S Iswaran
Singapore
“The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has incorporated the requirements of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 regulation in its Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Air) Regulations 2022. The Regulations are applicable to Singapore-registered ships and all other ships while they are in Singapore waters.”
“The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) plans to progressively roll out the charging infrastructure for electric harbour craft operations in the Port of Singapore from 2025.”
“Since 2018, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has imposed minimum bicycle parking provisions covering different types of developments. The requirements are determined by multiple factors, including the developments’ use, location and gross floor area (GFA).”
“I had addressed similar Parliamentary Questions by Mr Gerald Giam on 29 November 2022 and 10 January 2023, as well as in my Ministerial Statement on 8 May 2023. The Member can refer to these past answers and statement as there has been no material change in the allocation of Certificates of Entitlement.”
“To encourage the uptake of electric cars, the Government has rolled out the Electric Vehicle Early Adoption Incentive and enhanced Vehicular Emissions Scheme. When taken together, it provides up to $45,000 off the Additional Registration Fee of an electric car upon registration.”
“The Land Transport Authority studies all potential changes to the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system carefully, including conducting sensitivity analysis where appropriate.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,300 lines we hold for S Iswaran, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 46.
“Of the Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) allocated from July 2020 to December 2022, on average, about 63% of COEs were allocated to Singaporeans or Permanent Residents (PRs) and less than 3% were allocated to foreigners. The rest were allocated to companies. In working out the above information, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has identified a computational error in an earlier set of data, which mentioned that 0.5% of COEs were allocated to foreigners from 2002 to 2019, provided in response to Ms Hazel Poa's written Parliamentary Question on the allocation of COEs and published on 2 November 2020. The figure should be 2.3%, instead of 0.5%. The proportion of COEs allocated to foreigners remains low today and has not changed significantly over the years.”
“As the vehicle growth rate is 0% per annum, the number of new Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) available each quarter is based on the number of deregistered vehicles in the last two quarters. Deregistered vehicles can either be scrapped or exported. So, to be complete, this reply will address vehicle deregistrations as a whole. From July 2017 to June 2022, about 260,000 cars were deregistered. Fifty-four percent of the cars deregistered were COE Category A cars with engine capacities of 1,600 cubic centimetres (cc) or lower. In the same period, about 65,000 motorcycles were deregistered. Seventy-six percent of the motorcycles deregistered had engine capacities of 200 cc or lower, 15% had engine capacities of 201 cc to 400 cc and 9% had engine capacities of 400 cc and above. The COEs from these deregistered vehicles were made available for bidding from November 2017 to October 2022. During this period, about 285,000 COEs were used to register cars and about 65,000 COEs to register motorcycles. There were more cars registered than deregistered in the periods stated as many Category E COEs were used to register cars.”
“As of October 2022, among all electric cars registered under individual owners, about 17% were registered to Housing and Development Board (HDB) residents; about 51% were registered to private landed property residents; and about 32% were registered to private non-landed property residents.”
“The vast majority of goods vehicles are registered by businesses. That said, as the Land Transport Authority (LTA) does not collect employment data for the purpose of vehicle registration, we are unable to determine whether these vehicle owners are self-employed or otherwise. Self-employed persons and small business owners are a diverse group and have different business costs and needs. Instead of having vehicle-specific subsidies, the Government has broad-based measures to support businesses. Business owners can visit the GoBusiness portal at gobusiness.gov.sg for more information on the relevant Government schemes available.”
“Existing regulations make it illegal for retailers to display, advertise and sell non-compliant devices. In addition, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been working with online platforms, including Carousell, Shopee and Lazada, to rectify or take down listings of non-compliant devices, and the platforms have been cooperative in doing so. The regulatory regime was further tightened in June 2021 to require all importers of motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) to obtain approval from LTA before importing these devices into Singapore. After e-scooters are imported into Singapore, they are required to undergo inspections before registration. LTA will take enforcement action against owners of unregistered e-scooters, if caught riding on public paths. E-scooters are also required to undergo inspections every two years to ensure their continued compliance with regulations. These regulations, together with enforcement and public education efforts, have resulted in a safer active mobility landscape. The average monthly number of non-compliant PMDs detected on public paths fell from about 70 in 2020 to 20 in 2022, while the total number of fires involving non-compliant PMDs fell from 42 in 2020, to 12 from January to October 2022. These numbers would include PMDs which have been modified illegally by the users. PMD businesses and users both have a role to play in ensuring their devices comply with regulations. All users must use their devices safely and responsibly. LTA will continue to monitor the PMD landscape and consider further safeguards if necessary.”
“The Public Transport Council (PTC), the Land Transport Authority (LTA), TransitLink and public transport operators are responsible for the implementation of public transport fares in the system. TransitLink is the appointed service provider for ticketing services. Based on the current process for the opening of new MRT stations and Fare Review Exercises, the transport fares that have been approved by PTC will be reviewed by TransitLink and public transport operators before the fare table is updated into the ticketing system. Checks are done to ensure that the new fares are correctly implemented at all stations. TransitLink also conducts regular audits on its systems and processes, including fare collection.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) regularly monitors the supply and demand of public bus and train services. Any necessary adjustment of these services would include changes in bus services, redistribution of buses across different services and using double-deck buses instead of single-deck buses to meet higher demand. In October and November 2022, average weekday ridership on public buses and trains was close to 90% compared to the same months in 2019, up from about 70% in January 2022. Public transport journeys by workers to the Central Business District during morning peak hours in November 2022 were estimated to be about 70% compared to the same month in 2019. The ridership figure may rise further when more workers return to the office in 2023. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) and LTA will continue to monitor ridership patterns closely. We will make the necessary adjustments to public transport supply if there are sustained changes in commuter demand, or when there are significant developments, such as the opening of new MRT lines and stations.”
“The real challenge is to do this in a safe and orderly manner. This is where I think both countries are aligned and we are seeking to do this in a systematic way. I cannot give a specific time frame but what I can say is, in the near term, we will continue to do this methodically. CAAS will evaluate and approve applications. I do not expect it to be a surge, but neither are we going to be static or at a standstill. 4.07 pm”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his clarification. Essentially, our starting point – and that has been the way since the latter half of last year – has really been to gear up our airport operational capacity to be able to manage volumes that are equal to pre-COVID-19 levels. Indeed, that is where we are today – because Terminal 1, Terminal 3 and Terminal 4 are now fully operational. And for Terminal 2, half of that is now able to take both arriving and departing flights. With that, and the improvements that have been made in the system and operationally, we are actually able to accommodate the volumes that were around – if I recall correctly – pre-COVID-19, which was about 68 million passengers a year. So, that is the supply side in terms of physical capacity. A second element is the manpower aspect, where we continue to recruit, to train, in order to build up the capability for the whole spectrum of services that are essential to run the airport well. In terms of manpower manning levels today, we are at about 90%, or slightly more. This continues to be an important effort but also a challenging one. So, this is an area which Changi Airport Group (CAG), Singapore Airport Terminal Services (SATS) and even Singapore Airlines (SIA) and others in the group, are working very hard at. But that could become one of the constraining factors. Hence, the careful, calibrated approach, because we do not want to extend flight capacity without having the ken to deal with it at the airport side. This is the important dynamic that we are trying to balance. Overall, as I replied to the earlier question, specifically with respect to China, we would like to restore air connectivity to pre-COVID-19 levels. There is a significant gulf as we are all well aware now from the data.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her clarification. As I have stated earlier in my reply, whether you look at it in terms of flights or in terms of passenger volumes, we are well below where we were, in fact, 10% – or less – compared to pre-COVID-19. So, there is clearly significant scope to restore air connectivity and the passenger flows between China and Singapore. Having said that, I am reluctant to put a timeline to this process and the reason is because there are several variables that we need to take into account. First, just from a commercial point of view, the number of applications from airlines and so on, although all indications are that there will be strong demand. But, beyond that is, of course, the public health situation that is evolving. We also need to take into account Changi Airport's own ability to manage any increases, and to do so in a manner that ensures safe and smooth travel for passengers. So, a variety of factors. But we are quite clear that directionally, this is what we want to do as we have with the rest of the world, we want to restore air connectivity with China, and we welcome the latest announcements and moves by China. But in the near term, if you ask me, will there be a surge? I think unlikely, but neither will we be at a standstill. Our desire is really to do this in a systematically calibrated manner because whilst the destination is important, the journey is even more so at this juncture.”
“I would leave the wastewater question to the Minister for Health, who can speak on it more authoritatively. On the point on mask-wearing, today, specifically with respect to China, the airlines already require mask-wearing for their crew as a precautionary measure. Also, China already requires mask-wearing for flights going in and coming out. So, in a sense, that has already been addressed. Our general posture on mask-wearing is really for compliance with the source country's or destination country's requirements. If you are going to a country that requires the wearing of masks whilst in flight, then the airline will advise you to do so, and then, you wear the mask; and likewise, on the return leg. In general, we have aligned our mask-wearing protocols with the protocols that we have worked out with MOH for the domestic setting. That continues to be the way we will operate unless there are material reasons for us to make a deviation or an exception.”
“It has allowed Changi to manage the recovery relatively well, while making it possible for Singaporeans and residents to travel again for work, leisure and to see loved ones. It has also spurred the economic recovery of our tourism-related sectors, as well as consumer-facing industries and the professional services. The aviation community in Changi remains vigilant and is prepared to respond quickly if there are material changes in the operating environment. At all times, our priority is to protect the health of our aviation workers, travellers and the broader community.”
“To put this in context, it is less than 10% of the number of flights pre-COVID-19 between China and Singapore – about 400 – and about 1.5% of the total flights handled by Changi today. We receive about 700 to 1,000 inbound passengers from China daily, which again is about 1% to 1.5% of the total daily arrivals at Changi. This is also less than 10% of pre-COVID-19 levels. More than 60% of these travellers from China are Singapore Citizens (SC), Permanent Residents (PRs) and Long-Term Pass Holders (LTPH). We welcome China's recent moves to restore quarantine-free travel with the rest of the world. Singapore enjoys longstanding and multifaceted relations with China. It is in the interest of both our countries to restore our air connectivity in a safe and orderly manner. After China's recent announcement that it will reopen its borders and remove quarantine requirements for returning travellers with effect from yesterday, Singapore and Chinese airlines have applied to operate more flights between the two countries. CAAS is evaluating and will progressively approve these applications. As with other countries previously, we will carefully restore air connectivity with China, taking into consideration the prevailing public health assessment as well as Changi's capacity, so that we can ensure efficient operations and a safe and smooth travel experience. In summary, Mr Speaker, we will continue to adhere to our careful and calibrated approach in the restoration of air connectivity with China. This measured approach has enabled a safe and orderly resumption of Singapore's air connectivity with the world, while we monitor the outcomes and evolving public health situation, assess the operational impact and decide on further moves.”
“Apart from vaccination centres islandwide, they can now also get their booster shots at the newly established facility at the Raffles Medical Group clinic at Terminal 3. As of now, almost 100% of the workers have attained minimum protection as defined by MOH and about half have up-to-date protection. Our aviation community will stay vigilant and stands ready to respond quickly should there be a material change in MOH's risk assessment, such as the emergence of a new Variant of Concern (VOC). This is the new normal for aviation as we emerge from COVID-19. Mr Speaker, from the outset, we have also paced the resumption of flights, to ensure that Changi Airport has the physical and operational capacity, to support the anticipated flight and passenger flows. This has given our aviation stakeholders valuable lead time to build up their capacity, while recruiting and training their workforce. As China reopens its borders, we will continue with this cautious approach to ensure that Changi Airport has the capacity to manage the ramp-up in flights, provide clarity and certainty to airlines, and ensure that passengers have a safe and smooth experience. To date, average weekly passenger traffic at Changi Airport has recovered to about 80% of pre-COVID-19 levels. The number of weekly flights at Changi Airport has also recovered to nearly 80% of pre-COVID-19 levels. As at end October 2022, we had 25 weekly flights between China and Singapore. As both sides gradually increased flight connectivity, this rose to 36 weekly flights around mid-December 2022. At present, there are 38 weekly flights between China and Singapore, which includes two recently approved flights to Beijing. This works out to an average of five to six flights per day at Changi.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Further to the Minister for Health's Statement, I will now elaborate on the approach my Ministry has adopted to continue the safe and orderly restoration of Singapore's air connectivity. My Statement will also address Oral Question No 4 by Mr Melvin Yong in today's Order Paper. Let me start with where we are in our aviation recovery. Over the past one and a half years, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) have worked closely with the Ministry of Health (MOH) on a cautious and calibrated approach to reopening our borders. We commenced and progressively launched, as Members would recall, about 30 Vaccinated Travel Lanes (VTLs) over a period of six months, from September 2021, with a comprehensive set of safeguards, including vaccination and testing requirements. With the experience gained from these VTLs, we established the Vaccinated Travel Framework (VTF) in April 2022, which removed quarantine and testing requirements for all fully vaccinated travellers. Throughout this process, our top priority has been protecting the health of our aviation workers, travellers and the broader community. We work closely with MOH to monitor the evolving global COVID-19 situation and implement enhanced measures as necessary. For example, with the recent rise in cases globally, we have stepped up our Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) requirements for all airport workers performing passenger-facing and janitorial duties. The Changi aviation community stakeholders are also making a concerted effort to push and ensure that airport workers are well protected by keeping their vaccination up to date.”
“We are not allocating a specific amount for electric, we are not allocating a specific amount for hybrid and so on. We are just taking it as one policy position. What the Member is proposing is, actually, to deconstruct the current COE allocation and quota, and create new elements. My point is that this is something I do not think we need to have a PhD in Economics to infer this. Because when you create more segmentation in the market, reduce the supply to each category, the inevitable consequence must be at least volatility and, potentially – and certainly in the kind of environment we are in where demand is strong – higher prices. That might actually end up frustrating the very objective of the Member's proposal. [(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. – [Mr S Iswaran]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“I thank the Member for his clarifications. I may have been at the conference, but I cannot take accountability for what was said there by other speakers. But I am just pulling out what was on the website and it says the total cost of owning an EV remains 82% higher than owning an equivalent ICE, four-wheeled vehicle – and then, it said, “in the region, Ms Goh said”. So, I think it is an important point of detail, does the Member not think so? Because the region has got significant variations and, certainly, what it means is that the number that has been cited here does not necessarily take into — I do not know whether it did, but it would appear, at first reading, that it has not taken that into account. We already have to deal with a lot of misinformation outside. So, at least in the Chamber, when we cite sources and so on, let us just make sure we get the facts right. That was my main objective: to make sure that we got it right, so that whether it is a PHC driver or an HDB family wanting to buy a car or anyone else, they have the full information and the right information so that they can make the appropriate choice that fits their circumstances. Secondly, I think there is a qualitative difference between what we will be doing from 2030 onwards, compared to what the Member is proposing. Let me explain why. What we have said is that, from 2030, we will want Singapore to move towards cleaner energy vehicles. So, we will phase out ICE in the flow. And, therefore, all cars will have to be either electric or you would have hybrids or you may have other new cleaner energy vehicle sources. But they are all treated the same, they are in the same bucket and we treat it that way.”
“Our vision is to have a vehicle population that is electric. But that will require the collective effort of Government, industry, unions and consumers. The Electric Vehicles Charging Bill represents a first but major step in our journey to get there. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.”
“Perhaps, what is required is for greater information and awareness amongst those who are making the choices, including PHC drivers, so that they have the full picture. But I thought it was important to make this clarification because we do not want us to be citing Internet sources but without seeing them through in terms of the specific application in our context. To Mr Dennis Tan’s question, the electrification of goods vehicles is, in fact, one of our priorities. In fact, the light goods vehicles segment saw the highest rate of EV adoption this year, at around 28%. So, it is working and it is working well. I have already shared that for buses, for example, because LTA is largely the procurer of buses, we will have 50% of our bus fleet, which means about 3,000 out of the 6,000 buses or so will be electric by the end of the decade, and the other half will likely be hybrid. So, we are moving in that direction. The part that is more challenging is the very heavy vehicles, the big trucks and so on. And the reason is because, from the point of view of propulsion power and so on, there are trade-offs. That is why I mentioned in my earlier speech that hydrogen or related fuel types are being considered quite actively in that regard. Mr Don Wee asked if the EEAI will continue beyond next year. We are reviewing this, taking into account the upfront cost gap and life cycle cost differential between an ICE vehicle and an EV. Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, I thank Members once again for their support of the Bill. I have endeavoured to address all their queries in the main and I would like to assure Members that MOT and LTA will study and, where possible, incorporate their suggestions in the design and implementation of the EV charging system.”
“The Commercial Vehicles Emissions Scheme also provides up to $30,000 in rebates for electric light goods vehicles. There was another point raised – and I wanted to just make sure and that is why I sought the clarification from the Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim – because the initial point in his speech was that PHC drivers are concerned because the cost of EVs is 82% higher. I think he said, in fact, operating cost. And when I asked for clarification, he said, no, it is actually ownership cost. So, I had a cursory look at the site that he was using – paultan.org, I understand, is the site. In fact, the quote goes further than just 82% higher ownership costs. It actually says 82% higher ownership costs in the region, not just in Singapore. So, it is not very clear where the number comes from and, in particular, whether it has taken into account all the schemes that we have in the context of Singapore. The point I want to make is this. When you consider costs, there are different elements to these. There is the upfront ownership cost, which seems to take into account the specific schemes that we have put in place; there is the operating cost for the life cycle – and on that, I can assure you that, in fact, EVs are very competitive. Because simply on the basis of cost per kilometre, based on today’s prices, it is at least no more than half what it would cost if you were driving an ICE. I am not promoting EVs – or I am not selling them – but these are the facts. And it does not take into account the maintenance costs. Because an EV has about 20 moving parts, compared to an ICE vehicle which has got, I am told by engineers, 2,000 moving parts. So, when you total it all up, actually, the equation balances out.”
“One of the proposals that Members have made – and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim in particular, I think – is to have a new segment for EVs, if I heard him correctly. If we think through the implications of that proposal, what it means is that we will have to take away supply from the other categories in order to supply a new category called EVs. The total supply for the different segments will reduce further. And for EVs, you will have a specific category. So, I am assuming, in the Member's policy design proposal, EV buyers can only buy EV COEs and not any other COE. And if you think through that, you are going to have far more, minimally, volatility in the price because the supply is constrained and, potentially, higher prices. It also raises a bunch of questions around how you make that allocative decision – on what basis? Do you allocate 10%, 30%, 50%? And what is the argument that substantiates that allocative decision? What we do is we treat all vehicles the same because the COE system is designed to control vehicle population, full stop. Whether you are ICE, hybrid, electric, maybe, in future, fuel cell hydrogen, they are all vehicles on our roads. So, we control the population. And then, what we do is we directly incentivise the adoption of the kinds of vehicles that we would like to promote through other policy tools for intervention. In this case, we have incentivised the adoption of EVs through the EV Early Adoption Incentive, or EEAI, and the enhanced Vehicular Emissions Scheme, which, together, provide a combined rebate of up to $45,000 off the upfront cost of an electric car. There was a suggestion that maybe we can give a 10% discount. Even at today’s COE prices, $45,000 is significantly higher than that in terms of upfront cost.”
“LTA is working with the industry to provide clarity on the requirements to be a charging equipment specialist under this regulatory regime. As Mr Edward Chia has also highlighted, our technicians and mechanics will also need to be equipped to take on the opportunities offered by the EV industry. In September this year, LTA launched the National EV Specialist Safety (NESS) certification, in partnership with SkillsFuture Singapore. Automotive technicians who have undergone relevant training on high voltage systems safety awareness can be certified under this scheme. We will continue to work closely with the industry and IHLs to grow our talent pool. Thirdly, I agree with Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Don Wee that we must ensure the proper disposal and recycling of EV batteries. To this end, since July last year, NEA has brought into effect an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme to ensure the proper treatment and recycling of electric waste. This includes all EV batteries. So, everyone in the ecosystem will have to comply with it. Finally, both Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Don Wee suggested adjustments to the COE system to phase out ICE vehicles. I have only been at MOT about a year, but no conversation on the vehicle system is complete without a discussion on COEs. So, I thank them for bringing it up. The core objective of the COE system is to limit our vehicle population. We have set the vehicle population growth to be zero and to have an efficient mechanism to allocate the quota. This is the case for all vehicles and an EV is a vehicle. It is not also good policy to foist too many objectives on a single policy tool. So, I would argue, for Members' consideration, that to use the COE for multiple objectives is not an appropriate or suitable policy formulation.”
“But I would like to point out that there is an inherent irony in this because, if there is a wide dispersion in the prices, does that mean that we have a more competitive market? And if we have a very narrow dispersion or, in extremis, just a single price across the whole of Singapore, is that a desirable outcome? So, we have to think about this carefully. But, in the first instance, our objective has been to ensure that the award of the tenders and so on is to address the key point that Mr Ang Wei Neng has been raising, which is really not having too wide a dispersion. The other thing to bear in mind is – not unlike what we see with the conventional ICE cars and so on – I am very sure that the EVCOs will provide incentives and other benefits to their regular customers. So, that would be a further discount, if you will, on the prices being paid. So, we need to really look at this in great detail and understand the true impact before we make any further judgements on the matter. Second, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about manpower development to support the EV transition. Based on a joint study by LTA and EMA last year, the number of licensed electrical workers, or LEWs, is expected to be sufficient to meet the increased demand from the EV transition over the next 15 years. Nevertheless, EMA has been reaching out to Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to raise awareness of the prerequisites to become an LEW. EMA has also implemented alternate pathways to allow experienced workers to apply for LEW licences. As for charging equipment specialists, to respond to Mr Edward Chia, EVCOs have been building up their talent pool and already employ such specialists in-house.”
“After the transitional period of six months after the Act commences, chargers that do not belong to a homologated model cannot be supplied, while unregistered chargers cannot be used. This is to protect the public from potentially unsafe chargers. In this intervening period, until the Act commences, both on the supply side, suppliers will now take reference from this and will have to ensure that the models they are selling are homologated or belong to the homologated variety. For if they fail, then customers will be back with them within six months to see what can be done to remedy it. And I would urge all who are contemplating procuring the chargers to also take reference from this requirement. Let me now briefly address Members' queries on the broader EV ecosystem, which, strictly speaking, falls beyond the scope of this Bill. First, on the long-term market structure of the EV charging industry. I agree with Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Yip Hon Weng that it is crucial to ensure healthy competition among EVCOs. LTA's large-scale tender for HDB car parks was awarded to five operators across 10 areas and allows for further injection of competition through future tenders at these car parks. Thus far, we have seen healthy competition in the EV charging industry, supported by the growth in market entrants over the past two years. Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have asked how the Government will ensure that EV charging services are priced fairly. Fundamentally, competition and consumer choice are the most effective means of doing so. But we will monitor the price dispersion – something that Mr Ang Wei Neng raised. I understand that, today, the price dispersion across different charging is about five cents per kilowatt-hour.”
“The reason for this is simple – it is to preserve a certain equivalence in the current level of accountability and governance for the use of MCST funds. Even then, we expect the lower threshold to be able to facilitate the installation of EV charging points because it is not a very capital-intensive exercise, based on the way it is being carried out today. The more prevalent practice is for EVCOs to pay for the cost of installation upfront and recover it from EV users over time. And as there is greater demand from higher EV adoption, these will form a key impetus, I think, for all developers and owners of developments to further install EV charging infrastructure. I would like to share with Mr Louis Ng and Mr Edward Chia that the take-up of the EV Common Charger Grant has been growing. So far, we have co-funded the installation of more than 200 chargers at more than 80 condominiums, with 30 applications pending review. So, part of the challenge here is helping the condominium MCSTs navigate the process because they may not know how to go about it and so on. So, LTA and BCA will work with industry players to develop guides to help condominium residents in the process of installing EV chargers. Several Members have asked about the enforcement of the Bill. LTA will take a pragmatic approach, with safety as the paramount objective. As all chargers must be registered before use, the records of the Registered Responsible Person for each charger will facilitate enforcement efforts. Specifically, on Mr Edward Chia's question, clause 74 of the Bill allows an authorised officer to enter premises where that officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that specific safety-related offences are being committed. Mr Don Wee asked about the transitional arrangements for existing chargers.”
“Several Members have posed more detailed questions about the licensing regime. LTA will provide updates in due course. Thirdly, let me elaborate on the mandate to provide EV charging at certain developments. Mr Saktiandi has asked why developments owned by the Government are not subject to this statutory requirement. As with other provisions like parking, Government-owned developments will take reference from our general policy and abide by relevant internal circulars. We have already started, as Members know, to deploy EV chargers on a large scale at HDB residential estates. I also have it on good authority – from Mr Speaker no less – that Parliament is also looking into the installation of EV chargers in the car park here. So, Members can all model responsible EV charging behaviour and the recalcitrant ones will, I think, face consequences in the Chamber. That is what the Speaker told me. [Laughter.] Let me now turn to the points raised by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng about applying these requirements to more redevelopments. As EV adoption is still at an early stage and not evenly distributed across developments, the mandate will not apply if existing developments do not cross the specified building or electrical work thresholds for now. We will monitor EV adoption trends and consider whether the mandate should be extended to all developments in future. The Bill does allow the Minister for Transport to adjust these thresholds through regulations when needed. In the meantime, we encourage developers to plan ahead and invest in the requisite infrastructure. Mr Louis Ng, in particular, was concerned that the lowered voting threshold for strata-titled developments only applies to proposals that do not tap on MCST funds.”
“LTA has just launched a beta function displaying real-time charger availability on the app, which more operators will contribute to over time. LTA is also working with third-party platform providers to allow more EV users to access charger information on their platform of choice, including information on real-time availability. I want to assure Mr Sharael Taha and, indeed, all Members that LTA will be transparent about how licensees' data is used. Commercially sensitive data will only be used for LTA's internal master-planning work. In general, LTA will not require EVCOs to share any personal data and LTA will only use or disclose any data collected from licensees in compliance with directions made under the Public Sector (Governance) Act and other relevant laws relating to confidentiality. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Edward Chia asked about preventing and deterring the inappropriate use of EV charging lots. Today, in HDB car parks, it is already an offence for a non-EV to park in an EV charging lot. EVCOs are also commercially driven to tackle this, because if a car is occupying the lot but not charging, that is loss of revenue. In some countries, EVCOs have implemented idle fees and time-based pricing to discourage lot hogging. Others are looking into technological solutions to make enforcement easier. Enforcement aside, motorists must also develop a culture of responsible and gracious behaviour when charging their EVs. So, education and an evolving culture are key. The fact is, even with enforcement and education, it will take some time for the EV charging behaviour and patterns in Singapore to normalise. We need a collective effort to help nurture the process and allow us all to ensure that this experience is a positive one for all of us.”
“This is a legitimate concern because when we take it to the ground, to the individual HDB car parks, there may be no end of questions around which floor of the car park the EV charging point should be deployed. Many other questions will arise, some of which have been, in fact, expressed in the course of this debate. That is why we have established a multi-agency committee, which is chaired by Senior Minister of State Amy Khor and the deputy chair is Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng. On this, we have LTA and HDB, among other important agencies that have relevant jurisdiction, in order to make sure that we are able to iron out these sorts of teething issues on the ground as we implement because we do not want these kinds of, if you like, regulatory hurdles to get in the way of a quick deployment of the chargers that we wish to achieve. As Mr Sharael Taha has highlighted, the role of petrol stations will also have to evolve as EVs become more widespread. Some petrol stations have already started to provide fast chargers for EVs and many electric taxi drivers charge there. The licensing regime is essential to our plans as it allows LTA to set conditions, such as service uptime, and also to collect data on EV charging patterns. Such data is critical to support the national master-planning efforts to deploy chargers and upgrade electrical infrastructure. However, accessibility goes beyond the physical infrastructure and it includes user experience. This is where Mr Don Wee's suggestion about developing a single app to integrate all service providers is pertinent. It is, indeed, what LTA has been working on. Today, LTA's MyTransport App allows EV users to locate and access public charging points offered by various EVCOs.”
“Instead, we are able to roll out the charging infrastructure in this first phase quickly because it focuses on the more approximate or last-mile type of infrastructure, such as the distribution boxes and so on, and then, of course, the actual charging points themselves. We want to deploy charging infrastructure quickly to support EV adoption. The data we gather from this adoption will inform how we want to go further. We may not need to wait until 2025 because, if the data comes in earlier and the patterns become more discernible, then we will have to adjust accordingly. As Mr Ang Wei Neng said, we also need to avoid overprovisioning, especially as the EV population today is relatively small, although the take-up rates are rising. So, in LTA's recent large-scale tender for charging points at HDB car parks, operators start with deploying at least three charging points at each car park, with the flexibility to scale up to 12 charging points. In most cases, this can be accommodated within the current electrical capacity. LTA will monitor the demand and launch further tenders as necessary. So, essentially, we can ramp up supply, if the need arises. We expect the vast majority of charging points to be low-powered. This optimises the electrical capacity required as charging can be done overnight when there is less demand on grid capacity. However, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have said, some EV users will require fast charging, such as two-shift taxi drivers. Our low-powered charging network will be complemented with a smaller number of high-powered charging points across the island. Mr Ang Wei Neng was concerned about the ground issues in implementation.”
“This is in addition to other charger design requirements in the TR25, such as electrical circuit breakers that minimise the risk of electrocution and electrical fires, including in the event of flooding mentioned by Mr Don Wee. But, in general, many Members have highlighted this concern about fires. And this is one of the reasons why we have paid specific attention to this and worked closely with SCDF. Secondly, several Members have asked how we will ensure adequate charging provision in Singapore. On Mr Dennis Tan's query, we are planning for the charging demand of a largely electric light vehicle population, taking into account the average mileage of car drivers in Singapore and the effective range of a typical EV. There are different parameters and these are factored into the computation. But having said that, I want to emphasise that we are dealing with an evolving space. The technology is evolving, the adoption rates and, therefore, the consequential demand are also changing. Usage patterns, both in terms of driving and charging habits, have yet to normalise. So, we need time to monitor and assess this pattern. But we cannot wait for everything to stabilise before taking action because it is a dynamic situation, it is a situation that calls for a response. That is why we have focused on this 12,000 charging-point deployment. It allows us to deploy quickly but without incurring some of the heavier capital expenditures (capex) – the capex that is associated with, for example, the upgrading of substations.”
“However, those regulations are targeted at the description and advertisement of goods. As I have explained earlier, the scope of this Bill goes further and a dedicated regulatory regime under LTA is what we have assessed to be the preferred and more appropriate option. Mr Saktiandi, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Shawn Huang have also asked for more details of the homologation, certification and inspection regimes. The regimes will be underpinned by Technical Reference 25 (TR25). These technical standards were just revised earlier this year, in consultation with industry experts and academics. So, Members can be assured that the EV charging industry is familiar with the standards as the industry has played an active role in its review. LTA will continue to work closely with the industry on regular future reviews as well. LTA is also working with industry players to support local R&D on promising EV charging technologies while ensuring safety, such as through regulatory sandboxes. Mr Saktiandi asked if we have any insights into the charging solutions for motorcycles. The sandboxes for motorcycle charging are in the very early stages. It would be premature for us to infer at this stage. But we do expect to learn quite a bit from these and other sandboxes so that we can, eventually, generalise the application through appropriate regulation. On Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question, we take fire safety very seriously. It is a paramount consideration. LTA worked with the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to update the Fire Code last year to enhance the fire safety requirements for buildings that install EV chargers. Under the revised Fire Code, EV chargers must have an isolation switch to cut off the electricity supply to the EV charger to facilitate emergency response.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank all the Members for their active interest in this Bill and also for their support. They have raised a series of questions and suggestions on a range of issues pertaining to the Bill and I will endeavour to address them. In particular, my responses will focus on the broad policy points pertaining to safety, reliability and accessibility, which are the key thrusts of this legislation. First, on the issue of safety-related regulations, which will apply to all chargers, including those which are already installed. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether it is excessive to have three separate regimes for approval, registration and licensing. Sir, all three aspects are necessary because they fulfil distinct purposes. The approval regime ensures that only safe EV chargers are sold. The registration regime holds each charger owner accountable for the safe use and maintenance of their chargers. The licensing regime ensures the reliability of EV charging services. So, there are distinct objectives served by these various components. Together, these regimes minimise the harm from unsafe charging, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has highlighted. I would like to assure the House that we will endeavour to keep the compliance cost reasonable. That includes the examples that Mr Saktiandi raised, where even if there may be instances where two separate approvals are required, where they coincide with the applicant because it is one and the same, we will endeavour to streamline those processes to minimise friction. Mr Edward Chia asked if the proposed regulatory regime should be reconciled with or parked under the regulatory regime for Controlled Goods in the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations. Mr Speaker, my Ministry did consider this.”
“And it says 80% higher operating costs for EVs? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: That the estimated operating costs for EVs was as much as 82% greater, yes, based on that report.”
“Sorry, paultan.org? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: — paultan.org, which is —”
“Speaker, may I just seek a clarification from the Member? Did he say that PHC drivers expressed concern about the higher operating cost of EVs? I think he used the number of 80%. Is that correct? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, Minister, I did. This was based off a report in 2022, reported in paultan.org that said "EVs made up just 8.4% of new cars registered in Singapore with Grab drivers being reluctant to switch". This is not my own numbers but based on —”
“Over the past two years, we have received feedback on the challenges faced by strata-titled developments like condominiums in installing EV charging points. Proposals to install EV charging points may be defeated despite having the majority support of subsidiary proprietors. This is because under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004, proposals to lease the common property to EV charging operators to install EV chargers could be required to meet a resolution threshold of up to 90%, depending on the duration of the lease. Hence, in consultation with MND and BCA, we proposed related amendments to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act so that proposals to install or uninstall EV chargers in strata-titled developments will only require an ordinary resolution, which can be passed with the support of a simple majority of the subsidiary proprietors voting in a general meeting. Such a proposal must not draw down on the funds of the Management Corporation, and the relevant lease or licence between the Management Corporation and the EV charging operator that enables such a proposal must not last for more than 10 years. So, there is a safeguard around the draw of funds and there is also a safeguard around the duration of the contract. Mr Speaker, to conclude, as EV charging and related technology evolve, we will need to adapt our laws and regulations to ensure they are fit for purpose. This Electric Vehicles Charging Bill is an important foundation and first step. It is a milestone in Singapore's quest for a sustainable land transport system and in our journey towards net-zero emissions by 2050. And I commend it to all Members to give it their full support. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“3 kilovolt amperes of power for every car and motorcycle parking lot in the development. Second, developers must install a minimum number of charging points which would draw at least one-fifth of that amount of power. To illustrate, a development that is in compliance will be able to support 7.4 kilowatt (kW) charging points with smart charging capability at about one in five lots. And in terms of the actual installation of chargers, the developer can comply with the mandate by fitting out about one in 25 lots with such 7.4 kW charging points. I am sure everyone understood that technical point. But if I may put it in simple terms, what it means is that one part of the requirement is for the electricity capacity that is to be provided and the technical people have used a specific metric applied to the number of parking lots to establish that cap. The second part of that mandate is on the number of lots. So, while you can have up to one in five of the lots with these chargers, the mandate is really, if you go by slow charging rates, it will amount to about one in 25. That is what it amounts to. So, it is about 4% or 5% of the lots. But the mandate is designed to provide the flexibility to deploy a mix of charging points with different power ratings at more or fewer lots, depending on the needs of users. For instance, some developers may opt to have more charging lots installed with lower-powered chargers, while others may have fewer lots installed with higher-powered chargers. So, there is a trade-off because, for a given electrical capacity, if you choose to have more high-powered chargers, then you have fewer charging stations and vice versa.”
“For a start, the licensing regime will only cover EV charging operators that provide charging services to the public, given the focus on commercial EV charging operators. This coverage can be expanded in accordance with future needs. The Bill also allows for step-in arrangements in respect of a designated licensee. Under clause 56, the Minister may, by order in the Gazette, prescribe a licensee that is authorised to provide EV charging services as a designated licensee. For example, this may be a licensee with a large scale of operations in Singapore. If the licence of a designated licensee is revoked or surrendered, the Minister for Transport may, on the advice of LTA, invoke clause 57 of the Bill to authorise a step-in operator to take over the designated licensee's operations temporarily, for no more than 12 months. This will minimise disruption and facilitate a smoother transition for the affected EV users. The intent is for these provisions to be invoked where no short-term commercial arrangement or remedies are available and it will be used as a last resort. The third objective of this Bill is to promote the accessibility of the EV charging network. With more vehicles going electric, all carparks in Singapore will need to provide for EV charging. Therefore, Part 8 of the Bill mandates the provision of EV charging infrastructure by developers of specified building works and development owners who carry out certain types of electrical works. These are, typically, new developments or those undergoing substantial renovation. The mandate, which will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, consists of two parts. First, developers must install electrical infrastructure that supports at least 1.”
“The person in charge and control of an EV charger, which is typically the owner, must register the charger with LTA and will be the registered responsible person required to ensure that it is properly maintained and periodically inspected by a qualified person. To ensure safe installation, the Bill and accompanying subsidiary legislation will require chargers to be certified as fit for charging electric vehicles by qualified persons, which includes Licensed Electrical Workers (LEWs) and charging equipment specialists. The installation of fixed chargers must also be overseen by LEWs. In addition, the Bill also has safeguards against unsafe charging. For example, EV chargers capable of charging detachable EV batteries will not be allowed in residences because of the risk of battery fires. Also, a manufacturer or supplier who knows of a safety defect in the charger or charger model it has supplied must inform persons with charge and control of such chargers on how to rectify the defect and, subsequently, report to LTA upon the completion of rectification work. Mr Speaker, Sir, Part 6 of the Bill introduces a licensing regime for EV charging service providers or charging station operators to ensure the reliability of the EV charging network and services. The services provided by such EV charging operators will include hiring of fixed EV chargers, EV battery swapping and renting of portable EV chargers. EV charging operators must obtain a licence, which will be valid for three years and renewable. Licensing conditions will include the purchase of public liability insurance and correcting EV charging service downtime issues within a specified duration.”
“Today, while the Energy Market Authority (EMA) regulates the installation of EV chargers by Licensed Electrical Workers, the activities of others like charger manufacturers, charger suppliers, charger owners and users are not. Given the potential fire and other safety hazards, the Bill proposes regulation to cover the entire use cycle of EV chargers and to consolidate the regulatory oversight under LTA. Clause 6 of the Bill specifies that all chargers supplied in Singapore must belong to a homologated model that meets the national charging standard, which is Technical Reference 25, or TR25, and it was revised earlier this year. The supply of a non-homologated model is an offence with the penalty for individuals of a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum jail term of 24 months, or both, while a corporate entity faces a maximum fine of $40,000. Clause 15 of the Bill prohibits the advertisement of non-approved EV charger models, including online or digital advertising. The Bill empowers LTA to direct the advertiser to stop further publication of the advertisement, disable access to the offending advertisement or publish a corrective advertisement. As new and emerging charging solutions may not comply with TR25, Part 4 of the Bill allows LTA to administer a special authorisation regime for such chargers to be trialled under controlled conditions, until they are, eventually, incorporated into our main standards. To ensure accountability for the proper use and maintenance of EV chargers, clause 22 allows LTA to maintain a national Register of EV chargers.”
“The proposed Electric Vehicles Charging Bill aims to confer LTA with new statutory powers to administer and enforce a comprehensive regulatory regime. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. This Bill serves three main objectives. The first is to ensure that EV chargers are safe, and safely used. Hence, the Bill proposes to regulate the supply, advertisement, installation, registration, maintenance and use of EV chargers, both portable and fixed, including battery charge and swap stations and pantograph chargers. Second, to ensure the reliability of the EV charging network and services through a licensing regime for EV charging operators. Third, to promote the accessibility of the EV charging network, by mandating a minimum provision of charging points at certain developments and by lowering the resolution threshold for EV charger installation at strata-titled developments. Earlier this year, MOT and LTA conducted a public consultation exercise on the Bill. More than 70 members of the public and industry players responded and were, generally, supportive of the provisions that have been proposed. Industry respondents recognised the need for a licensing regime for EV charging operators, so as to maintain standards, but requested that compliance costs be kept low. My Ministry and LTA will work with the industry to ensure this even as we design an effective licensing regime. Many also supported the proposed charging provision mandate and some even asked for the mandate to be expanded to cover all developments. I will address this later. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now elaborate on how the Bill will help to achieve the three objectives of safety, reliability and accessibility. First, on regulating for the safe use of EV chargers.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, Singapore aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. To attain this national target, we must significantly decarbonise the land transport sector, which accounts for about 15% of emissions. The electrification of our vehicle population is key to this effort. The carbon emissions of an electric car are half that of an internal combustion engine (ICE) car and this will improve as more renewable sources enter our energy mix. Our vision is for all vehicles in Singapore to run on cleaner energy by 2040. Based on current trends, many of these – in fact, a significant proportion – will be electric vehicles, or EVs. This year, more than 10% of new light vehicle registrations were EVs, up from 0.3% in 2020. That is a 30-fold increase. The adoption has been broad-based, with half of all EVs registered to condominium and HDB residents. To further encourage the EV transition, we need an island-wide public charging network that is safe, reliable and accessible. We aim to deploy 60,000 charging points across Singapore by 2030. Today, we have over 3,600 charging points, which is more than double the number two years ago. LTA recently awarded a tender to deploy an additional 12,000 charging points across all HDB carparks. And this means that our charging network is going to expand significantly by the middle of this decade. As we ramp up the EV charging infrastructure, we must also strengthen the governing regulatory framework. Last year, Parliament amended the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act, to assign to LTA the statutory function of promoting and regulating the safe use of EVs in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. In his two questions, I think he has actually traversed the entire spectrum of what could be the industry structure – from a monopoly to competitions. I am not quite sure where he is on the spectrum. But anyway, let me endeavour to respond. First, we want to really promote competition because of the beneficial impact that it can have – what I have already explained. There is no reason to think, as of now, the equation has somehow shifted in the direction of going towards consolidation. So, specific to the Members' second question, these are all policy design. So, policy design, as I have emphasised in some previous responses, must be informed by data and the experience and also the evolving circumstances. But, as of now, we think the balance is right in terms of between the need for scale and the benefits that go with it, as opposed to also the desire for greater competitiveness and contestability in our rail system. As for the involvement of foreign players, I think the way the Member has framed it perhaps may not be an entirely correct characterisation. As I have said, first of all, we have not ruled out, but neither do we have any particular set of considerations that impel us in this direction of bringing in a completely new operator. However, for foreign players to come in, there are other mechanisms. So, for example, through partnerships with local players, so that they can share their expertise and also for some co-mingling of ideas and so on. And that is something that LTA remains open to.”
“Mr Speaker, ensuring contestability in our rail system is an important consideration for us. Contestability will help spur operators to improve standards and put in more competitive tender bids. Therefore, when we introduced the New Rail Financing Framework in 2016, one of the changes was to shorten the licence period for rail operators from over 30 years to 15 years today. However, we also need to consider the unique circumstances and characteristics of the rail industry. The rail industry is a highly complex and large-scale system that delivers an essential service. So, we must allow for operators to reap economies of scale even as they maintain high reliability and service standards. So, any decision pertaining to current and new rail lines, will have to continue to balance these key considerations.”
“Battery swapping is one solution that is being promoted and the challenge with these sorts of solutions is the safety consideration. Because we want to ensure that if batteries can, in fact, be removed from the vehicle and taken to whichever premises, including residential premises, then the attendant risks, including fire hazards, increase as well. And so, we want to be very careful about this. What we have done is to commence some trials with partners. For example, it brings together the supplier of the motorcycle, the supplier of the charging solution, the user of such motorcycles, like a delivery company and so on, and we have two such trials taking place. On the specific point raised by the Member, the agency that is coordinating this effort is LTA and, if there is a specific query, I would be very happy to ask LTA to follow up on it.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. Do we target specific sectors? The answer is no, but with an important qualifier. Basically, because when you make a transition from Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to electric, there is a general benefit to the overall ecosystem in terms of emissions reduction. However, of course, in certain sectors where the utilisation of the vehicles may be more intensive, if the conversion can take place earlier and to a greater extent, then the beneficial outcomes will also be similarly enhanced. So, from that point of view, for example, we are seeing moves in the taxi and also the bus fleets – we have announced that 50% of our bus fleet will be fully electric by the end of the decade and so on – because these are where there are emissions that might be more intensive because of usage patterns. In addition, I would say it is also a function of technology because, for example, in the realm of very heavy vehicles, adoption and usage have been varied when it comes to electrification. In fact, other solutions, like hydrogen, appear to be gathering momentum. So, we will have to wait and see. But the broad answer would be that we are not targeting specific sectors. Rather, we are focused on just promoting the general adoption of and transition to EVs and, eventually, to other cleaner energy forms. On the second point on EV motorcycles, I must first point out that, today, plug-in solutions already exist. There are motorcycles that can use plug-in recharging and so on, and that already is there. But this, generally, tends to be in the higher power output type of motorbikes. For the broad mass, at the moment, there are different models.”
“Mr Speaker, the Government has implemented incentives, such as the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme (CVES) and Early Turnover Scheme (ETS), to encourage electric Light Goods Vehicles (e-LGV) purchases, including purchases by vehicle rental companies. The adoption of e-LGVs in Singapore has grown significantly – from 0.4% of new LGV registrations in 2020, to around 28% this year, to date. This is the highest among all vehicle categories. We will continue to monitor and review the efficacy of and the need for any additional incentives.”
“LTA does not set guidelines on conditions for early contract termination for taxi and private hire car (PHC) rentals, which are commercially determined as part of agreements between rental companies and drivers. Taxi/PHC rental companies may offer different packages and contracts to cater to the different needs and preferences of drivers. We understand that rental companies do review early terminations on a case-by-case basis, and we encourage them to continue doing so in a compassionate manner. Drivers who need to terminate their contracts early due to unforeseen circumstances are encouraged to discuss possible options with their respective rental companies. LTA is also working with the driver associations to help drivers better understand rental contract terms and the risks involved.”
“At the 2022 Fare Review Exercise (FRE), the Public Transport Council (PTC) indicated that the maximum allowable fare adjustment quantum under the current fare formula was 13.5%. The fare formula broadly reflects the increases in public transport operating costs due to inflation, rising manpower costs and higher energy prices. To keep fares affordable for commuters in the current economic circumstances, the PTC decided to grant a fare increase of 2.9%, with the remaining 10.6 percentage points carried over to future FREs. The additional subsidy of about $200 million is to cover the revenue shortfall arising from this carry-over and not aimed at defraying any specific cost item. Together with the fare increases, it helps to cover various operating cost increases, including electricity costs for rail and fuel costs for buses.”
“The Government has implemented measures such as the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme (CVES) and Early Turnover Scheme (ETS) to incentivise electric Light Goods Vehicles (e-LGV) purchases, which vehicle fleet owners like EVCo will benefit from.”