxi companies. She felt that we should let the free market prevail and let the service providers charge what they wish, to a limited extent. I will explain the reasoning for this. I do not want to give third-party service providers the flexibility to charge higher than the taxi companies because I know that in a very short while, the taxi companies will come back to me and say, since MOT allowed a third-party app to charge $4, instead of $3.30, for instance, as a taxi operator, I also want to do the same. I do not want that to happen, because it will lead to price inflation for the commuter. Today, there is a certain standard that we have arrived at over time. This is what the taxi companies Page: 113 charge, so we require the third-party apps to charge at this level or no more than this level. Mr Seng Han Thong asked whether LTA would look into the existing QoS standards imposed on taxi companies for call booking. So far, we have not observed any significant deterioration in their QoS performance. What we plan is for the third-party service providers to give us their data on bookings and which taxis from what companies answered to these bookings, so that we can match this together with the data provided to us by the taxi companies.”
“Page: 112 Moving on to possible concerns from commuters, Mr Ang Hin Kee may wish to know that third-party taxi booking service providers must comply with all applicable laws, such as the Personal Data Protection Act, and ensure that the privacy of commuters is appropriately safeguarded, as well as the data that they hold. Some service providers collect personal information, such as credit card details, to provide a more seamless booking and payment experience for their customers. There are also other service providers that do not necessarily require such information and these can cater to commuters who are not so comfortable with providing their personal information. Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mrs Lina Chiam voiced some discomfort that the regulations will prohibit third-party taxi booking services from mandating commuters to specify their destination when making a booking. This condition is important. It addresses concerns amongst commuters that some taxi drivers may not accept bookings when they see that the passengers are travelling only short distances, or to certain locations that are more far-flung or where there is a lower chance of picking up another fare on their return journey. We do not want taxi drivers to cherry pick their fares. This is consistent with the approach that we have taken for street hail. So, we need to clarify and make sure that it is properly understood that commuters, if they choose to do so, can still indicate their destination if they want to. Commuters can still choose to indicate their destination if they think that this will increase their chances of getting a taxi. But what the regulations spell out is that they are not compelled to do so. So, the choice is with commuters – you choose or you choose not to.”
“On the other hand, I think Mr Ang has also talked about the need to hold third-party service providers financially accountable because they can exit the market suddenly and they need to treat the drivers fairly. So, we are trying to find the right equilibrium point, the right balance. We need to keep the market competitive so that there is every incentive for service providers to manage their drivers well and provide good services to commuters. It is not good for the taxi industry in Singapore if we just let any and every applicant, even though it may be below the threshold, into the market. As we have seen in Singapore today, we have quite a number of third-party service providers competing with each other. We think that there is actually more room for others to come in as well, provided they are serious players, provided they treat their drivers fairly and provided that they are financially strong and they are able to last the competition in the market. Having said all that, I think there may still be occasional disputes between taxi drivers and service providers. Here, I encourage the National Taxi Association – as the representatives of taxi drivers – to assist them in exploring the avenues of recourse available. And LTA stands ready to assist, if necessary. To Mr Seng Han Thong's query, LTA will modify the Taxi Service Operator Licence to apply the regulatory conditions on third-party taxi booking services to taxi booking services offered by taxi companies, where relevant.”
“One of the more innovative features offered by some apps is the ability to provide post-trip feedback on taxi drivers. Such feedback mechanisms help to improve accountability, which, in turn, enhances safety for commuters and encourages higher service standards. In fact, one taxi company – ComfortDelGro – has recognised this benefit and built in a similar feature in the latest version of its own booking app. So, there you see the interplay between third-party taxi booking apps and some of the features that they have and how it links back Page: 111 to what the taxi companies are doing. And some of these features can actually help to raise the overall standard of the provision of taxi services in Singapore. It is also understandable that third-party service providers would want to set internal service standards for their drivers to meet, so as to differentiate themselves to attract as well as retain commuters. On the other half of the equation, some service providers charge a cancellation fee if a commuter cancels his booking, or ban commuters for repeated no-shows. This helps to protect the taxi drivers to some extent. Overall, there are positive developments which benefit the taxi industry. Mr Ang Hin Kee also spoke about some taxi drivers receiving late payment from service providers, causing them cash flow problems. I understand these concerns. That is why even while we want to try and keep the market competitive, and we do not want to over-regulate, there have to be certain minimum thresholds before we allow some of these service providers into the system. On one hand, certain Members have talked about clause 10 of the Bill and asked why LTA needs some of those criteria to assess an applicant, why not allow this to be a completely free market.”
“Commuters are free to choose which service they prefer, taking into account the charging methods. Mr Seng Han Thong has suggested requiring drivers offering chauffeured vehicle services to hold some form of vocational licence or certification. This is something that we are prepared to consider in the future, if we decide that we need to further regulate the chauffeured vehicle services industry. But at this point in time, I would encourage the service providers to do more to train and to develop the competency of their drivers and to monitor the performance of their drivers more closely. We will continue to monitor the chauffeured vehicle service industry. We will refine the regulations if needed. We know that in many countries and cities, there is a tussle involving the taxi companies and taxi drivers on one side, who feel that the responsibilities on them are much more onerous, versus chauffeured vehicle services on the other side, with a lot less regulation and a lot less pressure on these other services. So, we are watching it closely and Members can be assured that we will take steps, if necessary, to address any concerns that may arise in our current situation. Overall, to sum it up, the chauffeured vehicle service industry is fundamentally different from the taxi industry, even if the line today is no longer as clear as it was before. Also, to some extent, many chauffeurs are today former taxi drivers and they welcome the flexibility of another employment option. So, it is also necessary for us to be quite cautious in how we go about further regulating the chauffeured vehicle industry if we are mindful to do so. Having addressed that, let me move back to the main topic on third-party taxi booking services.”
“They cannot be hailed on the streets or pick up passengers at taxi stands like taxis – this is one distinction between taxi services and chauffeured vehicle services. I know Mr Ang mentioned this point, and we certainly welcome feedback and specific information that we can use to track the individuals and the use of such vehicles so that LTA can investigate this more thoroughly. Chauffeured vehicle services can only use private hire vehicles, which must be registered to business entities. They must also have the necessary insurance cover to be used for hire or reward. Private cars cannot be used to provide chauffeured vehicle services, and any person who does so is liable, on conviction, to a fine, imprisonment and/or forfeiture of his vehicle. The law is clear on the classification of the various types of vehicles and the regulations for each class. The penalties are stiff. LTA will strictly enforce against people who are found to flout the law. Page: 110 Similar to taxi services where fares have been deregulated since 1998, fares for chauffeured vehicle services are also not regulated. Different service providers charge fares in different ways, depending on the type of services offered and market conditions. This, I believe, encourages more competition and provides a wider variety of services for commuters, although commuters need also to be mindful of the terms and conditions before engaging such chauffeured vehicle services. Let me also clarify that it is not against the rules for chauffeured vehicle services to utilise their apps as a "meter" to charge passengers based on distance travelled and/or time taken. Some chauffeured vehicle services already do this, while others offer a flat rate.”
“Page: 109 This is why the proposed regulations will require service providers to ensure that their taxi booking service and any other transport matching service that is offered under the same application are clearly distinguished from each other, for example, by using separate and distinct icons. The differences in charges between these services must also be highlighted upfront and highlighted clearly. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, third-party taxi booking service providers can only dispatch licensed taxis and taxi drivers if the commuter requests taxi services specifically. So, the third-party booking app is prohibited from sending a chauffeured vehicle and charging chauffeured vehicle rates if a commuter books only a taxi on his third-party app. I note also Mr Ang and Mr Seng's concerns over the impact that the growth of chauffeured vehicle services has on taxi drivers, and their suggestion to perhaps consider imposing more regulations on chauffeured vehicle service industry. While this is not within the scope of this Bill, I do acknowledge the concerns raised. Let me briefly outline the Government's current approach towards this issue. Chauffeured vehicle services are not new. They have been available in the market. They are commonly used, especially for corporate trips and special occasions like weddings, for instance. But what is different today is that the technology has made these services much more easily accessible in terms of matching passengers to chauffeured cars more seamlessly, just like how technology has improved the matching of taxis to commuters. There are regulations in place for chauffeured vehicle services. They must be pre-booked.”
“Mdm Speaker, first, let me thank all four Members who have spoken on the Bill and for their expression of support. They have raised a range of different issues. Let me start by addressing those issues that are not covered under this Bill called the Third-Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Bill. Mr Seng Han Thong, Mrs Lina Chiam and Mr Ang Hin Kee gave their comments on distinguishing between taxi booking services and chauffeured vehicle matching services. So, there is a taxi part and there is a chauffeured vehicle part, especially if these are offered by the same service provider on the same smartphone application, and how this could give rise to some amount of confusion. Some third-party taxi booking services in the market today – GrabTaxi, Easy Taxi and UberTAXI – can also match their users to chauffeured vehicle services. This is actually not a bad thing, because chauffeured vehicle services can plug the gap when taxi demand is extremely high. For instance, on some Friday evenings, it can be difficult to hail a taxi on the road, or even to book one. And for those who really would like to pay more just in order to be able to get a ride to their chosen destination, chauffeured vehicle services actually can be the means for them to do so. So, some people welcome the convenience. They do not mind paying more to book a chauffeured vehicle service now and then, especially when demand for taxi services is high. But what we want to do is to make sure that commuters are allowed to choose and receive the service they want and, therefore, we will require service providers to provide clear, and not misleading, information on the different services available.”
“Finally, clause 34(2) amends section 111H of the Road Traffic Act to stipulate the maximum suspension term for a licensed taxi service operator to be three months, for alignment with that for a registered third-party taxi booking service provider. In summary, this Bill accords LTA regulatory oversight over third-party taxi booking services. The proposed regulatory framework balances the need for consumer protection with the flexibility needed for innovation in the industry, so that these services can enhance the provision of taxi services in Singapore and, ultimately, benefit both commuters and taxi drivers. We will refine the regulations as the industry evolves. With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 5.41 pm Page: 97”
“The regulatory sanctions that may be imposed under clause 20(2) include a financial penalty not exceeding $100,000 for each instance of contravention or non-compliance, Page: 96 which is the same as that for taxi companies under the Taxi Service Operator Licence framework; suspension for not more than three months; and revocation of registration. Clause 22 provides the registered provider with the right to appeal to the Minister against the imposition of a compliance measure. Third-party taxi booking services may operate from overseas, especially those that are Internet-based. Hence, clause 6 extends the scope of the proposed Bill to any conduct outside Singapore as long as it is related to the provision of third-party taxi booking services for journeys within, or partly within, Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I will also mention some related amendments to the Road Traffic Act. Section 111A currently defines a taxi service operator to be a person that owns more than one taxi and leases out these taxis to individual drivers. However, as we have seen with the growth of third-party taxi booking services, it is possible that taxi companies' operating models may also evolve. Clause 34(1) of the Bill, therefore, amends section 111A to broaden the definition of a taxi service operator to be a person that owns more than one taxi and allows individuals to drive these taxis to provide taxi services in Singapore. This will enable us to regulate taxi service operators with contractual arrangements with their drivers which are different from today's hirer model, if such should emerge in the future. It will also prevent taxi companies from by-passing regulations by adopting different contractual arrangements with their drivers.”
“Let me cite two examples of the conditions that LTA plans to impose. First, third-party taxi booking service providers must dispatch only licensed taxis and drivers who hold valid Taxi Driver's Vocational Licences, if the commuter requests only taxis. This ensures that such commuters are served only by taxis and taxi drivers who are operating legally. Second, to ensure that taxi services remain a mode of public transport that is equally accessible to all members of the public, bidding and pre-trip tipping for taxi services will not be allowed. Clause 8 enables LTA to prescribe different classes of registration and to vary the conditions imposed for each class, based on the number of participating taxis or the type of communication system through which the service is provided. Amongst others, this will allow LTA to regulate existing radiophone-based service providers who mainly serve commuters in certain geographical areas. The proposed Bill will also empower LTA to impose compliance measures on registered providers. Clauses 17 and 18 allow LTA to issue codes of practice and directions respectively. To enforce a condition of registration, a provision of a code of practice, or a direction, LTA can impose a compliance order under clause 19. Clause 20(1) empowers LTA to impose regulatory sanctions for the contravention of, or non-compliance with, a condition of registration, a provision of a code of practice or a direction that has been issued.”
“Thus, we have chosen a light-touch approach and will only impose basic requirements that are necessary to protect commuter interests and safety and to preserve the fundamental tenets of our taxi regulatory policies. LTA announced plans to introduce such a basic regulatory framework in November last year and has consulted commuters, the National Taxi Association, third-party taxi booking services and taxi companies extensively. I believe that the regulatory framework has the Page: 95 support of all the parties and achieves the objectives that I have described. Mdm Speaker, let me now summarise the key provisions in the proposed Third-Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Bill. Clause 3 requires all third-party taxi booking services with more than 20 participating taxis to register with LTA, in order to operate in Singapore. We think 20 is a reasonable threshold. It allows very nascent services to be exempted from registration, which would provide them some room to experiment before their size reaches the registration threshold. Clause 7 specifies that anyone providing an unregistered service is liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. These penalties are the same as those prescribed in the Road Traffic Act for a person operating an unlicensed taxi company. Clause 11 empowers LTA to impose conditions on registered providers to ensure that commuter interests are safeguarded and taxi regulations are not undermined. These include conditions in the following areas: first, the registered provider's operation, monitoring and supervision of the service; second, the fees that may be charged for the service; and third, the provision of information to LTA, such as live data on third-party taxi booking jobs.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". This Bill seeks to grant the Land Transport Authority (LTA) powers to regulate third-party taxi booking services. These services have become increasingly popular in recent years and Members who take taxis regularly would probably be familiar with smartphone applications, such as MoobiTaxi, GrabTaxi, Easy Taxi, UberTAXI and Hailo. Today, about one-fifth of taxi trips are made via phone or app bookings. Based on the Taxi Customer Satisfaction Survey that we did last year, about 80% of these bookings are made through the taxi companies. In other words, 20% of all taxi trips are made through phone or app bookings, 80% are street-hailed. And of those that are made via phone or app bookings, about 80% are made through the taxi companies. The remaining 20% are made through third-party apps. In short, about 4% of taxi trips today are made through such third-party apps. But it is something that is growing. The introduction of third-party taxi booking apps is a positive development, as they can improve the matching of taxi supply and demand, particularly during peak hours. Commuters who use third-party apps are not restricted to sourcing for taxis from just one taxi company. Taxi drivers, on the other hand, can tap on multiple sources of bookings to get passengers. The third-party taxi booking apps sector is relatively young and it is still evolving. New technologies and business models are continuing to emerge. While the Ministry has decided to regulate, we also recognise the need to allow enough space for the market to innovate and thrive.”
“I want to thank the Member for that clarification. We really want to try and get this in place before the SEA Games. That is really the intent of why we want to have this read a Second time in Parliament and, hopefully, for Members to agree to pass this Bill because the SEA Games are coming, National Day activities are coming. For the rest, they can start to apply to CAAS. Where it takes a little bit longer, we can then discuss this with operators accordingly. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] Page: 93 [(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. – [Mr Lui Tuck Yew]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 94”
“But I understand that not many interested parties have made queries about purchasing such insurance coverage. The UAS Committee has included insurance as part of its work in studying the regulation of unmanned aircraft activities in the longer term. It is not covered in this Bill, but it is certainly something that we are looking at for the next round. Again, we want to try to strike a reasonable balance between facilitating the exploitation of UA and our regulations. In any case, when CAAS evaluates applications for UA operations, for example, from commercial operators, whether the operator has applied for relevant insurance coverage will also be a consideration and could be quite a significant consideration, especially in cases where the UA operation may pose some level of safety concerns. That is something that we will take into account but, certainly, the next time round, when we have to address and revise some of these regulations, we certainly shall have a more definitive stance on this position. That covers it all, Mdm Speaker.”
“What we do is try and adopt a risk-based approach and assess the operator and the applications on their own merits. But we think that requiring a commercial operator to have a permit, both an operator permit as well as an activity permit, is probably the right thing to do to ensure that we look more carefully into its operations, the way that they deal with safety and, even to some extent, if necessary, the training of the people operating this. Why? Because we believe that for commercial operations, they could be using a range of UAVs. There could be a wide range of activities and so the risk exposure will vary accordingly. If you have a range of UAVs, different people operating them, covering a range of different activities in different areas, the risk of exposure could vary and increase accordingly. And because the activities are likely to be repetitive, possibly, the risk will also correspondingly increase. So, its activities, its flight paths may be complex, it may entail the delivery of a payload, it could entail more challenging manoeuvres being conducted. So, we think that for commercial operators, we will require an operator permit and then the activity permit. If there are repeated activities over the same area doing the same thing, a little akin to what Mr Seng Han Thong had mentioned for his grassroots activities, we think you could have one single activity permit covering that same range of activities, but it covers Page: 92 you for a period of time. Finally, on insurance. Let me address Mr Ismail's queries on insurance coverage. Based on checks done by CAAS, there are insurers that are prepared to offer third-party liability coverage for property damage and injury to persons arising out of UA operations. There is coverage for damage to the UA, too.”
“We will also be distributing posters to all educational institutions and hobbyist clubs next month. CAAS will also be conducting a series of briefings for key stakeholders, such as operators of UAs for commercial and specialised services, as well as hobbyists, recreational users and retailers. Further information can be found on the CAAS Page: 91 website. On permits, some Members have asked about permits and I have tried to explain under what circumstances those are required. There are other Members who have expressed some concern that you might need a multitude of permits from different agencies. I certainly understand that concern. CAAS will be the one-stop agency for the application of all permits needed for UA operations. Depending on the scope, complexity and the type of operations, CAAS will then need to coordinate with other agencies in the evaluation of the application and the relevant permits will be collated into a single document for issuance to the applicant. Mr Gerald Giam had a query on how long it would take. The permits will take, on average, about two weeks but it depends really on the complexity of the application. On average, we take about two weeks. There are also a number of other points and suggestions that Mr Giam has raised. We will certainly take them back with us and look at them a little bit more. I just wanted to make a clarification on why we singled out commercial operators, which was the point that he talked about. On the one hand, we do not want to be overly prescriptive and, hence, we decided not to say that you must have geo-fencing and so on and so forth. That could be overly prescriptive in mandating certain requirements.”
“I will try to address the points raised by Mr Seng Han Thong because it can seem quite confusing. Anything that is less than seven kilogrammes, flying below 200 feet, outside of five kilometres of an aerodrome, not flying over gazetted areas and special event areas, not carrying out commercial and special activities, do not need a permit. Let me try to say that again because I know that there are a lot of "nots" somewhere. Not more than seven kilogrammes, not higher than 200 feet, not within five kilometres of an aerodrome, not carrying out commercial activities, not overflying specially gazetted areas or special event areas, you do not need a permit. Anything else – and that means over most of Singapore – you need a permit. As for between two kilogrammes and seven kilogrammes, can we have a different regime? I think that is something that we can look at more deeply. Right now, the regime in many countries is using seven kilogrammes. This is all up weight – it is not just the weight of the drone itself. It is all up weight, seven kilogrammes. It is something that most countries use and, in fact, CAAS is working with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to try and see if there a way to harmonise as well as to expound on some of the requirements for UA going forward, because I think this is a challenge that many countries are, indeed, dealing with. On public outreach and awareness, Members have also mentioned this and it is really an important area. CAAS has started distributing an advisory to all households on the safe and responsible use of UAs for recreation and private uses. As Mr Seng Han Thong has said, there are six "dos" and eight "don'ts". I thank the Member for reminding us. He is an expert in this House on this area.”
“In particular, Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if the penalty for committing an offence of carrying dangerous substances using a UA is too light. Mdm Speaker, if a person plans to use the UA as a weapon or as a means to carry out an attack, he may be prosecuted under a host of other Acts, for instance, under the Terrorism Act, the Chemical Weapons Act, the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act or the Penal Code. In reality, we have no shortage of Acts to try and catch the offender in a very comprehensive manner. The penalties for these offences can range from up to 10 years imprisonment, up to a $1 million fine and caning. In more extreme cases, offenders found guilty could face the death penalty or life imprisonment. Page: 90 Let me now touch on privacy issues because quite a number of Members – Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Dr Benedict Tan, Mr Gerald Giam – have highlighted privacy as an area of concern. Privacy-related incidents where a person uses a UA to pry into another person's property and privacy will be investigated on a case-by-case basis. As a general principle, enforcement action will be taken against users whose activities constitute an offence under existing laws, such as the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act 2014. The interagency UAS Committee, which I spoke about in my earlier speech and which was formed at the beginning of the year, is also looking into a comprehensive framework on the use of UA in Singapore and will look specifically and more deeply into the issue of privacy to see if our current laws are adequate and if any regulatory enhancements are needed. It was mentioned that maybe, the lighter UA ought to be regulated differently. I think it is a complex issue. The threshold that we use today is seven kilogrammes.”
“A lot of it will depend, for example, on intelligence, on early warning, perhaps given by members of the public and the Police will have to assess any information received and, if necessary, take pre-emptive action to deal with it. In addition, when Police Officers respond to UA-related incidents or come across suspicious persons with UA during their patrols, they will check to see if the UA is carrying any prohibited item. The shorter the range, meaning if it is within line of sight, it is easier for the Police to try and trace it back, try and deal with it; the longer the range, the greater the area of uncertainty and the more difficult the job will be for the Police. Mr Ismail Hussein had a very interesting question on strict liability offences. Let me clarify that even though the prosecution does not need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the area flown over is a protected one – meaning that the prosecution does not need to prove beyond reasonable doubt – the accused also has the defence that the UA was not flown intentionally into the protected area but the overflight was caused perhaps by weather conditions or perhaps some other unavoidable cause. So, this would have to be taken into account even though we go with a strict liability regime. I would also like to assure Members that protected areas will be properly described and published in the Gazette that CAAS will be issuing so that there will be no mistake on the part of the accused or ignorance that they really do not know that these are the gazetted areas. On the extent of punishment, there were some Members who felt that the punishment may not be commensurate with the threat that such UAVs pose.”
“Examples of special event areas could include venues of major events where a significant congregation of people can be expected, for example, at the Sports Hub, the Padang and their vicinity during the National Day Parade. To ensure the safety and security of people attending these events, all operation of UA over such areas will require a special permit from the Police, which will determine the conditions under which the UA can operate. The carriage of payload, if any, must also not compromise the safety of the intended flight. Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and others asked about the enforcement powers related to UA. Breaches of UA regulations will be investigated by Police Officers or safety inspectors authorised by CAAS or Auxiliary Police Officers who are authorised by the Singapore Police Force or CAAS. The enforcers are given powers to assume control of a UA in order to fly the aircraft or to end the flight of the aircraft, or to land it. How this will be done will depend on the circumstances, taking into consideration the need to ensure public safety. There have been talks of what capabilities we have to deal with it, whether we intend to shoot it down and so on. I do not want to divulge too much the capabilities that we have to deal with this. It is something that needs to be built up and increased over time. But this Page: 89 is really not so easy an issue to deal with. Some Members have pointed out that, at times, to shoot it down may actually cost more damage and I fully agree with them on that. So, any action that we take, we have to consider very carefully. Mr Gan Thiam Poh had a question on enforcement, that it could be done before the UA carrying any prohibited items takes off, especially if explosives are being carried.”
“But even within visual line of sight, he lost control of the aircraft in a nearby open field and one of them came to rest on the side of the track and, fortunately, no train service was disrupted, no damage was caused to the MRT tracks, no one was injured. One of these incidents is under Police investigation while in the other incident, the member of the public was issued a stern warning for an offence of "Negligent Act which Endangers Life or Personal Safety of Others" under the Penal Code. Mr Ang has proposed that train depots be added to the list of security-sensitive locations. In designating security sensitive locations, I think the Government needs to take a calibrated approach based on an overall threat assessment. Let me assure him that although MRT depots may not be designated as security-sensitive locations, any reported incident of aerial surveillance by UA will still be investigated by the Police, which have the necessary powers to deal with persons with malicious intent to compromise the security of such places. As for the threat to the safety of train services, this is covered by existing regulations and guidelines. The operation of heavier UA which may cause serious damage and UA operations for commercial purposes will soon require a permit. For hobbyists and operation of light UA, we have enhanced guidelines for their use, and the Police have powers under the Penal Code to charge those who operate UA in a negligent and irresponsible manner which harms or threatens public safety. Some Members have also asked questions on special event areas. Let me try to address this.”
“Fifty applications per month this year, compared to about, on average, 12 applications per month last year. So, Members have seen that huge increase over the course of the first few months for this year, and we expect that this will increase, especially with the new regulations. But also without the regulations, there is a greater interest. Hence, that there is a need to not only introduce this Bill both to educate and alert the public but also to put in place the right processes. Dr Benedict Tan asked if kite boarding equipment is considered an UA. Let me give the Member the definition. A device that is not manoeuvred by electronic means but is physically tethered, such as through strings and manoeuvred by these physical means, or is uncontrolled, such as free balloons, does not fall under the definition of UA for the purposes of this Bill. Under the Air Navigation Order, kiteboarding activities are already regulated. So the answer is that it does not fall under this Bill. But if the Member is speaking specifically about kiteboarding, that is already being regulated. Some have asked about the number of incidents or near-misses involving UAVs in Singapore. There have been over 20 UA incidents reported in Singapore since about a year ago. So far, we have not received any reports of injury or damage to property associated with these cases, but I think it is really more of good fortune than anything else. Mr Ang Wei Neng had a very interesting query on whether there were incidents of UA dropping onto MRT tracks. Actually, there have been two such reported incidents. In both incidents, a member of the public was flying the UA in a nearby open field and lost control Page: 88 of the UA, and this is within visual line of sight, this is not even EVLOS.”
“Mdm Speaker, first, let me thank all the six Members who have spoken out and who have all supported the Bill. They have raised a number of interesting questions, comments and queries. Let me try to group them together into issues and address them in turn. Page: 87 By way of introduction, basically, many have spoken out in support of the potential for the use of drones, whether it is in terms of dealing with natural disasters or commercial potential. Dr Benedict Tan spoke very eloquently on the use of it to support sporting activities, for filming purposes and so on. And yet, I think everyone has also spoken on their concerns over privacy, security and safety. Indeed, those really are the challenges and dilemmas that we face: how to find a judicious balance that would safeguard us as much as possible with regard to issues of safety and security and so on and yet allow sufficient potential for operators and individuals to experiment, innovate and use them for the right purposes. Mr Ismail Hussein asked if we could provide information on the prevalence of UAVs in Singapore and how many known users and suppliers there are, both for hobby and commercial purposes. But the answer is that, actually, we do not know because, right now, we do not track the number of unmanned aircraft users and suppliers. For us, this is somewhat difficult and, to a large extent, impractical because the public can easily purchase UAs in many stores in Singapore: for hobbyists, order them online from overseas; or for the enthusiasts, they will actually build or modify some of these UAs themselves. What we do know is that, on average, on a monthly basis, over the course of the first few months of this year, we are receiving about 50 applications for permits.”
“Examples of special event areas could include venues of major events where big crowds are expected, such as the Sports Hub or the Padang and their vicinity during the National Day Parade and the venues of the Southeast Asian Games (SEA Games). Police Officers and Auxiliary Police Officers can be authorised by the Commissioner of Police to exercise enforcement powers under the new section 32A, similar to those I have described earlier. The maximum penalty for an offence of carrying dangerous substances using an unmanned aircraft is a fine not exceeding $100,000 or a jail term not exceeding five years, or both, while the penalty for an offence of discharging a substance from an unmanned aircraft without a permit is a fine not exceeding $20,000. The penalty for each of the other offences under the Bill is a fine not exceeding $20,000 or a jail term not exceeding 12 months, or both. Mdm Speaker, unmanned aircraft can transform the way we do our jobs in many industries. It has the potential to increase productivity and efficiency and enhance the effectiveness of our services and operations. However, given Singapore's busy airspace and densely populated urban environment, unmanned aircraft operators need to ensure that they operate the unmanned aircraft safely and responsibly, exercising due care and concern for others. In this regard, the proposed Bill provides a clear regulatory framework for unmanned aircraft operations, to safeguard public safety and security. The UAS Committee will continue its work to improve and refine this framework in order to strike an even better balance across safety, security and other concerns while facilitating unmanned aircraft operations. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 4.38 pm”
“A new section 7B will absolutely prohibit an unmanned aircraft from carrying any arms, explosives, munitions of war, biochemical, nuclear substances, or hazardous substances. A new section 7C will prohibit the discharge of any substance from an unmanned aircraft without a permit. A new section 29G will allow a safety inspector authorised by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), senior Police Officers or an Auxiliary Police Officer authorised by the Commissioner of Police, to order the operator of an unmanned aircraft to (a) end the flight; (b) land the unmanned aircraft; or (c) fly the unmanned aircraft in a specified manner, if the unmanned aircraft is being operated in a manner that poses a serious and imminent risk to the safety of the public. The enforcers are also given powers to assume control of an unmanned aircraft in order to end the flight of the aircraft or land it safely and detain it or any component of the unmanned aircraft system. Sections 3 and 3A are expanded to allow CAAS to make laws on the operation of unmanned aircraft, including indoor operation of such aircraft, to ensure public safety. Section 4M of ANA is amended to provide greater clarity on the powers of CAAS' safety inspectors to require the attendance of witnesses and the process for taking of statements. Let me now highlight the key amendments to the POA. Page: 76 Section 26 of the POA is amended to prohibit unmanned aircraft from entering special events venues, except where a permit has been obtained from the Singapore Police Force. A new section 32(2) will also make it an offence for an unmanned aircraft to be operated in a manner that disrupts or interferes with the conduct of an activity associated with the special event, whether in or outside the special event area.”
“Just last month, an unmanned aircraft with radioactive substance landed on the roof of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's office. In the United States (US), flights of drones over a concert had sparked safety concerns. In Singapore too, there have been several episodes of unsafe use of unmanned aircraft, but, thankfully, there were no deaths, injuries or damage to property. But we might not always be so lucky. Clear rules on the use of unmanned aircraft will enhance safe and responsible operation of the aircraft. It will allow us to facilitate innovative uses like the ones I mentioned earlier, Page: 75 while mitigating the risks to public safety and security. It is for this reason that the Air Navigation Act (Cap 6) or ANA, and the Public Order Act (Cap 257A) or POA, are being amended by way of the Unmanned Aircraft (Public Safety and Security) Bill 2015. Let me highlight the key amendments in the Bill. First, the amendments to ANA. The new section 2A will make a person who flies or operates an unmanned aircraft from outside Singapore liable for the new offences under sections 7, 7A, 7B and 7C of ANA, as if the person had been in Singapore when committing the offence. This is to cater to the scenario where an unmanned aircraft may be flown into Singapore from outside Singapore. The Minister for Transport will publish in the Government Gazette a list of security-sensitive areas as protected areas under section 7. Examples of such locations are the Istana, Parliament House, Supreme Court, Jurong Island and military camps and bases. A new section 7A will prohibit unmanned aircraft flights over these protected areas. Section 7 will also prohibit the taking of photographs, from an unmanned aircraft, of these protected areas, unless a permit is obtained.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Unmanned aircraft, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, have become affordable and accessible to the general public. Recreational flying of unmanned aircraft is fast gaining popularity. Organisations, including Government agencies, are also increasingly tapping on the capabilities of unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes, such as for aerial advertising and event photography and filming, and for specialised services, such as search and rescue, as well as surveillance and inspection. To develop a balanced and sustainable regulatory framework that encourages the safe and responsible use of unmanned aircraft by both public sector agencies and private companies, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) had set up a multi-agency Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Committee a few months ago. This UAS Committee has been engaging stakeholders to facilitate proof-of-concept trials and innovative use of unmanned aircraft by public sector agencies. The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), for example, will soon have an extra pair of "eyes" to assess oil spills at sea, in the form of an unmanned aircraft which can be deployed from its patrol boats. The Home Team agencies are looking at unmanned aircraft usage to enhance their response during emergencies and incidents. Other uses of unmanned aircraft being explored include safety inspection of cranes at work sites and monitoring of vast areas of state land, waterbodies, pipelines and off-shore structures. Unmanned aircraft can, however, pose public safety and security risks. Members may remember the case in which an unmanned aircraft crashed and injured a triathlete in Australia last year.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It is too early for us to talk about fares, but we have already shared with the Malaysians that we think it is better for the express service between KL and Singapore, and for the transit service that runs from KL through a number of stops before it reaches Singapore, for both these sets of services to be managed separately.”
“Mdm Speaker, Prime Minister Lee announced the location of the Singapore terminus of the Kuala Lumpur (KL)-Singapore High Speed Rail last week. We are deep in discussions with the Malaysians on the technical, security, commercial and regulatory aspects, having completed our own preliminary studies into these areas. As both Prime Minister Lee and Prime Minister Najib noted, this is a challenging and complicated project and we should take the time required to plan well and implement well. Both countries are fully committed to the success of this project.”
“On the point that the penalty could be minuscule because it is only on the revenue of a particular licensed system, it probably is not so. If you look at the revenue for the North-South and East-West Lines, that constitutes the bulk of the revenue. It could be a very, very hefty fine well beyond $1 million should there be a breakdown that is so severe that LTA has to impose the 10% limit. What are the ways in which we look at it? First, we look, in particular, at the use of manpower with regard to SMRT Trains, which is the entity that we regulate. If, for example, we see senior manpower being taken out from SMRT Trains to be used to support their venture with the fourth telecom company, we will be very concerned.”
“For a particular licensed system. The North -South and East-West Lines are considered as one licensed system.”
“Mdm Speaker, the PTC formula was deliberated in this House a couple of years ago. It runs till 2017, by which time, we would then take a relook at the formula, and I am sure Members can give their suggestions in due course for that to be taken into account. Page: 33”
“I thank the Member for his suggestion. Indeed, it is possible for them to set up a subsidiary, but I suspect they will still be looking at the overall performance of the entire corporation. Although they manage the non-fare businesses separately, we look at it in its entirety. The Member's second question was whether it is on the revenue of the operating system itself or in totality. Actually, it is the fare revenue of the operations, which is the vast majority of total revenue. So. if you are looking at revenue, by far, the vast majority of it comes from operating trains. But in terms of profits, the bulk of the profit, probably up to 90%, actually comes from the non-fare businesses that they run.”
“As far as we are concerned, public transport fares are governed by the fare formula that the PTC works on. It is the formula that is used to determine the extent of the fare increase, or reduction should the factors call for a reduction as we expect for this year's exercise. Having said that, PTC will, of course, look into the financial performance of the operator and one of the features is that it requires the operators, if they are doing well, to make a contribution to the Public Transport Fund. Both SBS Transit (SBST) and SMRT made a contribution last year. This year, when we had the fare increase in April, they made a larger contribution to the Public Transport Fund.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. The first is on financial figures. It is, indeed, true that for the last few years, the vast majority of the profits have come from non-fare revenue. In the recent financial year, profit of the entire SMRT group is about $91 million. If I recall correctly, more than 90% of this was from non-fare businesses and the pattern was familiar in the preceding years. Regardless of that, for LTA and the Ministry of Transport (MOT), we regulate them based on the Operating Performance Standards as well as the Codes of Practice. It is our job to make sure that they are not distracted as a result of ventures together with the Sports Hub or this possible venture with the fourth telecom operator, and to concentrate on delivering public transport to the degree of reliability and service standards that are expected of them. On the fines, as part of the review, it was last year or the year before that we had raised the fines from the maximum of $1 million to either $1 million or 10% of the annual fare revenue of the licensed system, whichever is higher. That is not to say that for every incident, we will fine them to this amount. It really depends on a matrix of factors, including, for example, the severity of the disruption, the number of commuters that were affected and so on and so forth. The reason this limit was raised was that when we did a review following the December 2011 incident, we felt that the $1 million limit was insufficient for an incident of that severity. Hence, we decided to make a move to increase the limit that we could impose on the PTOs should a similar incident of such nature happen again. On the third point, I have not read the CEO's interview with Zaobao. I will certainly go and look it up.”
“Mdm Speaker, I expect SMRT Corporation to remain fully focused on providing reliable and efficient public transport services. In this regard, SMRT has given their assurances on multiple occasions. What we understand from SMRT is that it intends to take a stake with an investment of up to $34.5 million, which is small, compared to the overall cost of a new mobile network, and that the collaboration will be for the provision of services and goods that leverage on SMRT's media presence and commuter reach. In any case, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) imposes strict Operating Performance Standards and Codes of Practice on our public transport operators to ensure that they perform to expectations. These standards and codes are reviewed regularly, with the most recent round of tightening announced earlier this year. If operators fail to comply with these regulatory requirements, they can be penalised up to $1 million per incident, or 10% of the annual fare revenue of the licensed system, whichever is higher. LTA will continue to keep a close eye on our public transport operators to ensure that they are not distracted by their non-public transport businesses and that their primary mission of providing public transport services is not compromised.”
“As a concession, on a case-by-case basis, Singaporeans working and residing in Malaysia are already allowed to use their Malaysia-registered vehicles in Singapore for up to 28 weekdays a year, in addition to Saturdays, Sundays and Singapore public holidays. Such restrictions are necessary so that ownership of foreign-registered vehicles does not become a means to circumvent our vehicle ownership policies and so that Page: 102 we are fair to Singaporeans who own Singapore-registered vehicles.”
“The recent spate of disruptions is regrettable, given the inconvenience it caused commuters, and also because train reliability has actually seen significant improvements in recent times. The number of delays lasting more than five minutes on the North-South and East-West Lines (NSEWLs) has steadily declined from its peak of 1.8 per 100,000 train-km in 2011 to 1.3 in 2014, an improvement of more than 25% in three years. The current delay rate is more than twice as good as New York City’s rail lines, but we can do better, as there are other systems, such as in Hong Kong, that have fewer delays. I had instructed LTA and SMRT to get to the bottom of the recent disruptions. Meanwhile, SMRT has announced that they will thoroughly review and strengthen their maintenance regime, including setting up a Maintenance Operations Centre, increasing engineering resources and training ground staff to handle minor maintenance issues so that problems can be resolved more promptly. LTA will step up audits of SMRT’s rail maintenance resources and processes. LTA will also support with engineering expertise as part of the Joint Team’s continuing efforts to improve train reliability.”
“MOT is open to suggestions. The difficulty is whether commuters who are inconvenienced to different degrees would accept that – an equal compensation applies to all of them, regardless of the extent to which they have been inconvenienced. And I think that is the difficulty.”
“This is why we have been able, over the last two fare exercises, to put up to about $7.5 million each time in terms of vouchers to the lower-income families and this, in part, comes out from the fines that are paid by the operators into the Public Transport Fund.”
“Mdm Speaker, I can certainly understand where the Member is coming from. It is a subject that we look at from time to time. The difficulty we face so far is that there are different degrees of inconvenience caused to different groups of commuters. There are those in a very, very severe disruption who may have to de-train, get down to the track and walk to the station. There are those who are stuck on affected trains. There are those who may be able, even though their trains are affected, to drop off at an interchange station and find their way around and they are also inconvenienced because the journey is Page: 35 longer even though they can continue to complete the rest of the journey on another train. The difficulty is to find a framework that is fair to all these different parties. Much as we have given thought to it over the last year or so, we have not been able to come up with something that we think applies fairly across to all commuters who are affected. We looked at the MTR practice in Hong Kong. It is for same-day compensation of a 10% discount on a second trip. And if the disruption takes place in the late evening peak hour, for example, then it is a compensation that may not make as much sense as it would, if it had happened in the morning. Even when we look at these different examples, there is no perfect solution that we think is applicable to our case. Yes, I agree with the Member that the fines may not go directly to those commuters who are most affected. But the fines help, in a sense that it goes towards the Public Transport Fund and, out of the Public Transport Fund, we provide support to those who need it most, meaning the lower-income who are affected every time we have a fare adjustment.”
“Mdm Speaker, today, when there is a prolonged train service disruption, commuters exiting the affected stations will have their fares waived or refunded. Free bus bridging services and free boarding of public buses at the affected stations are also provided. For bus service disruptions, affected commuters are given a fare refund and a complimentary bus ticket for a future ride. We assess that, for now, the current arrangements are appropriate. Our arrangements are similar to those for the London Tube, where only fare refunds are given. Some other cities provide additional compensation but only for prolonged disruptions. For example, the Hong Kong MTR provides a little more compensation in the form of a 10% discount for a same-day second trip when the disruption lasts for more than half an hour. The difficulty really is that it is not a straightforward exercise to identify who should be eligible if we want a comprehensive regime where we compensate all affected commuters, as this may have to include commuters who detoured using alternative routes as well as those who had to forgo their journey altogether. We will focus efforts on further improving train and bus reliability. This way, we minimise the inconvenience experienced by commuters in the first place.”
“I want to thank Mr Ang Hin Kee. That is certainly a pertinent point. It is not just the train and taxi drivers and bus captains that we are looking at. We are also looking at the rail maintenance teams to make sure that we have enough people for all three shifts and that we build up in good time because, as I mentioned earlier, we are expanding the train fleet significantly. So, we need to make sure that the manpower that we have in place now are of the right numbers, correct quality, experience levels to build up for the Page: 115 future. So, it is something that we are watching very closely on what the operators are doing. On taxi drivers, I know this is one of the concerns that Mr Ang Hin Kee always has because he is a great champion of the taxi drivers. The intention of what we are doing in requiring taxis to meet 250 kilometres daily is really not to have the taxi drivers work harder. It is to have taxis work harder, because we know that the drivers, after driving at most 10 to 12 hours, really that is about the maximum. But the cars, the vehicles, can go 24 hours or almost 24 hours. So, the intent is to try and make taxis work harder so that there is less of a need to expand the fleet in order to cater to the needs of the commuters. What we have been encouraging – and Mr Ang has really been supportive of it – is to try and see whether we can move towards more two-shift taxis – the hirers, as well as the reliefs. And certainly, over the last two or so years, we have seen it grow. The percentage of two-shift taxis has grown from about 59% to the high 60% over the last two years, and it is certainly moving in the right direction.”
“There are four generations of trains that run on the main network – three generations from Kawasaki and one from Siemens, and we – or at least I – found the reliability of Siemens train certainly very different from the Kawasaki trains. In particular, you will be able to zoom down to whether it is the doors or the electrical cards or whatever. So, when you do a systematic health check like this, you are able to determine and identify trends, spot like the mean time between failures for components and, if necessary, you do a complete change out, which is what we did for the doors. So, we did that over 2013, and we are able, since then, to arrest the spate of door problems that we had with this generation of trains. I think we need to do something similar with Bukit Panjang LRT. We already had plans, of course, to do a mid-life upgrade of the trains. In 2012, we did a visit together. We announced a series of measures which, in the last couple of years, actually helped to bring down the incident rates in the Bukit Panjang LRT itself. We introduced new capacity and now I need to find out whether that introduction of new capacity had actually affected the series of power-related incidents that we had over the past week or so. So, this health check is really useful for us to go down and pay very, very close attention and scrutinise very carefully not just the maintenance, the records and so on, but also to identify the most troublesome areas, determine if there are clear patterns and what more we should do in a systematic way to try and bring up the health of the system.”