1 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked\tthe Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can provide an update on investigations into the recent termination of multiple employees of Surbana Jurong.
2 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked\tthe Minister for Manpower (a) what constitutes due and fair process in terminating employees due to poor performance; (b) what recourse do employees have to access crucial evidence on performance held by employers to prove unfair dismissal; and (c) what are the penalties for employers who disguise retrenchment as termination due to poor performance.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say):\tMdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please.
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, employers who terminate employment contracts on the ground of poor performance have to be able to substantiate their claim of poor performance. The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices make it clear that employers who wish to terminate the services of employees on the ground of poor performance are to apply relevant and objective performance criteria. The criteria should be made known to all employees. Employers should also keep records of their employees' performance and a decision to terminate the service of an employee should be based on documented poor performance. The key word is \"documented\". Where it involves a unionised employee, the union should also be consulted.
If the employee files an appeal of unfair dismissal to MOM, we will first mediate. Should mediation fail, we will conduct an inquiry and require the employer to show cause and produce evidence to justify the termination. This remedy is provided under the Employment Act, as well as the Industrial Relations Act for union members.
If an employer is unable to substantiate his claim that the employee's performance is poor, the employer may be ordered to reinstate the employee or to provide compensation. If the employer does not comply with the order, he can be prosecuted.
In the case of Surbana Jurong's recent exercise to terminate the services of 54 employees, the company has acknowledged that the process could have been better managed. The management and unions have since reached an agreement on an ex-gratia payment which, in our view, is a fair outcome for the affected employees.
This episode serves as a good reminder to employers that termination exercises should be conducted in a responsible and sensitive manner.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong):\tI thank the Minister for Manpower for his comprehensive answer. Big companies have a certain footprint, especially those which are linked to the Government or doing significant business with the public sector. How can we strengthen human resource best practices in such companies and are there lessons which can be applied more broadly from what happened in Surbana?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, I agree fully with the Member. As far as MOM is concerned, we expect all companies to behave in a responsible manner, especially the major employers, whether it is a GLC, MNC, large local enterprise or, for that matter, public services. MOM does expect all companies, but especially major employers, to conduct their HR practices in a responsible and progressive manner.
In this particular case, we are certainly concerned that a major employer could commit such an HR practice lapse. Looking forward, TAFEP is stepping up efforts to engage the employers out there, including the major ones. Members may be pleased to know that, last year, I talked about our plan to set up a programme known as the \"Human Capital Partnership Programme\", which is to reach out to employers, especially the major ones, to work together to value our precious human resources in a more responsive, sensitive, constructive manner. That programme will be launched quite soon, within the next few weeks.
I would hope that, in time to come, we can continue to reach out to more employers, especially the larger employers, so that mistakes such as this need not happen again in the future.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member):\tMdm Speaker, I thank the Minister. In the case of Surbana, was documented evidence given to the employees of their poor performance? And do the employees have recourse to ask the employers for evidence, if they are not given the evidence? Are the employers obliged to give the evidence? Thirdly, does MOM step in when it comes to this kind of mass terminations where you have large numbers of people being laid off due to poor performance? Do they come in to investigate even if there are no reports of unfair dismissal by the employees?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, firstly, there is no need for the employees to have access to the documented proof. As long as an employee feels that he has been dismissed unfairly, he can just come to MOM. In other words, he does not need the cooperation of the employer. Just come to MOM and we will require the employer to produce the documented proof, failing which we will rule it as an unfair dismissal.
Secondly, termination exercises happen within the purview of the companies. MOM will come in only when either the union brings it to our attention or the affected employees come to MOM. This has been the approach because it is not possible for MOM to investigate whenever there is a termination exercise, big or small.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol):\tA question for the Minister: would MOM consider having tripartite guidelines for mass terminations, similar to those that we have for mass retrenchments?
\tMr Lim Swee Say:\tMdm Speaker, certainly. The tripartite partners have been and will continue to issue various HR guidelines for progressive HR practices. We will continue to widen the scope. The tripartite partners are also in the process right now of formulating something beyond guidelines. Hopefully, come the time for the Committee of Supply (COS) debate, I will be able to share with this House on how we can strengthen progressive HR practices in our HR community.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon):\tMdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister: for this case involving Surbana Jurong terminating the 54 workers, they were labelled poor performers. With this label, it is very difficult for them or it would be an additional challenge for them to find the next job. I would like to ask MOM: if they need help, is MOM going to help them to find their next job?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, I share the concern of the Member. I spent many years with the Labour Movement and now with MOM. To the best of my recollection, this is the first time that an employer has conducted such a major termination exercise and to declare publicly and to label the workers as poor performers. This is something that, as the Manpower Minister, I do not find acceptable. If the performance of the employees is not up to the mark, there could be contributing factors on the part of the employers as well. In other words, performance management should be a joint responsibility of employees and employers.
In most organisations, if it reaches such a stage whereby the employees and employers can no longer continue the working relationship, they will find a way to go separate ways, but you do not label the person publicly. The management realises this as well and that is why they publicly acknowledged that the way they conducted the exercise could have been much better managed.
I hope to make clear to all employers out there that when it comes to performance management, do it responsibly and, at the same time, do it sensitively. I hope that we will not come across another case where a company does a major termination and labels the employees as poor performers publicly. At the end of the day, yes, it may be poor performance in one organisation, but it does not mean a person cannot do well in other places. As I had mentioned, the work environment, HR practices and so on are also contributing factors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pricing Mechanism under Build-to-Order Flats and Sale of Balance Flats Exercises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Low Thia Khiang asked\tthe Minister for National Development what is the pricing mechanism of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats compared to unsold BTO flats released under a Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercise that results in the BTO price for the same flat exceeding the SBF price in some cases and not in others.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Speaker, new HDB flats offered under the BTO and SBF exercises are priced using the same methodology, which takes into account the prices of comparable resale flats in the vicinity, as well as the specific attributes of the flats, such as storey height and design.
However, the prices of SBF units may differ from that in the BTO exercise for several reasons. First, the SBF price may be slightly higher as the units are closer to completion. Second, the SBF prices may also be updated if there is a change in prevailing market conditions. For example, in cases where the prices of comparable resale flats in the vicinity have softened since the time of the BTO launch, the prices of balance flats may be lower than their original BTO prices.
Regardless of whether the flats are sold under BTO or SBF exercises, HDB gives a generous market discount to ensure that new flats are affordable to buyers. On top of the subsidised prices, eligible first-timer families can also receive up to $80,000 in housing grants to help them purchase their flats.
\tMr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied):\tA clarification for the Minister. People understand, generally, that SBF flat prices are generally higher than BTO prices. But there are cases where SBF prices were lower, for instance, for the Punggol estate's Matilda Edge project. Some units were quite significantly lower in prices during the SBF exercise in 2016, compared to the BTO prices in 2013. Certain units at the lower floors were actually lower in price.
So, the question now is: under what circumstances and considerations does HDB lower the price and, by doing so, is it fair to those who had bought the BTO flats in the same cluster?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Madam, first of all we should compare like for like. As I had mentioned, pricing can differ due to various reasons − a higher floor unit will be more expensive than a lower floor unit, and there are different characteristics of location as well.
So, let us take all of that aside. Because if you take all of that aside, and you take, say, an SBF unit and a BTO unit in the same block, same floor, most of the time, they will be similar. But there may be instances, as I have explained earlier, where the SBF unit is sold at a later stage and if, indeed, the market has softened − it does not happen very often because our market is generally quite stable − but if indeed market conditions have softened, then HDB may sell that SBF unit at a later stage, due to market conditions, if the general market has softened, it may be sold at a slightly lower price than the original BTO price. That is the reason that I have stated earlier.
I think that is fair to all home buyers because the transaction is done at the point of sale. If the market has come down, then we charge it at a slightly lower price. This is not a new practice. We have been doing it all this while. BTO batch by BTO batch, sometimes the prices differ because of market conditions. Balance flats, as the market adjusts, we also update the pricing. This has been the practice of HDB's pricing all this while.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rate and Reasons for Rejection by Applicants Invited to Select Flats in BTO or Sale of Balance Flats Exercise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, what is the rate of rejection by applicants who are invited to select a flat for the sale of BTO flats or sale of balance flats exercise; (b) what are the top three reasons given for the rejection; (c) what is the period of time taken to complete inviting all applicants to select their flats; and (d) whether HDB will allow interested and unsuccessful applicants to stay in the queue to select a flat.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Madam, between 2012 and 2016, about two in five applicants who had been invited to select a flat under a Build-To-Order (BTO) or Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercise did not proceed to book a flat.
The top three reasons given by these invited flat applicants were that their preferred units had been taken up, they would like to apply for flats in other sales exercises, or they had changed their minds and would like to consider other housing options.
HDB shortlists flat applicants up to 300% of the flat supply. Depending on the flat supply and application rate, the average time taken to complete the selection of a BTO exercise and a SBF exercise is around six months and 10 months respectively. It takes longer for the SBF because the units are typically more spread out, more diverse, so more time taken to complete the SBF exercise. Flats which are not booked will be consolidated for offer in future SBF exercises.
Flat applicants who are not shortlisted are informed that they are not successful. This allows them to make alternative housing plans, such as applying in the next BTO or SBF sales launches, or buying a resale flat on the open market. HDB has found this to be a better arrangement than having unsuccessful applicants stay in the queue, as the applicants may then end up having to wait for an even longer period of time, without any certainty that the flats will be available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Use Old Parking Coupons at Pro-rated Rates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for National Development whether motorists can be allowed to use the old parking coupons at pro-rated rates.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, we have studied the option and concluded that there is no need to do so. Instead, we have ensured that there is adequate supply of parking coupons for exchange at the majority of petrol stations, as well as at HDB branches and at the URA. At the same time, enforcement officers on the ground are issuing advisory notices and not parking offence notices, to motorists who may have overlooked the change and still use the old coupons during this transition period.
HDB and URA have been actively monitoring the sale and exchange of coupons. After an initial peak period in the first week of December when the new rates took effect, the volume of sale and exchange of coupons has decreased significantly and has now stabilised.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I would like to ask: what are the reasons the review concluded that allowing motorists to use old coupons at pro-rated rates was not a more efficient solution?
I would also like to ask a second supplementary question: in future, whether there can be the option of allowing the old supply of coupons to be used up in the market and simply replaced? This means, old coupons will not be issued anymore and new coupons being issued, rather than requiring motorists to actually go into petrol stations and convenience stores and so on, to do an exchange, because that creates hassle for the motorists and also creates an administrative burden.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his feedback. Many people have already changed and exchanged their coupons. During this transition period, we have issued advisories, rather than offence notices. So, it is better to operationally cart over to the new parking coupons.
The Member's other point is for the future. In fact, HDB and URA plan to eventually phase out coupon parking altogether. Both agencies have been progressively converting car parks from coupon-based parking to Electronic Parking Systems (EPS). As of December 2016, out of 2,104 public off-street car parks managed by both HDB and URA, 1,537 or 73% are already operating under the EPS.
However, on-street car parks, such as kerb-side parking with site constraints, and car parks affected by impending redevelopment, are not suitable for EPS operations. For these car parks, HDB and URA are exploring the use of new parking technology to bring greater convenience to motorists.
So, his suggestion about, if in future, there needs to be any change, that old coupons should be allowed to be used, we hope technology will replace all of that.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Occupants in Senior Group Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development why there are three occupants in a 1-room rental unit in Senior Group Homes instead of the standard number of two occupants under the typical HDB rental housing scheme.
7 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider extending the Senior Group Home scheme to suitable adults with special needs whose families are no longer around or able to look after them.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, the Senior Group Home model supports frail elderly–”
Mdm Speaker:\tMinister, do you want to take the next two questions together?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin:\tSorry. Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take the next two questions together?
Mdm Speaker:\tI give my permission.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Thank you. The Senior Group Home model supports frail elderly in rental flats to age within the community and delay premature institutionalisation of these seniors.
The objective is that each Senior Group Home would be located in a public rental block and typically comprises six to eight rental flats which can accommodate 12 to 18 seniors. The Senior Group Home is an assisted living model where seniors can live independently in the community and provide mutual support to one another. They are paired with their room-mates as buddies and they help to look out for each other. The number of seniors per unit is determined by the rental unit's configuration, the seniors' mobility status and the use of assistive devices, such as a wheelchair.
Having three seniors staying together raises the level of mutual support, which is important as Senior Group Homes are not designed to provide round-the-clock care. Such a configuration also takes into account the eventual demand for places as our population ages. But having said that, the Senior Group Home operators are also learning from the actual experience. This is a relatively new set-up that we have put in place and we will look at feedback and what we are learning from it. As we operationalise the scheme, if necessary, we will make adjustments along the way.
Seniors with special needs who are eligible for HDB public rental housing and are also suitable for communal living can be supported in the Senior Group Home. There are currently visually-impaired seniors in the Senior Group Homes. The Senior Group Homes are unable to support adults with moderate disabilities as there is no round-the-clock supervision.
For adults with special needs whose families are no longer able to look after them, MSF will take their care needs into account and help to site them in the appropriate residential setting, such as an adult disability home.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for his responses. I have actual feedback from residents who are living in these Senior Group Homes or assisted living models that the arrangement where there are three tenants in one rental flat vs two tenants in a typical rental unit is really very crowded, especially, as the Minister has said, if wheelchairs are involved, and in the sharing of common facilities like the toilet in the rental unit. So, I would really appreciate it if the Minister could take a look and examine this model again to see if this can just be on par with the occupancy number in a typical HDB rental flat and when it can be done.
For the next question, feedback received on the Senior Group Home as an assisted living model is actually very good. I would like to ask the Minister to see if it can formally develop and incorporate this as one of the additional models in the continuum of residential living for adults with special needs, and not just seniors. And also to ask when the Minister can look into this and give us a response in the sector.
Third, there is also review that the current outcome of the Senior Group Home scheme does not seem to be as popular or as favourable as expected when it was first conceived and launched. Perhaps the Minister would like to share his views on this.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions and clarifications.
Firstly, with regard to occupancy numbers, I have visited the Senior Group Homes and have also spoken to the residents there. I understand the concerns with regard to flat size. The flats do vary in size and layout, and also, when there are wheelchairs and walking aids involved as well, we will have to take that into consideration.
The idea is this: in a regular rental flat, you have two people living in the flat and these are largely able-bodied individuals. The Senior Group Homes are meant for those who need some assistance and we feel that, with three, there might be the possibility of providing better mutual support. But having said that, we are taking on board various feedback and we are completely open to reviewing this. This is ongoing.
Secondly, adults with special needs. So, not only just for the elderly, but whether this is a possible model for adults with special needs. This is something that we are open to look at. As mentioned, for the elderly space, we are looking at a whole range of different possibilities. Some of these ideas may or may not work, but we want to try them because the numbers will be quite significant. Managing of numbers and space allocation would be important, but we will experiment with the different possibilities.
For the special needs sector, not just for the elderly, as the Member mentioned, for adults with special needs, we will be quite happy to explore what are some of these options that we think might be useful for adults with special needs and whose families may not be able to look after them. We will be quite happy to engage the Member if she has specific ideas. Let us see where that goes.
Lastly, in terms of the outcomes for the Senior Group Homes model, why does it not seem quite so popular? Well, it is relatively new. We reckon that there is a possible need for the Senior Group Homes, but the take-up rate has not been overwhelming. We do have spare spaces, but that could be the result of this being a relatively new sort of arrangement that we are putting in place. We are looking at this to review whether we need to adjust it; whether a better model needs to be put in place.
It is still early days yet. We are reviewing, together with MOH, the range of possibilities. It is not all cast in stone. We are open to new ideas as well, because I think providing support for our ageing population in various forms and at various stages of their own ageing process is very important. So, this is something that will be reviewed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of Passenger Safety Features for Taxis and Private Hire Cars","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) whether all taxis are equipped with airbags, particularly for the front seats; (b) if not, which taxi companies have not done so; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to make the installation mandatory in line with international road safety standards.
9 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked\tthe Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider making it mandatory for all vehicles which provide hire and reward services to be installed with safety devices and safety features to avoid incidents that compromise road safety for their passengers and road users.
\tThe Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng) (for the Minister for Transport):\tMdm Speaker, may I take Question Nos 8 and 9 together?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please.
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: We impose the same safety requirements on taxis and private hire cars as on private cars. Seat belts for the driver and front and back seat passengers are mandatory. However, we have not made airbags mandatory, as they are generally considered by the industry to be a supporting feature to supplement seat belts. If seat belts are used properly, the injury risks to passengers are already greatly reduced. There is no international agreement on norms on the installation of airbags.
Nevertheless, all the taxi companies in Singapore have taken the initiative to procure taxis with airbags when expanding or renewing their fleet. Today, about 70% of all taxis in Singapore are equipped with airbags, compared to about 23% five years ago.
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio):\tThank you, Minister, for the update. There are also privately-leased cars in the market today that are being used for private hire purposes. For new fleets that are coming on board, how would the Ministry ensure that they will also install similar features, whether it be airbags or other features that enhance safety. And in the implementation process, how do you balance the cost issue versus the safety issue, so that the cost will not be passed on to the commuters or the drivers who lease the vehicle in a manner that makes it impractical for them to do so?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: When operators renew or expand their fleet, new cars usually come with airbags. This cost is already incorporated into the price of a car and, therefore, it is a part of the business cost.
When we talk about retrofitting airbags into existing cars, then that is a different proposition as that comes with more technical and cost challenges. We should allow time to take its natural course so that old cars in our system will eventually be phased out and all new cars will have airbags.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Merged Career Tracks for Graduate and Non-graduate Civil Servants on Starting Salary, Career Progression and Exposure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister in light of the merging of career tracks for graduate and non-graduate civil servants (a) whether different educational qualifications affect compensation, starting pay, training, career progression and exposure for individuals at the same grade; (b) whether civil servants who are recipients of Government or Statutory Board scholarships have compensation, starting pay, training, career progression and exposure that are different from other civil servants; and (c) how does the Current Estimated Potential model take educational attainment into account.
Page: 14
\tThe Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Teo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister): Madam, the objective of merging the career tracks for graduates and non-graduates is to equalise opportunities for career progression and development.
At the entry level, officers are paid based on their assigned job responsibilities and demonstrated qualities, which include leadership and relevant experience. Where an officer does not have relevant work experience, in particular, for those just entering the workforce, their performance in their educational institutions, which includes both academic and non-academic accomplishments, will be taken into consideration as a proxy.
Once an officer is on the job, it is performance and readiness for bigger job responsibilities that matter. A non-graduate who has demonstrated the same qualities as a graduate will be given the same development and advancement opportunities.
In particular, all officers who perform well and show potential for leadership are given the opportunity to participate in development programmes and are considered for higher positions. This approach applies to all officers, regardless of whether they were scholarship recipients or not. Once the scholarship recipients return from their studies, they are assessed and placed on the same schemes of service and their salaries are also determined in the same way as non-scholarship recipients.
Civil service agencies use Currently Estimated Potential (CEP) as one tool to assess officers for their readiness for bigger job responsibilities. An officer's CEP is assessed based on demonstrated \"AIM\" qualities, which stand for (a) Analytical and Intellectual Capacity; (b) Influence and Collaboration; and (c) Motivation for Excellence. The CEP assessment is not based on the officer's starting educational qualifications. CEP is based on assessments of whether the officer has demonstrated the qualities required for jobs with larger responsibilities.
The Public Service Leadership Programme (PSLP) is one example of how officers with demonstrated performance and potential for higher responsibilities are developed. Officers from a wide range of educational, professional and work backgrounds have been placed on the PSLP when they have shown good performance and potential.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Online Banking Licences for Internet Companies that Provide Mobile Payment Solutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Ms Sun Xueling asked\tthe Prime Minister (a) whether there are plans to offer online banking licences to Internet companies focused on providing solutions for mobile payments; and (b) what will be the pre-requisites in terms of infrastructure and company capabilities for such licences.
\tThe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung) (for the Prime Minister): MAS' existing bank licensing framework can accommodate Internet-only banks to operate in Singapore. As the risks posed by Internet-only banks are not fundamentally different from those posed by conventional banks, they will operate within the same licensing and regulatory regime as conventional banks.
But most Internet companies will not require a banking licence unless they intend to take deposits and grant loans. If they are offering mainly payment solutions, depending on the specific type of payment service they provide, they may be subject to a narrow set of regulatory requirements pertinent to that payment service.
For example, PayPal, an online payment platform that facilitates e-commerce transactions, is only required to comply with requirements applicable to stored value facilities under the Payment Systems (Oversight) Act. Likewise, Singtel's mRemit, a remittance service on mobile phones, is licensed under the Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act.
More non-bank FinTech payment companies are coming onto the scene, offering a variety of payment services. MAS encourages this development as it potentially offers consumers more choice and convenience and further develops our financial industry. To better calibrate its regulatory requirements to the various modes of innovative payment services, MAS has put out for consultation a new, streamlined activity-based regulatory framework for payments. The aim is to promote innovation, ensure security and foster consumer confidence. MAS is currently reviewing public feedback on the proposed payments regulatory framework.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol):\tCurrently, financial institutions have their own proprietary systems for mobile payments. Will the MAS look at encouraging inter-operability between these systems to create greater convenience for consumers?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: We have actually a very valuable infrastructure in place called FAST − that is the Fast And Secure Transfers system that all banks ride on. That is why from my bank account, I can make a payment to another person's bank account, so long as we both have bank accounts in Singapore.
What is not so convenient is that it is based on bank accounts.
So, by the end of this year, the industry will be incorporating within FAST a Central Addressing Scheme (CAS). What CAS allows FAST to do is to have a proxy for our bank accounts, using, say, our NRIC number or mobile phone number. For that matter, businesses can also use their business name and all these can be codified into a QR code. Which means once this is in place, there is potential for us to make payments, not different from WeChat or Alipay.
What is better than WeChat and Alipay is that the FAST system is across the financial and banking system. Today, I believe, WeChat can only pay to WeChat and Alipay to Alipay. But this system allows us to pay across banks. And I think there is great potential for us to promote e-payment once that is in place.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Healthcare Subsidies for Long-Term Visit Pass Holders Married to Singapore Citizens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Kok Heng Leun –
12 To ask\tthe Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider giving Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders who are married to Singapore Citizens, similar health subsidies as LTVP-Plus holders.
Mdm Speaker:\tDoes someone want to raise the question on his behalf?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang):\tQuestion No 12, Madam.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) receive Government subsidies at public healthcare institutions, with citizens receiving a higher level of subsidies. This is in line with the broader Government policy of differentiating benefits by citizenship status.
Patients are extended subsidies based on their own citizenship status, and not that of their spouses. This is the general principle which applies to different types of Government subsidies, including for healthcare services. To support Singaporeans with foreign spouses who have not obtained permanent residence or citizenship, the Government decided in 2012, to extend healthcare subsidies for inpatient services to foreign spouses who are LTVP-Plus holders. They are given the same level of subsidies for inpatient services as PRs.
Mdm Speaker, we need to be mindful that the cost of extending Government subsidies to LTVP holders will ultimately be borne by all Singaporeans. Any proposal to further extend more Government subsidies to foreigners, who are neither PRs nor LTVP-Plus holders, would need to be carefully considered.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):\tI thank the Minister of State for the answer. Can I just have a quick supplementary question? What are the criteria which the Ministry is using in justifying a subsidy for LTVP-Plus, but not LTVP? Could you elaborate?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat:\tMdm Speaker, I think I have explained this in my reply, that we provide subsidies to LTVP-Plus holders for inpatient services that are pegged at the same level as PRs. Foreign spouses of Singaporeans can be given LTVP or LTVP-Plus. So, there is a differentiation in terms of the benefits of these two categories, including subsidies for healthcare services.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong:\tSorry if I did not make myself clear. Just wanted to know what are the criteria that make the Ministry decide on giving that to the LTVP-Plus, but not the LTVP. There must be some form of criteria, because both are LTVPs − one has Plus and one has no Plus. There must be some form of criteria that motivates the decision.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Speaker, this goes back to when the LTVP-Plus scheme was introduced and the policy intent was to have two categories of LTVP holders − one is LTVP, the other one is LTVP-Plus.
Between the two categories, there will be a differentiation in terms of the benefits for these two groups. Similar to how we differentiate the benefits for citizens, PRs, LTVP-Plus and LTVP.
I think that is the policy decision to have these different categories of LTVP holders and the healthcare subsidy is part of this differentiation. Therefore, it is extended to LTVP-Plus holders but not to LTVP holders.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member):\tMdm Speaker, a quick supplementary question, please.
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please.
\tMr Leon Perera:\tJust one supplementary question for the Minister of State. The Minister of State alluded to the cost factor. Has the Government actually done a study on quantifying what will be the cost impact if this benefit was extended to LTVP spouses of Singaporeans, beyond just the LTVP-Plus? Is there a ballpark figure in mind?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: I think that question is not part of the original question, so if the Member would like more information, he can file a separate Parliamentary Question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Price Changes for Natural Gas Supplied to Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) what has been the percentage change in the price of natural gas supplied to Singapore's power generation sector for every year since 2010; and (b) how does this compare to the percentage change in electricity prices for (i) consumers; and (ii) SMEs, in each year over the same period.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (Mr S Iswaran):\tMdm Speaker, from 2010 to 2016, the price of natural gas supplied to Singapore's power generation sector fell by 37% while the regulated electricity tariff declined by 16%. The pattern is similar for annual changes and it is consistent with the fact that fuel cost accounts for about half of the regulated electricity tariff.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera, your next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funds Disbursed under Young Entrepreneurs Scheme for Schools Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) how much has been disbursed under the Young Entrepreneurs Scheme for Schools (YES! Schools) programme in each year since its inception, broken down by disbursements to Polytechnics, ITE colleges and Junior Colleges (JCs)/Secondary schools; (b) how many schools have made use of the grant in each year since its inception, broken down by Polytechnic, ITE college and JC/Secondary school; and (c) how does the Government follow up on its implementation in each school that has received the grant to ensure that the learning outcomes are met.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry)): Mdm Speaker, the seeds of our Entrepreneurship are being sown in our schools and among our young people. The Young Entrepreneurs Scheme for Schools (YES! Schools) programme aims to stimulate interest in entrepreneurship and nurture a pro-innovation and entrepreneurial culture in our youth. Administered by SPRINGSingapore, the programme provides grants of up to $10,000 for structured entrepreneurial learning activities and projects in Polytechnics, JCs and Secondary schools. SPRINGSingapore has also funded projects in some Primary schools.
Since YES! Schools was launched in October 2008 till 2016, about $4.3 million has been disbursed to 149 unique schools, of which 95 schools have been awarded the grant more than once. Of the unique schools, 64 are Primary schools, 79 are Secondary schools and JCs, and the remaining six are ITE colleges and Polytechnics. On average, about $184,000 has been disbursed to Primary schools annually, $270,000 to Secondary schools and JCs, and $87,000 to Polytechnics and ITE colleges. So far, more than 40,000 students have participated directly in entrepreneurship learning activities conducted by the schools under the YES! Schools programme. In addition, the funding has also reached out to thousands of other students in the schools.
To ensure that the programme objectives are met, and also to review SPRINGSingapore's level of support, the agency monitors key outcome indicators in all participating schools. This includes the overall number of participants in the programme, the number of working prototypes developed by the students as well as the number of students participating in external competitions, such as Tan Kah Kee Young Inventors' Award and so on, and internal entrepreneurship showcases. A study conducted by NTU showed that students who participated in the YES! Schools programme have stronger entrepreneurial inclination.
The YES! Schools programme is complemented by other programmes that also expose Primary, Secondary and JC students to entrepreneurship-related activities and this include the MOE's Applied Learning Programme (ALP) for Business and Entrepreneurship, the option of Elective Modules on Entrepreneurship, and the availability of entrepreneurship-related Co-curricular Activities (CCAs), such as Entrepreneurship Clubs. Entrepreneurship is also promoted in our Post-Secondary Education Institutions (PSEIs) through different programmes and the establishment of incubators. Students have ample opportunities to learn and experience or take the first step in starting their own business.
Besides the Yes! Schools programme, students passionate about entrepreneurship can also join the youth chapter of Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE). This youth chapter is called EDGE, which stands for Empower, Develop and Groom Entrepreneurs. This youth chapter attracts student representatives from the various IHLs. They are an enterprising force promoting entrepreneurship amongst our youths.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the very detailed and very helpful answer. I think these various programmes are very important because of the need to cultivate an entrepreneurial sense and inclination so that we can develop local SMEs as a strong third leg to the economy. So, my supplementary questions are centred on how can you increase the number of students who are affected by these programmes and in whom we can instil that kind of entrepreneurial inclination.
My main supplementary question is really about the model that we adopt. It seems that for this particular programme, the Yes! grant and also the other programme which is the 50 SMEs Initiative, which I have asked about in a separate written question, the model seems to be one of a \"pull\" model where the schools and the students can elect to participate and make use of the fund and resources.
But would the Ministry consider more of a \"push\" model, so that all schools and all students will, at minimum, be required to engage in at least some activity that exposes them to the entrepreneurial world? It need not be a very high-level activity like an attachment where you should opt in, but it could be a very basic exposure like a tour of some local companies, talks or taking part in some basic activities.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Perera, put your question, please. No long preambles, please. Members, let me remind you again.
\tMr Leon Perera:\tYes, that is all. Thank you.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Earlier on, I took efforts to explain and update the numbers. In MOE and MTI, we are heartened by the healthy take-up of the YES! Programme since it was launched in 2008: 64 Primary schools, and that would be 35% of Primary schools; 79 Secondary schools, and that would be slightly more than half of Secondary schools; and six ITE, Polytechnics, which means four out of five Polytechnics, are already on board, bearing in mind they also have their own respective Elective Modules or Advance Elective Modules. Two out of three ITE campuses involved.
The NTU survey that was done has shown that because of the exposure to entrepreneurship through the YES! Programme, it has allowed them, through hands-on entrepreneurship-related learning opportunities to spark the interest of entrepreneurship in our students. This is important to nurture their interest at the early stage, so that, for those who are interested to further their interest, we can then complement the YES! Schools programme with other programmes like CCAs, as I have mentioned, or the Elective Models on entrepreneurship, and even invite some of these youths to join the Youth Chapter of ACE.
We are heartened that there are many examples of how schools have embarked on working out prototypes, participating in various competitions like the National Youth Business Challenges and so on. We are heartened by the healthy take-up.
Also, I want to explain, looking at the number of YES! schools, that one data point may not be a true reflection of the schools' interest in entrepreneurship because we complement it with the various advanced Applied Learning Programme (ALP), Elective Models and CCAs. Suffice to say that based on the last eight years of experience, SPRINGSingapore will certainly continue to work with MOE, schools and also the PSEIs to nurture an enterprising spirit and entrepreneurial mindset in our youth and ensure that those whose interest in entrepreneurship has been sparked will continue to have various pathways to nurture that interest.
Even for students who may not have an immediate interest after school to go into venture creation, the mere fact that an enterprising spirit and entrepreneurial mindset have been nurtured will stand them in a very good stead in the future.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this Programme also highlights the risks of entrepreneurship to the students? I am concerned that you paint a rosy picture of entrepreneurship and that you do not highlight the risks of failure to such students. At the end of the day, many of them may go into business without knowing the risks involved.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank the Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan for a very good question.
Indeed, knowing how to manage risks is a very important part of entrepreneurship and innovation. Under the YES! programmes, there are various platforms where students will be given some understanding of entrepreneurship and innovation, developing the ability to be enterprising, resourceful and innovate and persevere under difficult circumstances, and also the ability to recognise opportunities and how to manage risks, and even to cut loss and manage the resources – bearing in mind that we live in a resource-constrainted world.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Salary Payment for Workers Engaged by Private Vendors in Government Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Desmond Choo asked\tthe Minister for Finance how does the Government ensure that workers engaged for Government contracts are paid for their work when either the main contractors or the latter's sub-contractors go into liquidation.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Finance): Mdm Speaker, before contracts are awarded, Government agencies will take into consideration the financial standing of the contractor to ascertain whether he has the necessary resources to fulfil his contractual obligations. During the contract, Government agencies will monitor the contractor's performance. If the contractor faces cash flow difficulties, the Government agency can consider adjusting the payment milestones or delivery schedule.
In the unfortunate event of a contractor going into liquidation, the Government, like any service buyer, will rely on the provisions of the law to provide remedy for the affected workers. As the Minister for Manpower has previously shared with this House, when a contractor goes into liquidation, the Companies Act provides for the apportionment of the unpaid salaries for workers. Unpaid salaries of workers will be accorded higher priority over claims by other unsecured creditors. Affected workers can lodge salary claims with the appointed liquidator, who is required to give such claims priority.
The Minister for Manpower has elaborated in his parliamentary response on other forms of assistance available as well as additional measures being put in place to help affected workers.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines):\tI thank the Senior Minister of State for her comprehensive reply. I was wondering whether the Government can consider, under certain circumstances, establishing escrow accounts for certain contracts, so that workers can be protected, especially during difficult economic times.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Madam, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It is not so much a matter of establishing escrow accounts because the scenario painted by the Member is one where you have a main contractor and the employees, and then you have sub-contractors and they have their employees. Each company will have other creditors as well.
So, it is very difficult to say that I put this aside only for the employees and it is difficult for the Government to do that. If the company itself sets aside monies in a certain escrow account and specifically stipulates that this is for employees, then that is something that the company can do. But it is difficult for the Government to step in and interfere with the contractors' own arrangements of its accounts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowance for ITE and Polytechnic Student Interns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked\tthe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) with regard to students studying in ITEs and Polytechnics (a) what proportion of internships include an allowance; and (b) for internships that do not include an allowance, whether a fund can be established to pool corporate donations for the purpose of providing allowances to students with limited means.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)): Mdm Speaker, internships are an important aspect of applied education in the Polytechnics and ITEs in providing students with critical hands-on training and experience to better prepare them for work in the industry.
Through the efforts of the Polytechnics and ITEs, currently, 93.5% of Polytechnic and ITE students who go on internships receive an allowance, up from 90.9% in 2014. While we have seen much stronger support for internship allowance in certain sectors, such as social work and nursing, there are still some interns from a variety of courses who do not receive an internship allowance, due to company-specific policies.
My Ministry strongly encourages companies that do not yet provide their interns an allowance to do so. The Polytechnics and ITEs will continue to work with the remaining companies who do not provide their interns an allowance. For students who are in need of assistance to cover daily expenses, our institutions administer financial assistance schemes which they can tap on.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong):\tI thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I was wondering ‒ given that internships can be a way for students to discover their aptitude, their affinity and calling for certain lines of work ‒ whether the Ministry could re-double its efforts to make internships more equitable, in terms of access to these allowances, so that students from less advantaged backgrounds, from less well-off families, do not find themselves having to make difficult choices in what internships they choose to apply for.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim:\tMadam, we certainly agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng's view. In fact, the Polytechnics and ITEs are working with the companies to see how we can increase the percentage of internships that provide an allowance.
I would like to assure Members in the House that all the Polytechnics and ITEs have funds to cater to students who need financial assistance. For example, Singapore Polytechnic has a Needy Fund to support students. The Polytechnics and ITEs will also look at how we can further assist our students whenever they need help, including the period during their internship.
\tMs Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member):\tMadam, a supplementary question. I understand that students with special needs in ITEs particularly have lots of problems finding internship places. Would the Ministry be looking at how more resources can be placed to help students with special needs find internship places?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the question. We will take on the Member's suggestion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students with Tattoos","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how serious is the problem of students who sport a tattoo on a visible part of the body; (b) what are the common reasons that a child will sport a tattoo; and (c) what is the policy on how to handle such pupils if the tattoo is on a visible part of the body.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Mdm Speaker, instances of students sporting tattoos on visible parts of the body are not frequent. Generally, schools encounter only a handful of such cases for older students.
Students in our schools are not allowed to have tattoos on visible parts of their body while in school uniform. Students sporting tattoos will either be asked to cover up their tattoos or to have them removed.
Tattooing may result from the students' need to express their personal identity, an act of defiance or to fit into certain social circles. Schools, therefore, provide counselling to help students work through possible underlying issues which have led them to sporting a tattoo. Schools also actively engage their parents to guide students in making healthy and right choices. In managing students with tattoos, schools adopt an educative approach.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I thank the Minister of State for the answer. The reason I asked this question is one of my residents who is an ex-school teacher actually gave an example of a student who found out that some schools may not allow students to come back to school until a tattoo is removed, which means that the child is out of school for some time. Others may allow the students to return as long as they sign an undertaking. In those circumstances, how long will the students be away and will it affect the child as well?
My second question is: in the future, if such instances increase, will MOE consider working with MHA to ensure parental consent is needed for minors, for example, at the moment, 14 and below, to do tattoos? For minors need parental consent before they can undertake tattoos as well.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mdm Speaker, with respect to the first supplementary question, MOE provides broad guidelines around the principles of how tattoos are to be managed. But schools have their own specific ways of administering the counselling services, administering discipline, engaging with the parents and the students to enforce that. So, there are no strict absolutes in that process. If there are specific cases where perhaps the process is not working, the Member could let me know about the details and I could follow up.
With respect to the second issue, the process of tattooing happens outside the school environment, so there are some considerations about how that might be taken forward, but it is something we could explore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Growing Practice of Hiring Freelancers on Wages and Retirement Adequacy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Desmond Choo asked\tthe Minister for Manpower in light of the increase in numbers of workers participating in the \"sharing\" economy with many being freelancers or self-employed (a) whether has there been a deflationary impact on wages in sectors with a high concentration of such workers; and (b) how can the Government help these workers to be financially adequate in their retirement.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, in June 2016, there were about 180,000 primary freelancers who operated their own business or trade as their main work without employing any paid worker, accounting for about 8% of our working residents.
Even though the share of these primary freelancers has remained relatively stable, at between 8% and 10% of the working residents over the last 10 years, their numbers could be growing in specific sectors, such as private hire car services, while dropping in other sectors, such as real estate. The emergence of \"sharing economy\" platforms may also enable more people to take up freelancing as a secondary source of income.
We have, therefore, initiated a new annual survey, starting in September last year, to gather more in-depth statistics on the changes in the freelancing landscape. This will help us better understand the profiles of freelancers, including whether they take up freelancing as a primary or secondary source of income, as well as the sectors and occupations they are in.
With the information from the survey, we will monitor more closely the workforce trends of the \"sharing economy\" and look into the issues that freelancers may face, including retirement adequacy.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines):\tI thank the Minister for the reply. I would just like to have two points of clarification. The first one, especially in the areas he had pointed out, in terms of Uber and Grab driving affecting the taxi companies, whether the income of the taxi drivers has been affected? And secondly, can the Ministry consider Codes of Best Practices for Government contractors to take on certain practices that help freelancers prepare for their retirement, including contributions to CPF?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, over the three-year period from 2014 to 2016, we looked at the median gross income of employed residents. On the whole, there is a broad-based real wage increase over the three years from 2014 to 2016 across all categories. One sector saw a drop of about 1% a year, and that was in real estate services. Another sector which saw a fairly stagnant median income is finance and insurance services. For all the other sectors, including transportation and storage, there was a broad-based real wage increase over the three years.
But having said that, I think past performance may not necessarily be an indication of future performance. What we are concerned about is whether, in time to come, the growth of this so-called gig economy will have a greater impact on more workers. And that is the reason why we have decided to initiate this new series of annual surveys.
I would only be able to better answer the question raised by the Member after the tripartite partners have had the chance to look at these survey findings for last year and, subsequently, on a year-to-year basis for us to analyse further in terms of what are the best practices, as the Member has proposed, as well as what we can do together to strengthen the retirement adequacy of these workers.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol):\tWill the Ministry look into increasing communication and education for these freelancing workers so that they are aware of the risk that is involved in terms of overall financial planning for them when they are engaged in freelancing jobs?
\tMr Lim Swee Say:\tMdm Speaker, the answer is yes. Over the years, MOM has always been worried about the retirement adequacy of these freelancing workers. This is because besides contributing to their MediSave account, they do not contribute to their OA and SA. We will always be concerned for them in terms of their savings for housing and retirement.
So, as I have said earlier, the tripartite partners intend to focus on this and see how we can reach out to more of them and, hopefully, put in place various measures ‒ maybe on the part of the freelancers themselves or their customers' service buyers ‒ to see how we can work together to strengthen their retirement adequacy.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang):\tI thank the Minister for talking about the survey. I just want to check whether the survey will also cover liabilities, because the gig economy is very different from that for traditional freelancers in which there are lots of established norms. If we look at Uber and others, for example, they do have other liabilities which they cater for as well and they are also at risk, but also in terms of income. I am glad the Minister has also mentioned and talked about the concerns about OA and SA contributions. Has there been a study today on the impact of the gig economy on the ability to service housing loans and insurance coverage and all that? Has there been a survey now or is that something that the Ministry will be looking into?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, we have not done a comprehensive analysis. However, if you look at, for example, home ownership, between the freelancers versus the full-time employees, there is no significant difference in the rate of ownership. For the freelancers, we may ask them through informal surveys, \"How do you prepare for your housing and retirement?\" They will say, \"Look, since I do not contribute to OA and SA, I have saved for it myself.\" If you ask the taxi driver, \"Do you save enough to pay for your housing?\" He will say, \"Yes, I have.\" \"Are you saving enough for your retirement?\" He will say, \"Yes, I am.\" This is based on the present situation.
In a way, our concern about housing, medical and retirement needs of freelancers is not a new issue. It has been around for the last many years because freelancers have been around in the market for a long, long time.
But what we are concerned about are the changes that are taking place in the employment landscape. Firstly, whether this number will grow and, secondly, how the market dynamics may change over time with more portfolio workers.
And this is the reason why we thought it is timely now to start a new series of surveys to really go in-depth to understand the issues. We are not jumping to any conclusion at this moment because, firstly, we would like to know whether more and more of them are primary freelancers or secondary freelancers. Based on our initial findings from the first survey, it would appear that the number of primary freelancers did not increase significantly. Any increase might have come mainly from the secondary freelancers. In other words, with the growth of the sharing economy, workers who have their primary employment are now taking advantage of sharing platforms to earn additional income, which may not be a bad thing. But as I have said, I do not want to prejudge the outcome of our analysis at this moment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Matching and Retraining under Professional Conversion Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked\tthe Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's assessment on the take-up of the Professional Conversion Programme; (b) what are the challenges in matching and retraining vulnerable professionals amidst increasing retrenchment; (c) what are the take-up rates by workers from different race groups; and (d) whether the Programme has challenges reaching out to specific groups.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) was launched in 2007 to help our local PMETs acquire new skills to take on new careers.
With economic restructuring and slowing local workforce growth, the risk of mismatches between jobseekers and jobs created in the labour market has increased. To overcome this challenge, we expanded the scope of PCPs under the Adapt and Grow initiative last year to allow for conversion to different jobs within the same sector, as well as to different jobs within the same company for sectors with high risks of redundancy. We also extended the coverage of PCPs to most sectors − with 50 PCPs at the end of 2016, compared to 22 at the start of the year. Last year alone, we increased the number of PCPs from 22 to 50, covering almost every sector of the economy now.
The result of these changes has been encouraging, with more than 1,300 PMETs securing conversions through PCPs in 2016, which is 20% more than in 2015. Data on take-up by race is not available. However, based on ground observations from our career coaches from e2i and WSG, they have told us that the response across the racial groups is fairly balanced. In other words, there is a good mix of jobseekers from various racial groups.
There remains much to do to support the manpower and skills needs of employers and, at the same time, to help our locals who may not have the relevant skills and experience to seize new job opportunities being created. MOM and WSG will continue to look at ways to strengthen our support for jobseekers under Adapt and Grow, including through PCPs, in close collaboration with our tripartite partners.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): I thank the Minister for the explanation. Just two clarifications.
Firstly, the Minister mentioned we had 1,300 workers that were successfully matched. I think that is very good progress. Does the Minister have figures in terms of how many are there who actually applied initially and what proportion was successful that made up this 1,300?
Secondly, it is good the Minister mentioned that, across different racial groups, it is quite evenly distributed. Is there a difference within age groups as well? For example, are seniors more difficult to get matched? I suppose matches for the younger ones would be easier, but are there issues for the senior groups?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, firstly, in terms of the mix across the various age groups, I do not have the specific breakdown for the PCP alone. But, on the whole, of all the successful jobseekers we were able to place last year, as I can recall, about close to 40% were more than 50 years old. About one-third of those unemployed and managed to find jobs were unemployed for more than six months, meaning they are long-term unemployed. In terms of breakdown by PMETs and the rank-and-file, again, there is a good balance of about 50:50.
Broadly speaking, our success rate, whether in terms of age breakdown or breakdown by PMETs versus rank-and-file or by long-term unemployed versus unemployed, I would say it has been fairly balanced and fairly inclusive. But, certainly, I would agree with the Member that for professional conversion, it is more likely that the more mature PMETs may find greater difficulties in going through this professional conversion.
For example, one observation we made so far is that the majority of the PCPs start at the entry level. In other words, you move from one profession to another profession, but the majority of them end up starting from the entry level of the new profession. So, this may actually discourage the mature PMETs, because for them to start all over again at the bottom of the new career may be too painful. This is an area that MOM has looked into, whether we should strengthen and enhance the PCPs. You may hear something on this at the COS this year.
In terms of the success rate, again, I have to recall from memory now. Broadly speaking, I would say that the success rate is about 60%. This is for all programmes; we do not keep track of the success rate by individual programme. We look at the number of PMETs who come to us and – I stand to be corrected – we were able to match 60% of them successfully to jobs. But it does not mean that the other 40% are jobless, because many of them will go through their own efforts, such as applying for jobs through the National Jobs Bank.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Two points of clarification for the Minister. Firstly, for the purpose of job market signalling, which are the top three PCP programmes that have been very successful and which will continue to grow further? Secondly, for the programmes that have not been so well received thus far, how can the tripartite partners work together with MOM to grow the programmes?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, the Member is right that the response to the PCP across the 50 PCPs is obviously uneven. In some cases, we have more supply than demand, meaning there were more jobseekers but fewer job openings from employers and, in some cases, the other way around. What MOM, together with our tripartite partners, is trying to do is to minimise this mismatch. Again, at the coming COS, we intend to make known further enhancements to the Adapt and Grow initiatives to minimise this mismatch between supply and demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Longer Grace Period for Some Car Parks with Electronic Parking Systems during Peak Hours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked\tthe Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider providing a longer grace period of 15 minutes for parking in car parks with electronic parking systems during peak hours in areas where there are childcare facilities and schools.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Madam, the 10-minute grace period in HDB and URA car parks with electronic parking system (EPS) is generally sufficient for most motorists to pick up or drop off passengers, or for motorists to exit the car park if they cannot find a parking space.
HDB and URA need to impose charges after the grace period to ensure quick turnover of vehicles in the car park. This prevents build-up of congestion in the car park, allows more motorists to make use of the car park and ensures that the interests of residents who drive or have season parking are adequately taken care of.
Nevertheless, as parking charges in car parks with EPS are levied on a per-minute basis, if motorists exceed the grace period, they only need to pay for the actual duration of their parking in that car park.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan):\tI thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. The reason for asking this is because we are seeing more of these schools in the neighbourhoods, due to the bus lanes as well as the congestion because of where the gates are positioned for the schools. More of them are building up within the HDB car parks. Generally, when the drop-offs happen, they are not all residents that live within that area. As a result of that, it creates even more congestion for the people who are living within the estates.
Hence, the question of whether we could increase that grace period. It is not so much because they would like to park there for a longer time. Generally, the bottleneck is within the car park, and they are being trapped.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I understand the Member's concern and many of us do receive requests from time to time on this basis. The grace period in and of itself will not solve the issue that the Member has highlighted. It is rather the arrangements for pick-up and drop-off of children and the elderly, in the case of Senior Activity Centres.
As I have said earlier, the reason why we set a uniform grace period is to strike a balance between the different users of the car park. We need to take into account the residents, other users of the car park, as well as those who come and drop off and pick up people. It is not possible to accommodate every group's request, although we try as hard as we can. Bearing in mind also that we have more than 1,500 car parks under the EPS system, as mentioned in my earlier Parliamentary Question reply. And so, some amount of certainty, predictability and consistency is essential.
Nevertheless, if there is an issue in particular estates, as I had said earlier, it is not primarily the grace period, I think it has got to do with the design of the pick-up and drop-off points.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Complaints of Defects and Design Flaws for New Executive Condominiums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Mr Png Eng Huat asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of feedback and complaints which the Ministry has received from residents of newly-built executive condominiums (ECs) on defects and design flaws in the past five years; and (b) what is the role of HDB in helping to resolve such matters since ECs are part of the stable of public flats offered by HDB.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Madam, the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme (ECHS) was introduced in 1995 to meet the aspirations of Singaporeans to own private housing in an affordable way. This is done by imposing on EC buyers certain initial eligibility and ownership restrictions. But after the 10th year, all restrictions are lifted and the EC will be no different from other private condominiums.
MND does not track feedback received on ECs. This is because buyers purchase their ECs directly from the private developers and, under the Sale and Purchase (S&P) Agreement signed between the EC developer and home buyers, the EC developer is responsible for all defects during the 12-month Defects Liability Period. The EC developer is also contractually obliged to attend to all feedback from buyers on the design, finishing, workmanship or other concerns pertaining to the development and respond to the buyers accordingly.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang):\tMdm Speaker, a supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. A lot of the public housing rules and regulations apply to EC, such as the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) and even the resale levy. Would the Ministry consider assisting these residents to address all these defects, some of which are actually design flaws, in the official capacity as the housing authority? Because some of these residents would have done their homework − they would have gone to BCA, they would have gone to a lot of places. They felt that because the EC is part of the housing options offered by HDB, HDB is the authority to help them. Not to help them resolve it, but at least help them to initiate a meeting to set the framework on how these developers can help them. I have personally experienced, that in Hougang and it helps when HDB is involved; but that does not involve ECs, it involves a new BTO.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Both in the supplementary question and in the Parliamentary Question, the Member has alluded to ECs as public housing. If you look at the 1995 debate during which the EC scheme was developed, it was to make private housing an option for middle class Singaporean households to be able to enter private housing in an affordable way.
There are Government Land Sales and then there are EC land sales. For EC land sales, unlike private housing land sales, we put in place restrictions, as the Member has mentioned − the MOP, the eligibility criteria to provide for middle income households the option to buy ECs. Whilst these policies are in place, they make ECs an affordable way for people to enter into private housing.
But that said, I think the Member's concern is about residents who face issues with ECs. While the contractual obligations are on the developer to address all the concerns the buyers have raised, when EC buyers raise concerns about EC units to HDB, HDB will certainly convey these concerns to the EC developers for them to take appropriate action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Homeless Individuals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there has been in increase in the number of homeless individuals since 2015 and, if so, what are the underlying reasons; and (b) what are the places that the homeless occupy for their makeshift/temporary homes.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mdm Speaker, the number of homeless individuals who received support and shelter from MSF has decreased slightly from 199 in 2015 to 176 in 2016. This includes individuals found to be staying at public places such as parks and communal spaces in housing estates. Some individuals found sleeping in public places may actually have homes of their own, but they choose to sleep in public because of family disputes or other considerations.
Homeless individuals tend to be of low income and have weak social support. Many of them are older persons, who may have physical or mental health conditions and lack the means to support themselves. Many also have no family members who are able to support them.
If a homeless individual is assessed by MSF to be unable to work and has no financial means and accommodation and no family support, he or she would be admitted to one of our Welfare Homes. The Homes provide care and rehabilitation programmes to help residents improve in their emotional and physical well-being.
Transitional shelters provide temporary accommodation for homeless individuals and families who have exhausted all other means of accommodation and are not eligible for HDB housing options. Case workers at the shelters and social workers at the Family Service Centres will work with them to improve their family situation and secure their long-term housing arrangements.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade):\tI thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. It is heartening to know that the numbers have come down. Just a few supplementary questions. Amongst these individuals who are homeless, do we also know of those who may have a foreign spouse and are not covered under the 176 cases that are being monitored? If there are, what can MSF do?
My next question is, that there are many concerned members of the public out there when they see such individuals. So, is there a particular hotline which they could call and the Ministry can then activate the resources to render help to these groups of people or individuals?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, this is about being human, about taking care of one another. Regardless of whether you are Singaporean or otherwise, if you find someone who is homeless, I think the reaction is to just go and see how we can help them. I assure the Member that we have staff who also walk the ground to look at how we can help people in Singapore who are without homes. About which number to call, they can call our ComCare hotline and we will direct the necessary help their way as much as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Spin-off Deals from Africa-Singapore Business Forum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked\tthe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) since the signing of several agreements at the Africa-Singapore Business Forum in August 2016 (a) what are some of the specific projects that will be taking off; and (b) how can we further strengthen economic ties with African nations.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry)): Madam, Africa is a diverse continent of 54 countries. Positive demographics of a young population, a significantly large young population, growing middle class consumption and rapid urbanisation are driving growth in Africa. As a region, it has been forecast to grow faster than the global average over the next five years.
To promote greater awareness and understanding of Africa and its opportunities, we have been facilitating bilateral visits between Singaporean and African government officials, as well as business communities. The biennial Africa-Singapore Business Forum organised by International Enterprise Singapore is one such platform which brings together government, business and thought leaders from Singapore and Africa. The Singapore Business Federation has been active in organising regular business missions to different African markets. These exchanges create opportunities for Singapore companies to find opportunities for collaboration with African partners.
To support stronger economic ties with African countries, we have also entered into government-to-government agreements to establish frameworks that support trade and investment activity. In 2016, for example, we signed Bilateral Investment Treaties with Nigeria and another one with Mozambique. We also signed an Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement with Ethiopia and an Air Services Agreement with Nigeria.
We are encouraged to see a number of Singapore-based companies undertaking significant projects in Africa. Where Singapore's experience and innovative solutions are a good match for Africa's needs, long-term partnerships are being forged. For example, Hyflux has embarked on its first township development project in Morogoro in Tanzania. E-government solutions company CrimsonLogic has implemented electronic platforms in Kenya and Rwanda to digitise trade documentation in these countries. One of our SMEs, YuuZoo, a digital platform provider, has also launched an SME-focused e-commerce platform in Nigeria. International Enterprise Singapore will continue to partner Singapore companies as they continue their internationalisation journey in Africa and elsewhere. I have led business delegations to sub-Saharan Africa last year and will continue to do so this year.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh):\tI have a quick question for the Minister of State. Can the Minister of State share with us the extent of SME involvement, going forward, in terms of outlook? Will more Singaporean SMEs be involved in Africa and to what extent may they benefit from this bilateral trade with Africa?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. There are opportunities in various sectors, including agri-businesses, infra-structure projects, urban solutions, logistics, info-communication technology as well as the oil and gas sector. These are opportunities where our SMEs have offerings and strengths. I do encourage our SMEs to look at these markets seriously and to join us on our trade missions to have a better understanding of these markets and provide solutions to countries that may need their services as well.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now read the orders of the day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 24-27 and 30-31 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 28 and 29 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 20 February 2017.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"International Enterprise Singapore Board (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
International Enterprise Singapore Board, also known as \"IE Singapore\", is the Government agency responsible for promoting international trade and partnering Singapore companies in going global. The International Enterprise Singapore Board Act (IESBA) outlines the roles and responsibilities of IE Singapore. These include promoting and developing the commodity trading industry in Singapore.
IE Singapore also regulates the commodity trading industry through the Commodity Trading Act (CTA) and the Rubber Industry Act (RIA).
The CTA regulates spot commodity trading and over-the-counter (OTC) commodity derivatives contracts across all types of commodities. The regulatory oversight of commodity futures contracts had been transferred to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in 2008.
With the passing of the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill 2016 this year, IE Singapore will also be transferring the regulation of OTC commodity derivatives contracts under the CTA to MAS, for more effective regulatory oversight under a single agency. After the transfer, the scope of the CTA will be limited to spot commodity trading.
The RIA regulates the rubber trading industry, including forward trading, which entails physical delivery of traded rubber. As physical commodity trading is not the regulatory domain under MAS, regulatory oversight over such activities will remain with IE Singapore.
This Bill proposes amendments to the IESBA to align IE Singapore's regulatory functions over the commodity trading industry with the reduced scope of the CTA.
These amendments are either consequential to MAS' Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill 2016 or are administrative in nature.
Mdm Speaker, I will now go through the key amendments in the Bill.
First, the IESBA will be amended to reflect that IE Singapore's regulatory function over the commodity trading industry will be limited to spot commodity trading and the rubber trade industry. This is to provide clarity of IE Singapore's regulatory role under the CTA and the RIA, when the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill 2016 comes into force.
Second, the IESBA will be amended to clarify that IE Singapore can collect, compile and analyse information relating to the commodity trade and industry. This gives IE Singapore, the lead agency responsible for the promotion and development of the commodity trading industry, continued access to company and market data for policy formulation purposes.
Third, the IESBA will be updated to set out the circumstances under which IE Singapore may disclose confidential information related to the commodity trading industry to another public agency. This would include disclosure of such information for the purpose of formulating or reviewing policy relating to trade.
In addition to these key amendments, there will also be an administrative amendment to update the purposes for which the Singapore Rubber Fund (SRF) may be used, to take into account the revised functions of IE Singapore.
One query I received following the First Reading of the Bill was from the hon Member Mr Louis Ng who pointed out that the use of the SRF in the amended IESBA is not exclusive to the rubber trading industry. This is, indeed, the case, to allow for some flexibility in the use of the SRF. While the fund has been and will continue to be used to facilitate the promotion and development of the rubber trading industry, it can be tapped upon to promote or develop the broader commodity trading industry, with the view that the benefits so accrued will also accrue to the rubber trading industry.
Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 amend sections 5, 6, 19 and 20 of the IESBA respectively to give legislative effect to these changes.
IE Singapore has conducted a public consultation on the draft Bill and there were no objections to the proposed amendments.
Mdm Speaker, the proposed changes to the IESBA will provide greater clarity to the commodity trading industry of IE Singapore's regulatory functions in view of the reduced scope of the CTA. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Mdm Speaker:\tI understand there are no speakers for this Second Reading, but Mr Louis Ng, do you wish to seek a clarification?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Madam. As the Minister of State has mentioned, following the First Reading of the Bill, I did submit some of the concerns to the Minister of State. I thank him for providing some clarifications on some of the concerns I had raised.
I just have two further clarifications. One, as he mentioned about the Singapore Rubber Fund, I would like to ask if there are any plans or ideas in the pipeline regarding the regulation of rubber trade and industry, bearing in mind that while rubber production in Singapore has fallen over the years, Singapore remains as a big player in this industry. In this regard, this is still an industry that the Government should remain interested in and assist as much as possible.
Secondly, referring to section 5(1)K, I note that IE Singapore may advise and assist only the Government and public authorities. Would it be more helpful for businessmen and women and companies if IE Singapore could also advise and assist any persons, bodies or organisations since IE Singapore is currently already able to act as agents for them?
Dr Koh Poh Koon:Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng who has spoken and raised some questions about points in the Bill. I will address the points raised.
Mr Ng pointed out that Singapore remains a big player in the rubber industry and asked if there are any pipeline plans relating to the regulation of the rubber trade and industry. The regulations under the RIA, which includes licensing of rubber traders and dealing, shipping and treatment of natural rubber, have served the industry well. It remains relevant. IE Singapore will continue to administer the RIA and will conduct periodic reviews of the Act. IE Singapore will also continue to work in promoting the growth of the rubber trade and industry in Singapore.
Mr Ng also asked if IE Singapore's advisory and assistance role pertaining to the development or regulation of trade can be extended to persons, bodies or organisations. I would like to clarify that this is already provided for under section 6(2) of the IESBA, and it is, in fact, the key role that IE Singapore plays today. IE Singapore provides advisory and assistance to individuals and public organisations in various ways. These include organising industry events, such as the annual Global Trader Dialogue and regulatory advisory seminars, that help individuals and companies keep up to date with the latest developments affecting global commodity trading.
Through its different assistance schemes, such as the Market Readiness Assistance and Global Partnership programmes, IE Singapore also helps Singapore companies expand their presence overseas.
To conclude, IE Singapore plays an important role in the promotion and development of the trading industry. It also takes on certain regulatory functions to ensure commodity trade is carried out smoothly and efficiently.
The proposed amendments to the IESBA will provide better clarity on IE Singapore's regulatory functions in view of the reduced scope of the CTA. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Parks and Trees Act empowers NParks to manage and protect our greenery and biodiversity in our nature reserves, national parks, heritage road buffers and tree conservation areas. But we need to continually review and update this piece of legislation as our City in a Garden continues to transform and grow.
Mdm Speaker, let me introduce the main provisions of this Bill.
First, the Bill enhances NParks' ability to protect the Sisters' Islands Marine Park, or SIMP. The Marine Park was established in 2014, after many years of hard work by NParks colleagues and passionate members of our marine conservation community. They include representatives from the Nature Society Singapore, Wild Singapore, the academic community and many other committed individuals. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Francis Lee, the lead for the Blue Plan, Prof Chou Loke Ming, a luminary in the field of marine biology, Mr Leong Kwok Peng, Vice President of Nature Society Singapore and Ms Ria Tan, Singapore's passionate naturalist and many, many more.
The coastal areas and waters in the Marine Park teem with life and are rich in local biodiversity, such as coral, anemones, seahorses, fish and other creatures. It is amazing that our waters, which lie within some of the busiest commercial sea lanes in the world, are home to over a third of the world's total coral species. So, protecting the reefs at the Sisters' Island Marine Park is crucial to our coral conservation efforts.
By adding a definition of \"marine park\" in clause 2(a) and adding it as a type of public park in clause 2(c), we make it clear that the protection of the Parks and Trees Act applies to the designated foreshore as well as marine areas in the Sisters' Islands Marine Park. For instance, it will be an offence to fish, collect corals or moor boats without NParks' approval.
The Bill will also enable NParks to make new subsidiary rules to regulate human activities in the Marine Park, in order to keep it as a sanctuary for marine life. For example, NParks can restrict diving and dropping of anchors at ecologically sensitive
Let me next move on to provisions that enhance protection of biodiversity in our nature reserves. Section 9(3)(a) of the Act restricts the bringing in or releasing of animals in a nature reserve. This prevents the introduction of invasive species which may threaten the survival of our native animals in the reserves.
However, the law currently does not cover cases where unwanted aquatic pets like exotic fish and terrapins are abandoned in streams or drains that lead into the reserves. So, clause 5 now makes it an offence for any person to release or abandon animals into watercourses outside of our nature reserves, if the person knows or ought to know that these watercourses flow into the reserves. To make this clear, NParks will put up signage at key watercourses and continue to strengthen its public education efforts.
Third, the Bill gives greater protection to public parks and gardens that are not managed by NParks. Gardens by the Bay is independently managed by Gardens by the Bay Company (GB Co). Clause 4 of the Bill now allows the Minister to designate entities like GB Co as managers of public parks. Clause 2(d) also brings these parks under the protection of the Parks and Trees Act, while clause 3(b) further allows the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation to delegate certain enforcement powers to selected employees of these entities.
In short, GB Co employees can now rely on the Parks and Trees Act's provisions to protect the greenery and biodiversity of Gardens by the Bay. For example, park wardens who are GB Co employees will now be able to take enforcement action against illegal cutting of trees and plants at Gardens by the Bay.
Fourth, the Bill provides NParks with more effective regulatory and enforcement powers. Under clause 3, the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation may delegate certain powers of enforcement to public officers, NParks employees, as well as the Auxiliary Police officers. He can also appoint public officers, NParks employees, an employee of a management body designated under section 6A, as well as licensed security officers as park rangers. These officers will receive proper enforcement training and work closely with NParks officers. In addition, NParks officers will now have more effective powers to investigate offences under the Act. For instance, they may interview offenders and record statements.
Fifth, the Bill empowers NParks to require greenery to be reinstated, in cases where it has been illegally removed. So, let me elaborate.
Currently, when greenery along Heritage Road green buffers are removed, offenders will not only face a fine, they may also be ordered to reinstate the greenery. However, those who commit illegal tree-felling in Tree Conservation Areas and vacant land are currently only subject to fines. Clause 10 now allows NParks to order those responsible to also reinstate the greenery. This brings the regulatory treatment for both Heritage Road green buffers as well as Tree Conservation Areas into alignment.
Sixth, the Bill enhances public safety by ensuring that occupiers of private property maintain the greenery in their premises. This includes trees grown on roof tops and balcony gardens. These trees need to be properly maintained or they might constitute a danger to occupiers and bystanders alike.
Clause 14 will also allow NParks officers to enter premises to ascertain the condition of trees and plants to safeguard public safety. Maintenance notices may be issued to occupiers if the trees or plants pose a danger to persons or property. These notices may require the occupier to engage an arborist to conduct detailed inspections or to carry out pruning. Non-compliance will be an offence.
Let me emphasise to Members that NParks' first recourse is usually to engage the occupier to better understand the situation and persuade him to rectify the situation. These powers will only be exercised as a last resort, if the occupier is uncooperative.
Seventh, the Bill restructures the Parks and Trees Act to better enable NParks to respond more quickly and dynamically to new trends in greenery development. Presently, very technical specifications, such as the dimensions of planting areas that surround buildings, are set out in the Parks and Trees Act. These requirements cannot be modified or waived even by the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation. Sometimes, this hinders the adoption of innovative greenery proposals like vertical planting. Clause 11 will give NParks more flexibility. It transfers the prescription of dimensions of planting areas from the Parks and Trees Act to subsidiary legislation. It also allows the Commissioner to modify or waive these dimensions where necessary or appropriate.
Finally, the Bill makes related amendments to the National Parks Board Act to further encourage the development of the landscape industry. This industry, comprising landscape designers, maintenance workers, arborists and nursery operators, is crucial to the development and maintenance of our City in a Garden.
Since 2007, NParks has rolled out industry training programmes and best practice guides. In 2013, NParks launched the Landscape Productivity Grant to help companies mechanise. In 2016, NParks worked with NTUC and MOM to launch a Progressive Wage Model for landscape workers. In this regard, clause 24 defines the landscape industry and NParks' role in helping to manage, promote and strengthen the industry. In particular, the clause empowers NParks to manage and optimise State land safeguarded for nurseries. This land will be tendered out in phases from mid-2018 to provide options for nurseries affected by redevelopment plans.
Madam, in conclusion, these amendments will enhance the protection, management and development of greenery in Singapore. They underscore our determination to ensure that our greenery and natural heritage will endure. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The campaign to green Singapore has, indeed, been very successful and despite the demand for housing and other infrastructure we are indeed maintaining our image as a garden city. However, the success of our policy has also brought on some ugly issues between neighbours in some private estates. The recent case highlighted in the media between two private homeowners is an example.
I have received feedback from residents who complained that their neighbours did not maintain their trees properly and, as a result, the trees are leaning over, or the leaves fall into their garden, or the roots are uprooting the boundary wall. These residents are at a dilemma because not all neighbours are so understanding and cooperative.
They view that as long as it is on their land, they can do what they want. The overgrown trees may tilt or drop leaves into the next house but it is not their problem. For the ones at the receiving end, there is no redress. There is no one that they can turn to. Can the Minister advise, in such cases, what can the neighbours do? Do not ask them to go for mediation as they will not turn up and do not ask them to go and look for the neighbourhood committee members because neighbourhood committee can keep knocking at the door, they would not open the door.
Of course, if there is a danger of human lives, then this amendment would be helpful as NParks can now step in. I would like to ask: how do you define danger? Is the dropping of leaves into the neighbour's house that may clog up drains and cause mosquito breeding and dengue or Zika a danger? Or the leaves fall into the neighbour's house cause the neighbour to have sleepless nights and subsequently have depression − is this danger? Since there is already a lot of roadside planting, can NParks order to remove trees that cause dispute or concern? Mdm Speaker, in Chinese please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many residents in private estates would tell me that their neighbour's tree was \"leaning over\". As a result, the leaves would fall into their garden, or the tree looked so precarious that they would feel afraid every day. If the Neighbourhood Committee was asked to mediate, their neighbour may even refuse to answer the door! This has made the residents feel rather helpless.
Now, the Government is amending the law to allow NParks to direct property owners to trim trees that could pose a danger to others. This would give the residents peace of mind. However, I would like to ask the Minister: what is the definition of \"posing a danger to others\"?
As for the trees that cause dispute, can NParks have the trees cut down? This is because there are a lot of trees and flowers planted along the roadside.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, these clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I recall reading with delight back in 2014 about the initiative to establish our country's first marine park at Sisters' Island. The objective to protect Singapore's coral reefs, which are home to rare and endangered marine life, is lofty and praiseworthy. The plans for the marine park to serve as a platform for conservation, research, outreach and education on our marine biodiversity are ambitious and worthy of support.
We will be protecting what is leftover of our natural heritage after the incessant urban development and redevelopment, not for ourselves, but for our children and for the world. In the face of warming waters of climate change, protecting our tiny coral reefs is a statement of defiant sustainability. This is a shout-out to everyone that we need to conserve our common future, no matter how small the contribution and how slim the chances.
There is also a promising social aspect leading to the establishment of the marine park. It was born from the proposal by civil society called the Singapore Blue Plan 2009. Various local NGOs and institutions worked with NParks during the International Year of the Reef in 2008 to develop the Plan, which was submitted to the Government. As a result, the Comprehensive Marine Biodiversity Survey was launched, led by NParks and involved the Universities, many NGOs and many more volunteers. In the five years, the Survey has discovered possibly 100 new species, which is, in itself, a major accomplishment and contribution to the global commons.
The Government's move to establish the marine park is a ringing endorsement of civil society's initiative. It shows what non-governmental organisations and social clubs can achieve by pooling their creative energies and what can be accomplished for the national good when the Government listens and allows the creative energies to be channelled through to policy and law.
I have been looking forward to this Bill to formalise the legal status of the marine park and I am disappointed. I am disappointed with two things. Both disappointments are related to the objective of protecting our coral reefs. The first is the scope of protection and the second is the scale of protection.
Let us begin with the scope of protection. The Bill defines \"marine park\" as \"any area of the sea or seabed that is set aside for conservation of marine organisms and is designated in Part III of the Schedule\". So far so good, as the marine park seems to take on the characteristics of \"national park\" and \"nature reserve\", being set aside for conservation and designated with its own Part in the Schedule.
However, the \"marine park\" is then parked, forgive the pun, under the definition of \"public park\". There are two national parks: Fort Canning Park and the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Singapore Botanic Gardens. And there are four nature reserves: the Central Catchment Nature Reserve, Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, Labrador Nature Reserve and Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve. These areas are set aside for conservation of our natural heritage, scientific research, outreach and dissemination of knowledge and educational purposes. These are exactly aligned with the purposes of the marine park, to serve as a platform for conservation, research, outreach and education on our marine biodiversity. So, why is our only and very unique marine park not placed with our national parks and nature reserves, but lumped with over 300 public parks?
This is not just a question of bad categorisation. The protections that are afforded to national parks and nature reserves should be given to our marine park, for the simple reason that our marine park was established to protect our unique and endangered marine biodiversity. Under sections 8 and 9 of the Act, persons are restricted from collecting, capturing and displacing any plants and animals; from disturbing the land
This is more urgent, given that intertidal guided walks are being conducted and the diving trail and other planned trails will bring more visitors to experience the marine biodiversity up close. I understand that in any nature conservation effort, outreach and education are important to get public support. The intertidal walks, the trails, the planned boardwalk and the floating pontoon at Big Sister's Island complement the conservation effort. However, they do expose the fragile marine eco-system to human footfalls and the natural temptation to touch and collect. Furthermore, as a public park, the marine park is exposed to visitors in private boats who could swim and snorkel freely among the reefs. Designating the marine park as a nature reserve, and not just any public park, will signal to visitors to give due respect to the marine biodiversity.
There is one more reason why the marine park needs the protection of a nature reserve, even more so than a terrestrial nature reserve. The boundaries of a terrestrial nature reserve, such as Sungei Buloh, could be carefully guarded against human intrusions using well-designed fences, walls, roads, hedges, waterways or secondary forests. However, the marine park is by nature a very open space given its location in the open seas. As our marine park gathers fame, our marine biodiversity could become a target of unscrupulous poachers and collectors. One major threat to coral reefs and reef fishes is poaching for the aquarium hobby market. We need to empower the custodian, NParks, to guard the marine park against this threat.
My second disappointment is with the scale of the protection. The marine park covers 40 hectares around Sisters' Island and the reefs off the western coasts of Pulau Tekukor and St John's Island. The Blue Plan had a far more extensive list of areas with high marine biodiversity, which included many islands and reefs adjacent to the marine park, such as Pulau Hantu, Pulau Semakau, Pulau Biola, the Cyrene Reefs and Kusu Island. Expanding the marine park to cover these areas with submerged reefs would greatly enhance and deepen the protection of our marine biodiversity.
Kusu Island is also a cherished place for thousands of Singaporeans travelling there for religious pilgrimages. The legend behind the island about a tortoise turning itself into an island to save two shipwrecked sailors, a Malay and a Chinese, and the Chinese temple and kramat shrines located there represent our multiracial harmony. Kusu Island presents us with the opportunity to integrate an area of cultural significance into the marine park, to enhance it as a place of natural and cultural heritage.
There is also the need to create buffer zones in between the conserved areas. The marine park, as it is designated now, is not a contiguous zone of protection, but split into three parts off Sisters' Islands, St John's and Pulau Tekukor. Unrestricted shipping poses a threat to the separated pockets of marine biodiversity. Just last year, in August, a collision between a Very Large Crude Carrier and a container ship close to the Sisters' Island brought on fears of an oil spill that would have been disastrous for the marine park. Buffer zones providing for secondary protection, not unlike the proposed amendment to create a new offence of releasing animals into a reserve through waterways outside the reserve, would mitigate the risks.
I am fully aware that the shipping traffic is the lifeline of our economy. However, the relocation of the port from Keppel and Pasir Panjang to Tuas presents us with an excellent opportunity. The URA has invited Singaporeans to imagine and envision how the planned redevelopment of the coastline for the Greater Southern Waterfront after 2030 can take shape.
I believe we should not stop at the creation of a continuous waterfront from Labrador to Marina South and we should creatively and courageously imagine the inclusion of an expanded Southern Islands Marine Park as the Greater Southern Waterfront's premium green space. Instead of limiting the green network to the corridor from Labrador Park and Mount Faber to Pulau Brani, we should think outside the terrestrial green box to a great national park that integrates Labrador Nature Reserve and its green corridor with the blue network of coral reefs of the Southern Islands.
I have a third point to add to the two disappointments concerning the scope and scale of protecting our marine biodiversity. This third point is the fear the amendments in this Bill will shift the evolution of the marine park in an undesirable direction.
Clause 4 of the Bill inserts a new section 6A to allow the Minister to designate any entity to manage a public park. Will this lead to the commercialisation of our public parks? Will this lead to the parcelling out of our 300-plus public parks to diverse organisations to turn them into spaces to carry out their agenda that may undermine or dilute the open character and recreational purpose of our public parks? Will this promote unhealthy competition and turf wars between entities, such as Residents Committees, non-profit groups and even Statutory Boards? I hope the Senior Minister of State will clarify the intention of this amendment.
With respect to the marine park being defined as a public park, rather than a national park or natural reserve, this new section means that the management of the marine park could be assigned to another entity other than NParks. This is a dangerous proposition, as the marine park needs to be managed by an entity equipped with the right scientific and conservation expertise. NParks is the only entity that is properly equipped to manage the marine park.
Reading the two amendments together, defining the marine park as a public park and allowing other entities to manage public parks, I fear that the marine park will be taken down the road to become an eco-tourist theme park one day. This will definitely subvert the aim of conserving our marine biodiversity. I hope the Senior Minister of State can state, categorically, that this is not the direction it will take the marine park towards.
The marine park represents to us our hope for the future, the legacies we leave behind for our children, an unrivalled lesson in good stewardship and the values we cherish as a cosmopolitan island nation embracing the world. We should deepen the scope and expand the scale of protecting our marine biodiversity. We should not turn what should be a nature reserve into an eco-tourist theme park.
Mdm Speaker, I call for this Bill to be the first step to deepen the scope and expand the scale of protecting our marine biodiversity and not for turning the marine park into a theme park. With this hope, I support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade):Mdm Speaker, I have a few clarifications pertaining to the Bill.
Firstly, the focus and emphasis on marine parks, as it is relatively new in Singapore, is a welcome one and it establishes a safe haven for ecologically sensitive flora and fauna. With the definition of marine park given in section 2, Part 3, are there other parks or areas that are under consideration, besides the Sister's Islands and its vicinity, which have been stipulated in the Bill, and how actively are we working with other expert groups to see if there are other suggested areas that can be incorporated into this?
Secondly, for the animal species and the organisms within the parks, will they come under the jurisdiction of NParks, AVA or any other agencies?
Thirdly, for trees found in any premises and are deemed to pose an immediate threat to life and property, it is known that NParks can intervene and take necessary action. Can I get clarification on the definition of this threat to life and property? Some of the issues that we tend we face on the ground may include trees bearing fruits which drop and accidentally hit persons or even vehicles parked in the vicinity, to cracks and damages to paths and pavements due to the expanding root systems. Some clarification will be useful as this is a practical problem.
Fourthly, for trees found on our roadside within residential areas and estates, can I check if there are regular timelines or intervals for pruning and trimming? From the numerous observations I have made, it seems to be carried out only when we activate NParks or the relevant agencies or in situations when the trees are overgrown, are encasing street lamps, or are attracting numerous birds. Therefore, it will be good to also have some idea on the timeline for pruning.
Finally, on heritage roads, can I check with the Senior Minister of State if Upper Aljunied Road, running alongside the Bidadari vicinity, can be included and also designated as a Heritage Road with its numerous very large and mature trees flanking the roads on both sides, creating a pleasant green ambience and also a canopy? Barring all these, Madam, I will support the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill seeks to update the Parks and Trees Act to expand the powers of NParks to appoint park rangers, to increase penalties for nature-related offences and to extend certain protections to marine parks, among other things.
I have no objections to the Bill, but I would like to speak about gaps in our current regime for managing trees and parks, as well as to raise some technical questions about certain provisions in the Bill.
In November last year, I asked the Minister for National Development what are the criteria that NParks uses to make decisions about tree-cutting, and/or replanting activities in residential estates, whether these criteria vary according to the location and nature of the residential estate and, if so, how? And how are residents consulted in the process?
The reply was that tree removal is a last resort. If it is deemed necessary by NParks' arborists or contractors, NParks will then study replanting options and make a decision about what replacement trees to plant, based on technical considerations like available space, presumably soil condition, sunlight exposure at that location and so on. The reply also said, \"Residents are consulted when there is an opportunity to rejuvenate the overall landscaping of the estate. For example, NParks seeks feedback on landscaping options and tree-planting schemes as part of the estate upgrading programme and for large projects, such as Jurong Lake Gardens\".
The reply did not state if there was a process for consulting residents about decisions on replacing groups of trees near residential estates, or planting new clusters, in other words, for tree planting decisions that are not related to big projects. I can only assume that no such structured and regular process exist.
Madam, in my grassroots work, residents have told me several times that they would like to have been consulted on what types of trees are replanted in place of removed trees or what types of fresh trees are planted.
For example, one family living in a landed estate where trees line the path from the market to the house − and this is a group of people who clearly have a strong interest in flora, and in plants and trees, and have a great deal of knowledge about that subject − they shared with me that the group of trees that they had loved and which had afforded them good shade on hot days, had been replaced by a tree species which was less shady. I note that this wish to have some say over the types of trees planted in a particular area is also felt by some residents in the HDB estate where I live.
I would like to suggest a new model for making decisions about trees being planted in residential estates. Where a significant number of trees are to be removed and trees replanted, or where a new group or growth of trees that have to be planted, be it installation of tree samplings or planting of instant trees, NParks and HDB, where HDB manages the green areas, could initiate a consultation process with residents.
Some might argue that this is a trivial matter over which to have a consultation process. Some might argue that a matter such as this does not warrant such consultation and that it might overburden NParks to build this into NParks' regular procedures. However, efficient solutions can be found that do not stretch the resources in manpower of NParks to conduct such consultations, and this solution can be deployed only when there is significant new planting or replanting, and not for the replacement of just a single tree.
For example, where such decisions need to be made, NParks could direct residents to a webpage that presents different tree options that they could vote on. Residents could submit a very simple online form with their NRIC to express support for one or another option. The residents could learn about the page through noticeboards in HDB estates, or by signboards placed strategically at landed estates.
One could argue against this by saying that if only certain people go online and express a preference, then the decision will be undemocratic. However, that is still better than no one being given a chance to express a preference. Moreover, more votes may be generated by individual residents urging their neighbours to go online and vote for their preferred option. It could be argued that this is giving residents too much choice
NParks could provide only certain options for tree choice based on local considerations, such as soil considerations and so on, and also based on national considerations, like the need to preserve a certain level of biodiversity in the national tree population which has broader ecological benefits for Singapore. In fact, if such a model of consultation can be piloted and run efficiently, it could serve as an inspiration for local consultation and empowerment on other matters that fall into the middle zone, where they are neither too big to warrant a formal vote, nor too small to ignore residents' feedback altogether.
I have suggested an online approach to consultation because this would seem to be efficient and scalable, but there could be other approaches to achieve the same result, bearing in mind that many Singaporeans are still not too IT-savvy. What are the benefits of such consultation? There are many. Such exercises could inspire a greater sense of ownership over the local greenery and public park spaces. This, in turn, could enhance positive behaviours like anti-littering and that could have a knock-on effect of saving state expenditure in other areas. Such consultations could even stimulate interaction among residents as they lobby one another for their own preferred treescapes.
Lastly, such exercises could stimulate a better understanding and appreciation of the beauty of our natural flora in Singapore, as well as of the work of NParks.
I would like to speak on another gap that does not seem to be addressed in this Bill to seek clarifications.
In past decades, there have been residential developments constructed at the margins of the Central Catchment in Bukit Timah Nature Reserves. Many of these are large-scale developments like condominiums and strata landed housing. This amendment regulating the release or abandonment of animals into reserves through waterways is a good one, but it does not address one major issue, which is the potential of invasive species entering the reserves, not by design or choice, but by random chance, such as nonindigenous declarative plants favoured by condominium developers reproducing in the reserves, or exotic pets owned by residents, escaping accidentally into the reserves without the conscious choice of the residents to release them. These incidents may disrupt the reserves' delicate eco-system and biodiversity. What measures are in place now or will be considered in the future to limit these possibilities, or limit the damage that might be caused from such possibilities?
Conversely, what happens when animals accidentally exit the reserves and are found by residents in these developments who may decide to capture and retain the animals, or even harm them? They should by right call NParks to return animals that are captured, but, if they do not, what recourse does NParks have in such cases?
Next, I have a few questions that are more technical in nature. Firstly, the Bill stipulates a reduction in the area size of the Botanic Gardens protected by law. Clause 23 will result in a reduction of 151 sqm of land from the Botanic Gardens. It is a small reduction but I would just like to clarify what is the reason for this reduction.
Secondly, I would also like to question the expanded powers given to NParks to appoint Auxiliary Police officers to become park rangers. Clause 3b of the Bill also now
I think this is a matter of public interest because if, for example, there has been a rise in offences that warrant this, it is a matter of public interest to understand what these offences are. For example, if there has been a spike in incidents of persons harming or poaching endangered species of animals or plants in our nature reserves, many concerned citizens and NGOs may want to know about this.
Separately, but related to the main point, to what extent does NParks envisage that it will induct more staff in this way to police nature reserves in parks? I ask this because I wonder if we have given due considerations in other ways to minimise offences occurring on NParks' land, such as CCTV cameras or apps that allow members of the public to photograph and report offences that they see.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Speaker, if you are a visitor arriving in Singapore, the first sight that greets you as you leave Changi Airport is the calmness along the roads leading to our city − rain trees with their magnificent branches, palm trees spreading their arms in welcome and the colourful bougainvillea shrubs that calm your nerves after a long flight. It is a similar sight that greets Singaporeans returning home. It is a reassuring sight for many.
Since 1975, when the Parks and Trees Act replaced the then Botanical Gardens Act, the NParks has worked hard to ensure that this continues to grow from the vision of our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew of having a \"Garden City\" or a \"City within a Garden\". In this new amendment, there is one area of focus under clause 5 which deals with the release or abandonment of animals into any river, stream, canal or watercourse, not just within, but now also outside of nature reserves.
Much of this is in the past is in fulfilment of benign religious beliefs or personal obligations, but at the malicious end, also because of cruelty.
For the existing fauna in our waterways, the introduction of new, perhaps invasive life could prove to be a major disruption. There is a real problem of having invasive aquatic species released into our nature reserves or other water sources leading to it.
In the United States, the problem of predatory and large snakeheads is well documented. In Asia, perhaps our solution is to make them into soup but in the US, it is a major problem.
The population of this invasive fish has grown at such a prolific rate that there have been reports of snakeheads, which can survive outside of water for a period of time, walking and crossing between waterways and even, anecdotally, having been reported of attacking humans!
Mdm Speaker, in Singapore, we are glad that we do not at this moment have such a problem but we cannot discount the fact that there would be no such problems in the future. Singapore has thrived and prided itself in avoiding black swan situations. This legislation that we have and are debating on at this moment would go further in correcting the threats to our biodiversity by imported fauna. Improper control can lead to the spread of bacterial diseases as well, which could wipe out our marine life in our nature parks and adjoining waterways. The potential for negative environmental impact is there and it is only proper that laws are tightened to ensure that our existing flora and fauna are protected.
In fact, even from a religious standpoint, major religious organisations have come together with NParks in the annual Operation No Release to encourage Singaporeans and clarify that the releasing of live animals is not to be encouraged if it causes greater suffering. To quote Mr Henry Baey, then-President of the Buddhist Fellowship, who said in 2010, \"Compassion and wisdom are like two wings on the same bird. One without the other is only futile, it can even be dangerous. Releasing animals may seem like a beautiful, kind, meritorious thing to do. However, if it upsets the ecosystem and causes harm, not only to the animals released, but to all living creatures in the area, can that then be called a genuine act of compassion?\"
Operation No Release has been in effect for a number of years and I understand that the number of cases in our nature reserves and our waterways has gone down. But the problem seems to have moved proverbially upstream to other waterways and canals that people may not be aware will lead into our nature reserves. So, the new amendment will be useful. But being a city that is very prone to rain and a very large network of drains and canals, perhaps what is more important is further education and public communications.
I welcome the added protection for trees, especially in private estates and in private property, but I wish to clarify a point in clauses 14 and 18. Yesterday, we debated and passed the Planning (Amendment) Bill. The hon Member for Nee Soon Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, in her clarification, had asked if URA, the lead agency for the Planning Bill, could be empowered to ensure that issues, such as plastering works, could be done. However, the explanation provided yesterday was that homeowners will need to have their premises and privacy respected.
Under clauses 14 and 18 of the Parks and Trees Act, NParks officers or their contractors are now empowered to enter to ascertain tree or plant conditions. I accept the explanation by the Senior Minister of State earlier that this would be the last resort. However, I wish to ask if there is a slight disjoint in the implementation between these two different Bills. One where NParks public officers are allowed to enter and to make corrections whereas another agency, under the same Ministry, is not allowed to do so. Because at the end of the day, while a tree may fall and cause danger to the public, a non-plastered wall after some time of exposure can also potentially cause danger to the public as well.
On the designation of the new marine park, I give my utmost support. This is a move in the right direction. Singapore, over the years, is not known for being very diverse in our marine life, but it is, and this designation of the marine park is a step in the right direction.
In my constituency of Yew Tee, we are blessed to have the Sungei Buloh Wetlands Reserve and the Kranji Marshes at our doorstep. I understand that the Prime Minister came to jalan jalan at the Marshes last Sunday as well. These 50-plus hectares of protected marshes full of flora and an abundance of fauna is worth protecting. But I have a question for the Senior Minister of State because there is cause for concern amongst nature lovers as major developments across the straits, in fact at the mouth of the straits, have long-term detrimental impact on the reserve. How then does NParks intend to address these concerns and mitigate any negative impact on this fragile nature spot?
My last point is in relation to clause 24 under the powers given to NParks. The new functions empower NParks to manage on behalf of the Government any state land used by the landscape industry. Feedback from the landscape industry has been that they feel very hard-pressed to develop further because of the short tenancies that they face. And previous arrangements have been such that they are very fearful as they come close to the renewal of their leases, whether they can continue or they will have to close their businesses. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if he can allay the fears of the landscaping industry. It is very land intensive and very capital intensive. What are the areas that NParks will be taking on to further develop the landscape industry in Singapore, so that we can continue to have a city in a garden?
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, we should do whatever we can to preserve our natural biodiversity and our nature reserves for future generations. I support the Bill.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, the transformation of Singapore into a Garden City began in the 1960s. Then-Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew envisioned Singapore to be a highly liveable city-state that not only provided economic opportunities to her residents, but would also have a high quality of life. People would be able to live in a beautiful environment where roads were tree-lined and parks and green open spaces were freely accessible to everyone.
Over the years, NParks has spearheaded the development of new parks and green recreational spaces. It has also continued to promote and develop research in botany, environmental biology and forestry management. To continue this work, I believe it is necessary to strengthen NParks' regulatory function and power and would thus like to speak on three specific amendments of the Bill.
First of all, the designation of \"marine park\" as a type of \"public park\". As we have already heard from Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee, the Straits of Singapore is one of the busiest commercial shipping routes in the world. In spite of this busy maritime traffic, the Straits has a remarkably diverse marine life. Some of the marine animals spotted in the Straits of Singapore include the Hawksbill Turtle, the Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin and Black-tipped Reef sharks.
These animals and the marine biodiversity of the Straits of Singapore are part of our natural heritage and should be protected and preserved. I am thus glad that amendments made to the Bill in clause 2 will designate \"marine park\" as a type of \"public park\" and that NParks will have juridical control and enforcement rights over
A good example that illustrates this point is the recent 300-tonne oil spill that occurred in the Straits of Johor when two ships collided northeast of Singapore. Those responsible for the oil spill must be held accountable for the disaster and the amendments to the Bill will hopefully give NParks more authority to take the appropriate action.
On a more positive note, having greater regulatory and enforcement power may potentially allow Singapore to capitalise on our rich marine biodiversity to promote marine tourism and other marine leisure activities. Popular Singapore sites, such as Pulau Hantu, are overused and there are signs of coral damage. The designation of \"marine parks\" as \"public parks\" will thus potentially offer NParks a clearer channel to develop other dive sites, possibly in our southern waters.
While Singapore can never realistically compete with a place like the Maldives for marine tourism, it could be fruitful for NParks to work with operators to enhance more sea-sport and marine leisure offerings to feed domestic demand. In addition, a well-conserved marine park would also offer educational opportunities, especially for our youth, on the bio-riches of our waters and the importance of sustainable living.
Another proposed amendment to the Act I would like to speak on is the proposal to include non-NParks managed land under the Act as indicated in clauses 2 and 4. This is, in my opinion, a positive amendment as this would allow those who damage trees and plants in these areas to be prosecuted. I would, however, also like to suggest that NParks eventually oversee the management of all trees and plants across the island. I believe that such a move will resolve the current slightly complex management system of trees and plants that is in place.
At the present moment, depending on the configuration and location, you could have trees and plants in the area of a few hundred square metres coming under the jurisdiction and management of various diverse agencies, such as LTA, HDB, NParks and the Town Councils.
While the public can call the MSO line to deal with any issue pertaining to the trees and plants concerned and their feedback will be re-routed to the appropriate agency, I feel that this might not be the most efficient and cost-effective way to address such concerns.
Under the current system, I understand that each individual agency will need to call for its own tender for horticultural contracts and maintain its own horticultural team, even arborist, to deal with such exigencies and issues. This, potentially, leads to the duplication of contracts and manpower across agencies when what is needed is perhaps a singularly-managed horticultural team and a few master contracts that cover the maintenance of plants and trees across the island
In my opinion, it would thus be more prudent and effective, from both a resource and manpower standpoint, to have NParks to be the lead coordinating agency that oversees the entire process of maintaining all our trees and plants in Singapore.
Finally, Madam, residents in my constituency have previously made complaints about a row of tall trees that are in a school that is located right beside their block of flats. The complaints are about how insects and birds nesting in those trees are a nuisance and disturbance. Specifically, insects are flying into their homes and birds are defecating in their balconies. Our community leaders have raised the matter but little has been done to alleviate the situation so far.
The proposed changes to the Act in clauses 14 and 18 would give NParks officers the authority to enter various premises to issue maintenance notices. This would potentially help to alleviate the situation I have just highlighted, as well as other similar situations that I am sure my parliamentary colleagues would face, as those responsible for the trees will now have to comply with maintenance notices issued by NParks.
I am glad that these issues will be given due attention. On the other hand, I am also concerned about the technical interpretation of the proposed changes and whether these changes will lead to frequent situations where various parties expect NParks to step in to resolve minor issues that could be dealt with in other ways and using other channels.
Like my colleague, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, I am also interested to know how NParks would interpret what constitutes \"danger\" under the amended clause. I believe that most of us would understand \"danger\" in the most obvious sense, such as when a branch or tree could potentially fall on someone. However, how else could the concept of \"danger\" be applied? For example, would the presence of a bee-hive or toxic and poisonous sap from trees be regarded as \"dangerous?\" Would trees that regularly shed leaves that might be a hazard on a slippery floor during rainy days be considered \"dangerous?\" The premise of what constitutes \"danger\" is, therefore, subjective and I believe greater clarity in the interpretation of what is \"dangerous\" is necessary in order for the law to have its full desired effect.
With that, Mdm Speaker, I conclude my speech in support of the Bill and look forward to NParks continuing to integrate more biodiversity and flora into our urban landscape, so that we are not only a Garden City but a City in a Garden.
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
PARKS AND TREES (AMENDMENT) BILL
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh):Mdm Speaker, creating and maintaining green spaces in a densely built city state like Singapore has always been a challenge. I would like to applaud NParks for the great job it has done in ensuring the accessibility and protection of green spaces. I am pleased to note that amendments to the Bill will give NParks more authority to perform its duties.
Prolific urban planning has led to a boom of construction projects around Singapore. Some of these projects would involve the removal and transplanting of trees. I understand that NParks takes a keen interest in heritage trees, as well as tree removal and transplantation. Extensive consultations would take place between the project management team of the construction projects and NParks with regard to these matters.
However, I have received feedback from residents in my constituency that the trees in the vicinity of construction works are sometimes not cared for properly by the respective construction teams, or are even damaged. Examples include improper trimming and pruning, as well as defacement of trees. Perhaps NParks can step in to monitor the work of contractors and their appointed arborist and be accorded the authority to take action when necessary.
Next, having a beautiful garden is an aspect that many landed property owners enjoy. And it is good that they would like to maintain a garden at their own expense, considering that it means additional green spaces as well as fresher air in the neighbourhood. However, some property owners lack consideration for their neighbours and, as a result, common disputes among neighbours living in the private property estates often involve inappropriate placement of trees.
The amendment has dictated that neighbourly disputes will be referred for mediation and community resolution. However, in cases where there is a clear violation of regulations stipulated by MND, would it not be more appropriate for someone, such as NParks, to intervene? I would imagine that the regulations are in place for good reasons, mostly safety-related, and it would make more sense to deal with it as soon as possible, rather than using authoritative power as a last resort.
NParks' focus has been on trees but I believe they also look into other plants and assess how they affect the public. Some plants like cacti are top favourites in landscaping works because they are hardy and aesthetically pleasing. However, some species can grow very big and may cause safety hazards and obstruction. If a resident notices potential issues arising from a non-tree type of plant, can NParks be called upon for assistance?
Last but not least, many landed property owners hire private grass-cutters and tree-cutters to tend their garden. Some of these grass-cutters or tree-cutters come and do the work on a lovely Sunday morning and disrupt the peace with noise from their machines when most residents would have liked to enjoy a peaceful morning jog or stroll, or even sleep in. The leaf blowers are the worst culprits. Their noise level goes up as high as 100 decibels and then sometimes lasts half an hour or more. This exceeds the stipulated safety restrictions by MOM, which dictates that, for the safety of workers, exposure to 100 decibels should not exceed 15 minutes.
Fortunately for the workers, they may wear hearing protectors which allow them to safely do their work at high noise levels. But what about the residents who do not have these hearing protectors? Considering that many of the houses are in very close proximity, long-term exposure to the noise can lead to a myriad of health problems, from tinnitus and stress to hearing loss. I hope NParks will look into this and help residents to safeguard against inconsiderate grass-cutting and tree-cutting practices with levels of noise.
Mdm Speaker :\tMr Henry Kwek. Mr Henry Kwek is not in the House. Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I stand in full support of this Bill. I have spent the last 16 years of my life fighting to protect our wildlife here in Singapore. With ACRES, we have rescued thousands of animals, rehabilitated them and, working with both NParks and AVA, released them back into the wild where they belong.
Singaporeans continue to be amazed when I tell them that we rescued over 1,000 wild animals in Singapore each year. ACRES alone rescued more than 3,000 wild animals just last year. The most common response I get is \"Singapore got wild animals, meh?\"
I have personally seen the amazing biodiversity we have on this island, I have seen how precious they are and, perhaps most importantly, I have seen how fragile they are. We have much to lose if our policies are not right and, for all the harm that we humans have done to the animals and the environment, it is also only us who can right this wrong; only us who can protect our ecosystem.
Madam, this Bill today signals a milestone in our efforts to protect Singapore's biodiversity and is a huge step forward.
A significant step forward is in the protection of our marine ecosystem. If it is hard to create awareness of and protect the biodiversity on land, protect our terrestrial ecosystem, then it is even harder when it comes to our marine ecosystem simply because what goes on there literally goes on beneath the surface and most people have never seen or heard of the amazing marine life we have in our waters.
As such, I applaud the Bill for the inclusion of \"marine parks\" in the Parks and Trees Act (PTA), giving NParks − for the first time − jurisdiction over the seas. This will provide the Sisters' Island Marine Park with greater protection against destructive behaviour.
Madam, while I stand in support of the Bill, I would like to seek some clarification and also offer some suggestions.
There should be an equivalent to Part III of the PTA with regard to marine parks. There should be a section setting out the objectives of a marine park, similar to section 7 of the current Act. There should also be provisions setting out what acts are prohibited in a marine park, similar to sections 8 and 9 of the current Act. Can the Minister clarify specifically what acts are not allowed in the marine park?
What is the status of the land areas of Sisters Island? It is only the marine area, defined in the Bill's Schedule Part III, that is protected as a marine park. But the amended
It is noted as well that shellfish is protected, as \"fish\" includes shellfish in the definition. But this protection only applies to acts that are prohibited in sections 8 and 9 and these relate to National Parks and Nature Reserves, not to a marine park. Can the Minister clarify if the protection extends to the marine park as well?
What about shells that no longer have shellfish living in them, the giant clam shells, for example? These are also found in our waters. Are these protected? There was a recent controversy over the giant clam shells collected by NUS students on a trip to the Riau Islands.
It is also unclear if corals are protected in a marine park. It may be argued that the definition of \"animal\" in the PTA is wide enough to encompass corals \"or any other living creature, vertebrate or invertebrate\". While many are living organisms, some corals may be dead. Can these be collected?
Section 14 of the State Lands Encroachment Act makes it an offence to take \"corals or shells\" from state land but this only applies to taking from the \"land\". What about taking from the sea bed? Is this to be considered \"land\" as well? It is best if the law clearly makes it an offence to take away shellfish, shells as well as corals. All these should be protected in a marine park, along with fish and other marine creatures.
It is also unclear if fishing or the taking of any marine life in a marine park is prohibited.
Will there also be prohibitions on throwing down of anchors onto the seabed as these would damage the coral reefs, or throwing of garbage into the sea? I appreciate that the Minister had mentioned earlier that there would be subsidiary legislation enacted that will probably address a majority of the concerns I have raised but I hope again that as we draft those regulations, the points I raise here are taken into consideration.
Next, in order for NParks to fully protect our marine biodiversity from destructive behaviours, could the Ministry look into making similar amendments to extend full jurisdiction by NParks to coastal Nature Reserves like the Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and Labrador Nature Reserve, as well as coastal parks, such as the Changi Beach Park, Pasir Ris Park, East Coast Park and Chek Jawa?
The experience with the designation of \"Chek Jawa Wetlands\" in 2007 suggests that amendments to the PTA are necessary to allow NParks to fully enforce the PTA beyond the high water mark.
I understand from the green community that NParks Notice 5.2.180.1 dated 24 September 2007 and Port Marine Notice No 126 of 2007 attempted to designate Chek Jawa Wetlands by demarcating points in the sea and declaring via the Notices that these points were under the PTA. Probably because there was no actual corresponding amendments to the PTA, in practice, even after the Notices, NParks still has to send all reported misdemeanours beyond the high water mark to MPA to enforce.
NParks could not enforce action on its own against blatant misbehaviour in broad daylight within the designated Chek Jawa Wetlands. These include laying fish nets
These experiences underline the importance of embedding clear jurisdiction boundaries in the sea through amendments in the PTA, and not just via Notices.
In this light, could the Ministry also look at amending jurisdiction for coastal parks, nature reserves and Chek Jawa, since it is now amending jurisdiction for the Sisters Islands marine park?
Lastly, on the amendments to section 9, which propose to prohibit the release or abandonment of animals into any river, stream or watercourse which flows into a nature reserve. I understand that NParks will be putting up \"no-release\" signs to inform the public of this change. However, it might be difficult to enforce this.
For example, if the public releases the animal further upstream, before the sign is sighted, how will this law still be enforced? How will we assess if the person \"reasonably knows\" that the body of water flows into or through the nature reserve? A person caught releasing the animal can simply say he or she does not know the river flows into the nature reserve. How will NParks be able to prove what he or she knows or does not know?
I foresee some technical difficulties with enforcement and thus propose an alternative solution, which is to prohibit the release of exotic species anywhere, on land or in water, in Singapore, and not simply to restrict this to certain areas. Animals are not stationary and have the freedom to travel from unrestricted areas to nature reserves. Hence, I see little rationale in creating demarcations when prohibiting the release of animals.
ACRES has seen first-hand the devastating impact invasive species can have on local ones. For example, the red-eared sliders, which are native to North America, have caused numbers of our local Asian box turtles to drop significantly.
Madam, if we want to protect our local wildlife, we must put a stop to the release of animals anywhere.
I had the privilege of experiencing the amazing biodiversity in Singapore and I hope my daughters will continue to have this privilege when they are older. I was in England recently and I watched a programme on TV about the challenges countries around the world faced in co-existing with their wild animals. The programme ended by showcasing Singapore and how we have succeeded in protecting our biodiversity and co-existing with our wild animals.
The ball is in our court and let us make sure we do what is right. After all, \"If we pollute the air, water and soil that keep us alive and well, and destroy the biodiversity that allows natural systems to function, no amount of money will save us.\" Madam, I stand in full support of this Bill.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Today, as we debate on the amendments, I would like to talk about the broader point, which is to deepen the connection between our people and our nature.
There is a beautiful Chinese saying, 钟灵毓秀. It means that Nature's beauty brings forth talent and character in people. Indeed, for those of us who have experienced the joy of nature, we know intuitively that nature centres and nourishes the soul.
At the same time, most Singaporeans I meet hold NParks in high regard. In particular, my residents appreciate how NParks has tended to Bishan Park and Lower Pierce Reservoir Park, as well as the numerous neighbourhood parks nestled within Kebun Baru. My residents are also looking forward to the upcoming Upper Thomson Nature Park sited next to the Central Reserve.
Given the significant efforts we have invested in ensuring that nature is at our people's doorstep, we should strive to get as many Singaporeans to walk through that door and to enjoy the full extent of Singapore's beautiful nature.
NParks has done an excellent job to engage the public. Just to name a few, over the last year, NParks has done a comprehensive programme for interested schools and preschools to partake in developing apps, such as the SG BioAtlas, to help Singaporeans share and identify distinctive Singaporean plants and animals that they have spotted.
But while NParks is working hard to engage Singaporeans, it is going against the prevailing trend where our children and youths are growing up as fully-fledged digital natives and emotionally disengaging from the physical world.
Increasingly, mobile phones and iPads are becoming digital pacifiers for our children. We see that at every coffee shop, at every social gathering and pretty much in every home with young children.
This trend is not just limited to Singapore. Last year, my wife and I hiked at a National Park in the United States for two days. We were surprised to encounter a slick advertising blitz targeting the youth, so as to encourage the youth to visit the parks. When we dig deeper, we realised that the park visitors in the US consist largely of baby-boomers and Gen X. So, basically, the millenniums are missing.
In fact, the US National Park has identified the lukewarm response from the millenniums as the single largest threat to public support for the country's National Park system. So, NParks is not just facing this trend alone.
As such, I would like to propose that we systematically incorporate nature into our children's curriculum. There are three reasons why we want to take this approach. One, existing, largely optional outreach efforts to our children will naturally attract those who are already pre-disposed to nature, or to children whose school leaders see the benefit of interacting with nature. As much as NParks endeavours, a significant number of children may not have a chance to develop a meaningful bond with nature.
Two, MCCY and MOE are expanding the Outward Bound School (OBS), so as to ensure that all Singaporean youths have a chance to experience OBS. In the same way, our full-time NSFs have regular interaction with nature in their routine exercises. At some point or another, our youths will have a mandated dose of nature. However, in both situations, we are setting up nature as adversity to be overcome. As such, not all of our youths will end up embracing nature in a positive way.
Three, we have set up our education system to cover the fundamentals in life. For example, over the years, we have started teaching art, so as to imbue our children with a sense of aesthetics. And we have always taught our children physical education, so as to develop their motor skills and to teach the benefits of sports. And recently, we have started emphasising on values, so as to equip our children with the right moral compass in life.
In the same manner, especially since our children are raised as city-dwellers in the digital rage, I believe we must build a deep and intuitive connection between our children and nature. Perhaps a good way to start is to encourage our Primary and Secondary schools to have quarterly visits to our parks. Some of these parks can be the neighbourhood parks, the national parks or the park connectors. Others can be to iconic national parks, such as Pulau Ubin, Chek Jawa or Sungei Buloh.
While the regular school trips take place, perhaps NParks can dedicate more resources to have park rangers to introduce the beauty of our animals and flora to our children and to introduce them to our excellent SG BioAtlas and sParks apps. Not all our children will grow up to be passionate nature-lovers, but, at least, growing up, they will have a chance to understand its beauty.
Next, I would like to talk about funding for NParks. Over the last few years, I have gradually developed a deeper understanding of what NParks does. NParks continues to build more iconic park destinations, such as Gardens by the Bay, Pulau Ubin and HortiPark. NParks continues to plant more trees as we build more housing estates and many more trees in forested towns like the upcoming Tengah town. NParks continues to build more park connectors.
Yet, against rising expectations of our residents and sharply increased manpower cost for maintenance and pruning, NParks receives a relatively modest operating grant of slightly over $200 million annually. To put that in perspective, that is around 0.3% of our overall Budget.
I have no doubt that NParks will effectively stretch every Government dollar it gets. In fact, NParks' strong corporate partnerships and its ability to attract top business leaders to its board are testimony of NParks' entrepreneurial spirit. But at some point, we might approach a situation where the budget might not match NParks' enlarged mission.
With the economy where it is, resources across the Government are understandably tight. However, I do hope that when the opportunity arises, NParks will be allocated more funding to deliver on its mission and to strengthen outreach.
Mdm Speaker, let me conclude my speech. Recently, my grassroots members and I were invited to NParks' ground-breaking ceremony at Thomson Natural Park. We had to hike into the middle of the forest. And during that short journey, our NParks guides gave us a vivid introduction to the various animals living within the vicinity – the Greater Slow Loris, the Banded Leaf Monkey and the Sundar Pangolin. We also chanced upon a baby Big Eye Green Whip snake. We even also learnt that the Sambar deers that we occasionally see there came from the descendants of a major Mandai zoo break-out in the late 1970s. It was a beautiful experience and it stayed in our memories.
I hope that all Singaporeans, especially our children, can enjoy similar experiences, and develop a deep love for our land. With that, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mdm Speaker, I thank all Members for speaking in support of this Bill and, in particular, the protections provided to the Sisters' Islands Marine Park.
Members have asked questions that broadly encompass two areas. First, the protection of greenery and biodiversity, and, second, the maintenance of such. So, let me try to address some of these questions.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether NParks could monitor construction damage to ensure that trees are not damaged in the course of works. There are existing legislative levers in the Act to ensure that trees are not indiscriminately damaged.
For trees that are specifically protected, like those in heritage road green buffers and road verges, as well as mature trees in tree conservation areas and vacant lands, NParks works closely with site arborists, contractors and developers to ensure that no damage is caused. Residents can also inform NParks if they see trees being damaged during construction. The helpline is 1800-4717300. So, please let the residents know.
Mr Darryl David, Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh spoke about the Sisters' Islands Marine Park. I thank them for their support. But there were several questions about the definition, scope, scale and of how the Marine Park will be protected.
Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I display a map of the Marine Park, just for the purpose of answering some of the questions raised by Members, including Mr Louis Ng?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]
Mr Desmond Lee: To clarify, we are amending the Act to make clear that the marine and foreshore areas of the Sisters' Islands Marine Park are a type of \"public park\". Hence, they are under the jurisdiction of the Act. These areas are described in Part III of the revised Schedule.
The terrestrial areas of the Marine Park are already protected as public parks. The rules governing these public parks are laid out in the subsidiary legislation of the Parks and Trees Act, namely, the Parks and Trees Regulations.
They include prohibitions against littering, causing death or injury to animals and restrictions against fishing or collection of organisms, such as corals, without the approval of the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation.
NParks will make new rules that are specific to marine parks in due course. These will include restrictions on diving, movement of vessels and the dropping of anchors. We will work closely with our marine conservation community, recreational fishing community, boat operators and other relevant stakeholders to develop these new rules.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh spoke about the concern on the scope of protections offered to Sisters' Islands Marine Park. As I have said earlier in my speech and as I have just reiterated a moment ago, this Marine Park came into being in 2014. We have taken the last few years, NParks managing our Marine Park, and we have now the confidence to make these amendments, but given ourselves the flexibility to make comprehensive rules – made in consultation with the blue fraternity, the marine conservation fraternity and, indeed, the authors of the Blue Plan ‒ to come up with these rules, together with stakeholders like boat operators and our recreational fishing community. So, the protections will be there.
Mr Darryl David asked if the Marine Park could be developed into a leisure and education destination. While Sisters' Islands Marine Park is a marine sanctuary, we also want it to be a living classroom for marine conservation. NParks set up a public gallery on St John's Island in 2015 as an educational resource for visitors. It has also worked with marine nature groups on guided intertidal walks and dive trips at the Marine Park.
We have further plans to develop a boardwalk, intertidal pools and a floating pontoon at Big Sister's Island. These facilities will offer the public more opportunities for encounters with marine and terrestrial biodiversity. Small Sister's Island will serve as a dedicated site for marine conservation, promoting species recovery and habitat enhancement. Programmes will be conducted to facilitate visits for schools, institutions and organisations. Indeed, even as we want to confer protection on the Marine Park, make it a sanctuary, we also have to bring people to the Marine Park. Allow them opportunity to come up close with marine life, so they see how valuable and precious this biodiversity is not only for them, but also for their children and grandchildren.
If you keep them away, if you say, \"you can't do this; you can't do that, you can't go to the Marine Park, it's off limits\", I am not sure that mindshare and support will be there in the community.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the criteria for an area to be considered a \"marine park\" and Mr Louis Ng asked if we could bring the coastal areas of nature reserves and parks under the Parks and Trees Act. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the scale of Sisters' Islands Marine Park, asking why it does not encompass all the areas covered under the Blue Plan.
Madam, the designation of a marine park is based on species richness and habitats at the site. The importance of the site as a source of coral larvae for dispersal is another important consideration. For example, the Sisters' Islands are important natural refugia for corals, from which larvae are dispersed to enrich other sites in the southern islands.
The suggestion to gazette the Sisters' Islands Marine Park in the Blue Plan was validated by NParks' use of modern technology, such as agent-based modelling. For those who have interest in this area, please let me know and I will get my colleagues to demonstrate to you what agent-based modelling is. It shows that the Sisters' Islands and the area that we have gazetted are about the richest source of coral larvae in our southern waters, and, from there, as a source of coral larvae, populating other islands in the area. So, we have to start off with the Sisters' Islands Marine Park. It is a rich haven of marine life, both coastal and sea life. And we will continue to work with the authors of the Blue Plan. We will continue to work with our marine conservation community, with academics interested in the topic, as well as relevant stakeholders, to identify whether there are other areas that are rich or equally rich in biodiversity and which would need that kind of protection.
In response to Mr Louis Ng's question, NParks' management currently covers the foreshore or intertidal areas at Chek Jawa, Sungei Buloh Wetlands Reserve and Labrador Nature Reserve. For the other coastal parks, for example, East Coast Park, NParks' management extends up to the high water mark, the high tide mark. Hence, the areas highlighted by Mr Louis Ng are already protected as nature reserves or public parks under the current Parks and Trees Act and Regulations.
Mr Louis Ng also mentioned that NParks has been reporting misdemeanours to Maritime Port Authority (MPA) even though NParks issued a Notice stating that Chek Jawa is protected under the Parks and Trees Act. I would like to clarify that having checked with my NParks colleagues, NParks has not made any such report since the Notice was issued. NParks will stop unauthorised activities that it comes across, but will seek the assistance of MPA where it is necessary to supplement its efforts in enforcement. We will look into stepping up enforcement at Chek Jawa. But simply relying on enforcement will not be 100% effective, as no one can be on patrol everywhere and all the time, even though opportunities for technology to come into play are being explored.
Public education is equally important. In this regard, we will work closely with our environmental community and our Friends of the Park Communities, including a soon-to-be established Friends of the Sisters' Islands Marine Park, and continue to share with the fishing and recreational boating communities on the Dos and Don'ts at Chek Jawa and other coastal areas.
On this note, I would like to address Mr Louis Ng's query on whether we can restrict the release of animals everywhere, instead of just within the reserves and in watercourses leading to the reserves. Mr Alex Yam also spoke against the release of animals like terrapins into the wild, into the open.
Indeed, the release of such invasive species has adverse effects on our native ecosystems. For example, some Asian Arowana, which is an aquarium fish that is not native to Singapore, have been released by members of the public in very sensitive freshwater habitats like Nee Soon Swamp Forest. The Arowanas then gorge themselves on our highly threatened native fish and crustacean species, and caused ecological damage.
Other less hardy species that are released are unlikely to survive and very often die a slow and painful death. They are often unable to cope with the new environment and
That is why NParks will continue to work with relevant agencies and community groups on \"Operation No Release\", which spreads awareness on the harm caused by this behaviour. This year's campaign is expected to take place in May.
We can certainly study the feasibility of Mr Louis Ng's suggestion, but, for now, NParks will ramp up public education to increase public awareness about the impact of such behaviour.
Mr Alex Yam also asked about how we would mitigate any negative impact on the Kranji Marshes, or I believe Sungei Buloh, arising from major developments across the Straits. We will certainly protect Sungei Buloh Wetlands Nature Reserve by continuing our efforts in habitat restoration/enhancement and we have a very active Friends of the Sungei Buloh Wetlands Reserve, comprising very passionate members of the nature fraternity and other stakeholders, who help us keep an eye and continue to enhance the richness of Sungei Buloh.
Members also asked about how NParks would be able to distinguish between animals that have strayed and those that have been abandoned and also asked about measures taken to return stray animals to their owners. An animal that has been abandoned is one which the owner has deliberately and permanently given up care and control over and typically leaves it in a public place. An animal which has strayed is one that has wandered off or is lost, often due to the owner's neglect. NParks will investigate and work with agencies like AVA to ascertain if there are any identifying factors, such as microchips, to trace the owners. NParks also works with relevant agencies to ensure that the welfare of the animal is not compromised.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked if more areas can be designated as heritage roads. I believe she mentioned Upper Aljunied Road. We will certainly study the feasibility of doing so.
Next, let me move on to the maintenance of greenery which several Members spoke about.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat suggested that NParks intervene when trees are \"inappropriately\" located in private homes or when noisy grass-cutting occurs. He also asked whether residents can contact NParks for issues caused by plants, such as large cacti. Mr Darryl David, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked what constitutes \"danger\" from trees.
Madam, let me clarify that the new power of entry in the Bill is intended for NParks to ensure that public safety is not compromised by potentially dangerous greenery that may fall. Such greenery, usually trees, often show signs of structural weakness or poor health. For example, they may have severe diseases or pest infestations, or bare crowns with branches overhanging property. To determine if the condition of a tree is dangerous, qualified arborists from NParks will use their technical expertise and judgement to assess the tree and its structural integrity.
As for noisy grass-cutting, regulation of noise technically comes under NEA. But NParks does train workers to adhere to appropriate noise protection levels as required by the Workplace Safety and Health regime under MOM.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked if NParks would intervene in other cases of nuisance involving private greenery and remove roadside trees that cause disamenity. Madam, NParks may act when the condition of any tree threatens public safety or obstructs pedestrian use of footpaths or the clear view of road users. For neighbourly disputes arising from nuisance from trees, such as the shedding of leaves, NParks will continue to direct them to existing community dispute resolution channels. Nparks will only issue advisories to occupiers to prune trees to minimise disamenity, if necessary. As Mr Darryl David rightfully pointed out, neighbours should try to work things out between themselves first. Relying on legal and regulatory action often leads to long-term deep-seated resentment and erodes community bonds.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the pruning schedules of trees. Trees are pruned regularly. The frequency varies according to location, species, age and the condition of the trees. But it generally ranges between 12 and 24 months. That said, there could be higher frequencies of six months in some localities, for instance, where there is heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Mr Darryl David asked if NParks could manage more public greenery. MND, together with NParks, had conducted a centralisation of greenery maintenance exercise last year. Following this, the greenery in most state lands is now managed by NParks. But some areas are not managed by NParks. For example, Town Councils are responsible for managing common areas, such as parks, playgrounds and open spaces within public housing estates. But NParks shares its expertise and provides professional training in plant and maintenance topics for Town Councils or Managing Agents administering landscape contracts.
Regardless of which entity is responsible for the greenery, residents can easily report greenery matters through the Municipal Services Office's OneService App. The feedback will be channelled to the appropriate entity. NParks works closely with the relevant entities to resolve greenery-related issues.
There were some other points that were raised. Mr Leon Perera asked about consultation and gave many ideas about how consultation could be weaved into planting programmes and schedules. I have explained in my Parliamentary Question reply not too long ago that in big projects, like in the Jurong Lake region, but also where there is opportunity to rejuvenate estates, NParks takes the opportunity to consult and get the community involved. Mr Leon Perera came up with many ideas about consultation. We are fully in support of consultation. We are fully in support of residents and members of the public taking a proactive part, being passionate about things like greenery. This is entirely consonant with our concept of City in a Garden and we will certainly look into how consultation can be enhanced at every stage where possible.
Mr Leon Perera also talked about land reduction at Singapore Botanic Gardens (SBG). He saw it in the Schedule. This is due to the MRT station opening at Bukit Timah. So, we took a bit of the frontage to have the opening for the MRT station that brings Singaporeans from around the island to the Singapore Botanic Gardens. In fact, SBG was 53 hectares in 2015 and, today, it is 82 hectares, with the inclusion of 11 hectares at the Bukit Timah core, 10 hectares from the Tyersall Learning Forest and eight hectares from Gallop extension. So, SBG has, indeed, grown even as we took a bit of the frontage for the MRT exit or entrance.
Mr Leon Perera also asked about Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) and why they are needed. NParks, as with many agencies, will always have to prioritise manpower. Manpower is always a challenge, with growing workload and increasing public expectation but tight constraints on manpower. Deployment of technology – but also maximising manpower by leveraging on trained professionals, such as APOs, such as private security, to help us at the penumbra of regulation, enforcement and monitoring – allows NParks officers to focus and use their deep knowledge in botany and their understanding of the biological sciences to enrich and enhance our parks, nature reserves and so on.
I missed this point: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about whether this new clause in the Bill will be the harbinger of turning of the Marine Park into Disneyland or something like that. I think that is certainly not at all on the plans.
The formation of the Marine Park was not just formed by NParks. It was done in consultation with some of the authors of the Blue Plan and many members of the blue fraternity. I think they will be very distraught to hear any suggestion of that and I hope that Assoc Prof Daniel Goh will explain that this was just a concern and not cause alarm.
In fact, I said earlier that we are looking to form, very shortly, a Friends of the Sisters' Island Marine Park and, just like the Friends of Sungei Buloh Wetlands Reserve, Chestnut Nature Park and elsewhere, we bring together the nature fraternity and those who love arts, music, exercise and sports, all the stakeholders, people who are passionate about our greenery, to come together and to help us energise, activate and programme our parks, including the Marine Park.
Mr Leon Perera also spoke about developments along the fringes of nature reserves, such as Bukit Timah and Central Catchment Nature Reserves, and is concerned about whether invasive plant species as well as pets that are not native to Singapore might then enter our nature reserves and cause ecological damage.
We are always concerned about invasive species and that, really, is the genesis of that clause in the Bill that allows us to prohibit the release of animals into water bodies that lead to nature reserves.
But suffice to say that around our nature reserves, we have buffers. In addition to green buffers, we also have established buffer parks, like the soon-to-be-established Thomson Nature Park that Mr Henry Kwek talked about and other buffer parks around nature reserves. These buffers, as well as buffer parks and nature parks, help to shield the core of the nature reserve from urban life. They help protect the nature reserve from the desiccating effects of buildings, concrete and traffic. But they also give NParks the opportunity to go into these buffers to remove alien plant species, conduct animal species surveys and to remove invasive species that have been deliberately or accidentally released from these developments into the nature reserves. So, we share Mr Leon Perera's concern about the integrity of the ecology of our nature reserves.
In fact, Singapore is a biophilic city. A former colleague of mine from NParks coined a new term called the \"biophilial\" city. If you look at other countries around the world, big countries with Taman Negara, with national parks, nature reserves, vast areas that they can protect or at least attempt to protect by the letter of the law, the conception is very different. There you prohibit a whole series of activities and try to tell people, \"please do not go there, minimise contact, keep a distance, let nature thrive.\"
In Singapore, we are different. In other countries, the environment, the greenery and nature envelop cities and their concern is about sprawl, it is about human intervention. In Singapore, it is the converse. We are a City in a Garden where our city envelops our nature reserves, nature parks and our biodiversity. And we have a tremendous amount of biodiversity in Singapore.
In 2004, Dr Geh Min, the former President of the Nature Society, at the Second Reading of the Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill, apart from articulating a desire for a marine park − so, 10 years on after that, we have established it − she also said that, in fact, some of our nature reserves have more species in plants and animals than, say, the whole of the North American continent. So, that is to be celebrated and cherished, and education is critical.
In Singapore, we have to be biophilic and, that means, communities. As stakeholders, we have to be good custodians and stewards of our biodiversity. Not just keeping it away at arms' length through legislation and prohibitions, but to educate, excite and enthuse people about how to care for the plants and animal species that make us a very special place.
So, I think that approach should address Mr Leon Perera's concern about what if native animals escape from the nature reserves, what should people do. I think as custodians and stewards, we need to call NParks, call the necessary authorities, call ACRES, and they will know how to re-introduce the animal, rehabilitate it and bring it back into the wild. Capturing of wild animals is an offence under the Wild Animals and Birds Act and appropriate action will be taken.
Lastly, I thank Mr Henry Kwek for his encouraging words for NParks officers. Many of them work silently in the background. They work assiduously and very hard, often behind the scenes. And your encouragement, I think, goes a long way to bring up their spirits. NParks works closely with MOE through its Community-in-Nature initiatives, as well as programmes, such as Every Child A Seed and Nature Cares.
Information of our natural heritage has been incorporated into the curriculum, through textbooks and learning journeys to the Singapore Botanic Gardens, our nature reserves and parks. NParks organises around 2,400 educational programmes annually, including guided tours to the Botanic Gardens and nature reserves. These initiatives inculcate the love for nature.
And as suggested by Mr Kwek, we will continue to look at ways to engage the younger generation, including the use of digital platforms to reach out to the increasingly tech-savvy student population. This includes gamification, augmented reality and push notifications on flora and fauna.
In fact, if you take the time to meet our young conservationists, they are passionate about celebrating, studying and educating others about Singapore's rich biodiversity and our natural heritage. There is this young man, an undergraduate, Mr Shawn Yap, some of you may have heard about him. He used the Pokemon game and the Pokemon craze as an opportunity to excite young people who are normally stuck with their iPhones, to excite them and to show them the beauty of what there is in our reserves and why it is important to protect it.
I would also like to assure Members that NParks is adopting sustainable landscape practices to ensure that our greenery remains maintainable, such as through the use of drought-tolerant native plants. NParks is leveraging on technology to enhance productivity, including increased mechanisation in maintenance operations and the use of GIS-enabled mobile devices, for tree inspections.
Mr Alex Yam also voiced concerns on behalf of nursery operators about their leases and about uncertainty of their leases. NParks has spent the last three years engaging and visiting nursery operators to understand their needs. Based on their feedback, NParks will be tendering out nursery lands on three, plus three, plus three leases since this model allows some nurseries to pay monthly rentals rather than upfront land premiums.
But we also recognise that a one-size-fits-all solution may not be applicable to all businesses, including some who have a model that involves more investment. Hence, NParks is also studying the feasibility of leasing selected areas for much longer tenures, for example, 10, plus 10, or some other arrangement.
Mdm Speaker, our City in a Garden initiative is one that is well-supported by many Singaporeans. It is also internationally renowned. A recent study by MIT named Singapore as the world's greenest city. The Government, civil society and many members of the public are committed to ensuring that Singapore remains a lush and verdant City in a Garden.
Mdm Speaker, Members have provided useful suggestions for future reviews of our greenery legislation. As I have said at the start, we will continually review and update the Act so that our City in a Garden endures. I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their support.
Mdm Speaker:\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah, please keep your clarification short.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah:\tThank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State where this nursery lease is concerned, will the Ministry consider giving the incumbent a chance to renew their lease at market rate? Because if they are not successful in tendering, it is very difficult for them to relocate their whole nursery. I know this as I have a nursery in Bah Soon Pah which is in Nee Soon South.
Mr Desmond Lee:\tMadam, I thank the Member for raising these concerns. We have taken all this feedback into consideration and will announce at an appropriate juncture. Having said that, land is scarce in Singapore. The overall land available for nurseries may not be as much as is available currently. Some areas may have to be used for other needs and, therefore, we need to do a comprehensive study and will announce at the appropriate juncture.
Mdm Speaker:\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Thank you. I have two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. One is on scope and one on scale. And the first one is that I appreciate that a lot of protection will practically be there but there is also the signalling and symbolic function of legislating the marine park as a nature reserve. So, would the Government be open to allowing the management of the marine park to evolve just as Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, and to be eventually enshrined legislatively, in law, as a nature reserve in the future?
The second clarification is on scale. Are there plans to include the other Southern Islands into the marine park, especially if the marine biodiversity improves precisely because of the existing gazetted marine park?
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his suggestions on the scope of the protections. As I have said earlier, we are but three years into managing a marine park. It involves protecting biodiversity. It involves protecting different forms of habitats, both terrestrial, intertidal as well as marine. It involves managing the needs, wants and concerns of different stakeholders − people who go there for recreation, people who are boatmen, people who like to dive, people who are passionate about biodiversity.
We have amended this Act in order to allow us to confer the protection on the Marine Park that we feel it needs from the last three years of experience.
Putting it into a subsidiary legislation allows us to adjust along the way. As we encounter new situations, we can amend the legislation in order to quickly confer those protections that are necessary. As far as signalling is concerned, apart from this legislative amendment, in 2014, we emphasised the importance of the Marine Park, how valuable it is, the publicity, the outreach surrounding it, the developments, the investments on Sisters' Islands and St John's Island to create a living classroom, a research haven and a place for the conservation of marine biodiversity. It is a tremendous signal in and of itself and we should celebrate that together.
As for the scale, as I have said earlier, using agent-based modelling but also through the assiduous work of our civil society, nature society and other marine groups, such as Wild Singapore, confirming that the Sisters' Islands Marine Park or the areas that we have gazetted, are the richest in terms of coral larvae. They are the source, so it has to be protected. That does not preclude us ‒ indeed, we are continuing to consult with the nature groups, we are using science and technology – to see whether other areas should also be included as national parks.
[(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 Desmond Lee]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read as Second time.\"
Land transportation globally is undergoing a digital revolution. Private hire car services, such as Uber and Grab, have become a popular mode of point-to-point transport. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are fast becoming a reality on our roads.
In land-scarce and manpower-scarce Singapore, these two disruptive developments carry exciting possibilities. They can enhance the efficiency and convenience of our land transportation system.
They will move us closer towards a car-lite environment, where Singaporeans feel less of a need to own and move around in their own private vehicles. Thus, it is important that we do not impede their growth as some cities have done. On the other hand, we cannot take a completely laissez-faire approach. We must have due regard for the safety of passengers and other road users.
We are, therefore, adopting a balanced, light-touch regulatory stance that protects the safety of passengers and other road users, and yet ensures that these technologies can flourish. It is within this context that MOT is amending the Road Traffic Act.
At the same time, we are highly conscious that the advent of these disruptive technologies could have an impact on livelihoods. We cannot and should not stop innovation and progress and I am glad to see that the taxi drivers and companies are rising to the competition. Widespread deployment of AV technology is still some 10, maybe 15 years away and, progressively, the Government will put in place programmes to help Singaporeans who drive for a living to acquire new skills and take on higher value-added jobs in an AV world.
Mdm Speaker, please allow me next to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Land transportation globally is undergoing an unprecedented digital revolution. Private hire car services have become a popular mode of transport. On the other hand, AVs are fast on their way to becoming a reality on the road, providing another transport option for local passengers.
Singapore has limited land and manpower resources. Hence, these two disruptive technologies will enhance the efficiency and convenience of our transport system and they will move us closer towards a car-lite society.
MOT is now amending the Road Traffic Act. We are adopting a balanced, light-touch regulatory stance that protects the interest and safety of passengers and yet ensures that these technologies have enough space to grow.
We are highly conscious that the advent of these disruptive technologies could have an impact on some Singaporeans' livelihoods. I am glad to see that taxi drivers and companies are taking these challenges with a positive attitude. With the widespread deployment of AV technology, the Government will put in place more training programmes to help Singaporeans who drive for a living to acquire new skills and take on higher value-added jobs.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, let me now explain the key amendments in the Bill.
The first set of amendments pertains to AVs in the Bill. They are set out primarily in clauses 3(a) and 6 of the Bill. The current Act assumes a human driver to be in control of the vehicle and, thereby, responsible for monitoring the surroundings and making driving decisions. Where automated vehicle technology is installed in a motor vehicle, computer systems control the vehicle, replacing the driver's role.
AVs thus challenge the very notion of human responsibility which lies at the core of our current road and criminal laws. Developers of the autonomous systems must, therefore, provide enough measures to ensure the safe operation of AVs on our general roads.
Clause 6, read with the amendments in clause 3(a), applies to motor vehicles with conditional high and full automation, as defined in levels 3, 4 and 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International J3016. The SAE levels of automation are commonly used in the motor industry to define and distinguish the various levels of automation. At levels 3, 4 and 5, it is the AV which monitors the driving environment, and the human driver is no longer required to actively monitor the vehicle.
The amendments are not meant and not intended to capture vehicles outfitted with just driver assistance systems like cruise control and assisted parking functions. These systems are regulated through other means.
To encourage the use of AV technologies here, clause 6 will allow the Minister for Transport to create new rules to more effectively regulate AV trials or the use of AVs on public roads. These rules can place time and space limits on these trials, set standards for the design of the AV equipment and impose requirements to share data from the trials.
Clause 6 also allows the Minister, through the rules, to address the anomalies that can arise under existing provisions of the Road Traffic Act or its subsidiary legislation which make a human driver responsible for the safe use of a motor vehicle while on a public road. The rules, therefore, can exempt AVs, operators of AVs and those conducting or participating in trials of AVs from these existing provisions, and also modify the application of specified provisions of the Road Traffic Act or its subsidiary legislation in respect of these vehicles or persons.
As this is an emerging technology, the provisions will provide the flexibility needed to assess the appropriate regulatory response more quickly. We have limited this regulatory sandbox to five years. At the end of five years, the Ministry will consider enacting more permanent legislation or return to Parliament to further extend the period of the sandbox.
The second set of amendments pertains to the regulation of the private hire car (PHC) industry. These can be found primarily in clauses 31 to 35.
PHC services have been warmly welcomed by commuters. They have been finding it easier to get a ride, whether in a taxi or PHC. Last year, I had said that we will take a more balanced and sensible approach in regulating this industry, with the safety of commuters as our priority.
Hence, by the amendments, all PHC drivers providing chauffeured services will be required to obtain vocational licences. This is to ensure that they are equipped with sufficient knowledge and skills to provide his or her ride-sourcing service safely. For identification purposes, all chauffeur-driven PHCs must be affixed with tamper-evident decals issued by LTA, by the middle of the year.
Together with our existing rules that require PHCs to be licensed as public service vehicles and to have adequate insurance, these measures help LTA better enforce against errant drivers and vehicle owners.
PHC booking service operators, such as Uber and Grab, play an important role in the enforcement of these rules. The amendments will thus require them to put in place robust systems to ensure that drivers with an affiliated agreement with Uber or Grab and the PHC vehicles they use meet our requirements and standards.
Clause 34 introduces a new section 110A which empowers the Registrar of Vehicles to issue a general suspension order that bars all PHC drivers affiliated with a particular PHC booking service operator from driving for that operator.
This is, if one of its affiliated drivers has been convicted of or accepted composition for certain offences in the course of being an affiliated driver for that private hire car booking service operator, and there are two or more of such cases in the preceding 12-month period. These are offences which compromise commuter safety, namely, providing PHC services without a vocational licence; using an unlicensed vehicle to provide the services, or using a PHC that is inappropriately insured.
A general suspension order has serious implications not just for the PHC booking service operator but also for their affiliated drivers, and the Registrar of Vehicles will not take such a step lightly. The Bill does set out a due process. But as the safety of passengers is paramount, the Registrar has to be armed with such powers. Our intent is to apply it to instances where the PHC booking service operator repeatedly makes no attempt to ensure that its affiliated drivers adhere to our laws.
Clause 35 complements clause 34 by empowering LTA to make rules prescribing the duties and responsibilities of PHC booking service operators, such as ensuring that their affiliated drivers hold the appropriate vocational licences and providing LTA with trip and other fleet-related data. The data will help LTA in its transport planning functions. Our regulations are not overly onerous and I think both Members and service operators like Uber and Grab will agree that these are necessary for the interests of commuters.
Finally, the Bill makes several amendments to update the penalties for offences under the Road Traffic Act and to ensure that LTA remains effective in enforcement amidst a rapidly evolving operating environment.
Currently, the maximum composition sum that can be offered under the Act is $500, regardless of the severity of the offence or the maximum fine prescribed. The cap has been unchanged since 1996. This low cap restricts the ability of LTA and the Traffic Police to calibrate the composition sums offered according to the severity of offences and to deter repeat offenders. Hence, clause 38 increases the maximum composition sum for all offences in the Road Traffic Act to 50% of the maximum fine prescribed for the offence, or $5,000, whichever is lower.
Clause 20 raises the penalties for the offence of \"reckless or dangerous driving\" from $3,000 to $5,000 for the first offence, and $5,000 to $10,000 for the second or subsequent offence. Clause 27 allows the Courts to mete out both a fine and a jail sentence if a person is found guilty of failing to stop and report an accident that could have occurred due to his vehicle. This change is to ensure that the law is sufficiently deterrent.
Next, clauses 13 and 18 empower the Minister to make Rules empowering the Registrar of Vehicles to prohibit the entry and exit of foreign-registered vehicles into and out of Singapore if these vehicles have unpaid charges, including ERP charges, fees or taxes owed to the Singapore Government under the Road Traffic Act and Parking Places Act. This will improve the effectiveness of enforcement and strengthen deterrence against such foreign vehicles.
Clause 45 will amend the Motor Vehicles Third-Party Risk and Compensation Act as a related amendment, to enhance LTA's enforcement against motorists who have been found driving without adequate insurance. Today, there is a time bar on the prosecution of insurance-related offences. LTA must prosecute someone found driving vehicles with inadequate insurance within either three or six months, after which no prosecution can be made. However, this time bar prevents the taking of effective action against offenders in complex cases. Clause 45 removes this time-bar restriction.
To prevent circumvention of our vehicle population controls, clause 10 repeals section 12, thus removing the option for Singaporeans and Singapore permanent residents to keep and use foreign-registered vehicles in Singapore simply by paying the requisite Additional Registration Fee (ARF). They will no longer be allowed to keep or use foreign-registered vehicles in Singapore.
Mdm Speaker, the proposed amendments allow new technologies to flourish in Singapore and for us to take advantage of them to further improve our land transport system and benefit all Singaporeans. They strike a balance between such, and safeguarding passengers and other road users' interests and safety. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mdm Speaker, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill proposes many substantive amendments to its principal, the Road Traffic Act. A key reason why these amendments are needed is because of the fast-changing landscape of transportation in Singapore.
Breakthrough technology has now made autonomous, or driverless, motor vehicles possible in the not-too-distant future. This House had just last month debated and passed the Active Mobility Bill as we begin to make provisions for the proliferated use of power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices (PMDs) on our roads and pathways. We also have to contend with new private hire car services, such as Grab and Uber, who have entered the point-to-point transportation industry in Singapore.
This changing transportation landscape requires the Government to review and reconsider our laws and regulations to ensure that they remain relevant. The aim of this Bill is to do exactly that.
Madam, while the proposed amendments cover a wide range of issues, I shall take this opportunity to speak on two main ones. They are: (a) the amendments relating to the trial and use of AVs; and (b) those that relate to power-assisted bicycles and PMDs.
The possibility of autonomous or driverless vehicles plying Singapore's roads was raised as early as 2014 when the Committee on Autonomous Road Transport for Singapore (CARTS) was formed. But it was when LTA announced in August last year that it was launching autonomous mobility-on-demand trials that really caught the imagination of many Singaporeans. I recall that this was followed by an announcement by nuTonomy, one of the companies that LTA was in collaboration with under the Singapore Autonomous Vehicle Initiative, that it was launching the world's first-ever public trial of a \"robo-taxi\" service. This was followed a month later by another announcement of nuTonomy's partnership with Grab, one of Southeast Asia's leading ride-hailing app, to expand its public trial.
I remember following the news with great excitement and anticipation. I felt that this was one of those moments when technology was on the cusp of changing the entire face of transportation, as we knew it. I still do.
This, however, was quickly followed by the first accident involving one of nuTonomy's driverless cars that was on trial. Thankfully, it was a minor accident where no one was injured. Separately, a driver of a Tesla car, in the US, driving with its autopilot feature was more unfortunate as he died as a result of an accident with a truck. Accidents, such as these, will inevitably raise the following questions.
Can we trust technology to make the best decision to protect the safety of passengers in AVs? How will our infrastructure, roads and transportation networks, which rely primarily on human judgement and decision, assimilate the entrance of such AVs? What are the legal implications and liability issues when such AVs are involved in road traffic accidents?
We do have time to answer most of these questions. The technology for AVs remains far from finished. It will require a significant period of time before AVs become part and parcel of Singapore's transportation landscape. However, as we allow companies, such as nuTonomy, to begin conducting trials on our roads, it is imperative that we take all precautions to ensure that the safety and well-being of all other road users are adequately provided for and protected.
I do, however, fully agree and appreciate Second Minister for Transport Mr Ng Chee Meng's position in his Second Reading of the Bill that the Government will be adopting \"a balanced, light-touch, regulatory stance that protects the safety of Singaporeans and yet ensures that these technologies can flourish.\" It is important that Singapore remain in the forefront of cutting-edge technology and not shy away from taking the lead. AVs, when realised, will bring much efficiency and convenience to Singaporeans. The potential benefits are clear for all to see.
Be that as it may, however, I hope that any eventual implementation of ground-breaking technology, such as AVs, could be done gradually in phases. This is not only to allow for answers to questions, such as those I have raised, but also to manage how such disruptive technologies can affect Singaporeans currently working in transportation industries, such as our taxi drivers and others who drive for a living.
Mdm Speaker, the second issue I wish to raise is one I also spoke about during the Active Mobility Bill debate last month. I had raised several concerns I had about power-assisted bicycles and PMDs and I shall not repeat them here.
I am in full support of the amendments proposed in this Bill to regulate power-assisted bicycles and PMDs. Harsh penalties and strict rules are important to deter irresponsible and reckless users of power-assisted bicycles and PMDs from causing danger not only to themselves, but their fellow road users.
I decided to raise this issue again, this time solely on power-assisted bicycles, primarily because of a recent Straits Times article on certain astute observations that our learned State Coroner made while presiding over fatal accidents involving power-assisted bicycles. In the article, it was reported that the learned State Coroner expressed his concern that riders of power-assisted bicycles do not receive any formal training. He was also noted to have observed that \"users of motorised bicycles are subject to particular risks, as these vehicles are capable of attaining high speeds and present a low profile.\"
The Coroner's Court had dealt with a few cases of fatalities resulting from accidents involving power-assisted bicycles and the learned State Coroner would have made his observations based on the facts presented in those cases he presided over.
His observations and views on this issue are in line with mine. Unlike motorcycles, riders of power-assisted bicycles are not required to receive any formal training prior to operating the bicycles on our roads. Any person above the age of 16 is allowed to do so. I am of the respectful and humble view that more can and should be done to rectify this.
While I agree that power-assisted bicycles are not as powerful in engine capacity as motorcycles, they are, in all reality, low-powered motorcycles. When allowed to operate on roads, they carry the same risk profile as other motorcycle riders. If these power-assisted bicycle riders do not have formal training on road traffic rules and other common road traffic etiquette, the risk and likelihood of accident involving power-assisted bicycles on our roads increase.
I applaud the move taken by the Government to register and license all power-assisted bicycles. But, having done so, why not take the next step in ensuring that all riders of such bicycles be adequately trained, not only in using them, but also on the basic road traffic rules that all other road users, such as drivers and motorcyclists are made to do? Doing so will also allow the Traffic Police to monitor irresponsible, reckless and sometimes recalcitrant riders of power-assisted bicycles and take the appropriate action against them, when necessary.
Mdm Speaker, accidents involving power-assisted bicycles appear to be on the rise. As we encourage more Singaporeans to make use of such modes of transport in our vision for a car-lite Singapore, we can expect such numbers to increase further. I, therefore, urge the Government to take any further steps as reasonably practical to ensure that we minimise the risks of unfortunate road traffic accidents involving power-assisted bicycles from occurring and to enhance the safety and well-being of all other road users. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is introducing changes covering different aspects of road traffic regulations. Among other things, the Bill is seeking to establish a regulatory framework for the undertaking of trials and use on Singapore roads for autonomous or driverless vehicles. The Bill is also seeking to regulate holders of vocational licences who are affiliated drivers of private hire car booking service operators providing ride-sourcing services like Uber. The Bill also deals with forfeiture of seized non-compliant power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices. It also seeks to support the move towards paperless vehicle licences. I will be touching on three issues.
The first issue − regulations involving autonomous and driverless vehicles.
Mdm Speaker, on the issue of autonomous or driverless vehicles, this Bill seems to have come a little late. On 19 October last year, it was reported in The Straits Times that a self-driving car and a lorry collided, in what is believed to be the first accident in Singapore involving an AV. The car was operated by two test engineers. It was reported that \"the car knocked into the lorry while changing lanes in Biopolis Drive at one-north\". It was also reported that the car belonged to nuTonomy, a start-up software company that is conducting trials of its self-driving vehicles in the one-north business district.
So, it seems that driverless cars are already being tested without the proposed new regulations in place. Nevertheless, I support the intention of this Bill to provide for a regulatory framework for the undertaking of trials and use on Singapore roads for driverless vehicles and AVs. Autonomous or driverless vehicles may well be a sign of things to come. However, the eventual regulatory framework has to be tweaked to adapt to its unique features. In short, the object of regulation and, consequently, the subject of any liability, may, to a significant extent, though possibly not entirely, shift from the driver to the owner of the vehicle.
On the issue of liability, will owners of driverless cars continue to be defendants in all accidents when it is clear that an accident has been caused by some manufacturing defects? I hope this is still the case as it would be troublesome for other parties in an accident. If there is any such defect, the present legal regime in law of tort should still apply. That is to say, for the owner of the driverless car to seek indemnity from the manufacturer and the other parties involved in the accident should not be expected to take action directly against the manufacturer who may not be based in Singapore.
I can also foresee that in cases of accidents caused by or which involve driverless cars, owners may be blaming the vehicle manufacturers and possibly even the suppliers of certain components for the vehicles, including software.
There may be issues beyond a simple vehicle performance failure, such as failing to do what it is supposed to do, for example, failure to stop when the traffic light turns red. There may be more difficult issues of liability which are more subjective or less \"black and white\", such as reacting to an unexpected course of action by another road user or pedestrian, and avoiding collision or minimising impact. For example, how will it react to a car driving against the traffic? Will the machine react in the same way as we can expect a reasonable driver under our present law?
As SIM senior lecturer in urban transport management, Dr Park Byung Joon, told The Straits Times in a 19 October 2016 article, \"humans don't always behave the way they should on the roads. And technology is not advanced enough to pre-empt how humans would behave\". If technology is not able to pre-empt human behaviour in all situations, the law needs to take cognisance of that fact and the regulatory and liability regime must be structured accordingly, so that there is fairness and certainty for everyone.
There may also be different reactions or reacting time to a similar incident for cars of different manufacturers. What is an acceptable reaction that frees its owner from liability or minimise its liability vis-Ã-vis other parties? How do we set the standard?
How will a driverless car be adjudged as failing to keep a proper lookout, a present feature of our law? Will it be subject to the same standard required by our Courts for contributory negligence?
Will driverless cars be required to be operated only when a licensed driver is around? Given that we may be looking at driverless vehicles performing tasks, such as road cleaning, the answer may be a \"no, we don't need a licensed driver or anyone on-board the vehicle at all\".
In the present situation, any licensed driver is deemed to know the obligations he has to fulfil when an accident takes place while he is behind the wheel, for example, exchange driver's and insurance details. If driverless vehicles can be operated without the owner or licensed driver, how will the authorities ensure that drivers can obtain access to owner's information of the driverless vehicle?
In fact, if a driverless vehicle can be operated without any person on board or around, how will the owner be informed at the time of an accident so that he can be present to exchange particulars with the driver of the other car or to arrange for his vehicle to proceed with the journey or be sent to a workshop for repairs?
Another issue involves insurance liability. How would the start of driverless driving in Singapore affect the insurance regime and how would it affect insurance claims between driverless cars and normal vehicles?
Though the proposed amendments in the Bill today pertain to a regulatory framework for trial purposes and we do not yet have a draft subsidiary legislation for us to study and, hence, we do not know the full details of the proposed regulations, I wonder how the proposed regime will be and how the Government intends to address the issues I have raised which will impact on the regulatory regime. I believe we will encounter at least some of these issues even during the trial phase. In fact, some of these issues may have been encountered by parties in the accident of 18 October 2016 at Biopolis Drive. I, therefore, look forward to the Minister's assurance that these issues that I have raised will be considered in the proposed regulations.
I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Government has decided on the requirements for ownership and operation of AVs. Would the new licensing for AVs fall into a separate category requiring additional licensing requirements for existing drivers holding, say, conventional Class 3 licences?
Will the current Class 3 licence holders be required to attend a further course for AV licensing?
I next move to the issue of private hire car companies providing ride-sourcing services. On the proposed amendments involving private hire cars providing ride-sourcing services like Uber, I am particularly curious about the proposed penalty under clause 34 of the Bill which provides for a general suspension order that can bar every driver of a ride-sourcing company like Uber for a period of time as a result of another driver in the same company being convicted for an offence under the Act. The proposed penalty is not only unnecessarily harsh, it is also a penalty that only applies to ride-sourcing companies.
On the other hand, the corresponding provision in the Third Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act 2015 – and this is in section 20 – is not exactly on par with the proposed clause 34 in this Bill in that, under the 2015 Act, it seems that only the taxi booking service providers will be penalised but not all individual drivers under the same service providers.
I am concerned that clause 34 may go beyond penalising the ride-sourcing companies to unfairly penalise and prejudice other drivers working for the same companies when compared to taxi drivers under the 2015 Act and, in the process, affecting the livelihood of these drivers. Why is the Government allowing this particular penalty and the different treatment for drivers of ride-sourcing companies? I would also like to know whether this proposed regulation is a result of some serious persistent breaches by any current ride-sourcing company and, if so, what were these breaches.
Finally, I move on to the third issue which is related to clause 30 of the Bill. This relates to the forfeiture of seized non-compliant power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices.
Madam, I am still in support of this Bill and I look forward to the Minister's clarifications.
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member): Madam, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, MOT has set out to amend the Bill to encourage innovation as well as to regulate industry players. I agree wholeheartedly.
In recent years, the transport industry has changed drastically with technology innovations and new business models. Any new development is bound to bring opportunities and challenges. And the Government's role, while encouraging innovation and promoting industry development, is to protect consumers' interest and safeguard the rights of related industry players.
For instance, Singapore was the first in the world to test-drive driverless taxis within the city area, and was thus a market leader. The innovative company picked Singapore for its test drive because of our well-established infrastructure and because drivers and pedestrians observe traffic rules. Last October, during its test drive, a driverless taxi collided with a lorry. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Moving forward, similar accidents may continue to occur. Hence, it is essential for the Government to amend the Road Traffic Act to ensure the safety of the people involved in the test drives and the road users, as well as reduce the accident rate.
These amendments will also provide a good example on how to monitor disruptive and innovative technologies in the future. The emergence and the popularity of new technologies will no doubt disrupt original industry practices; be it innovative technologies or new business models, they will upset the social equilibrium. Transport services affect millions of users. Hence, the Government must protect the public interest first when monitoring the industry.
In terms of innovative business models, there has been a great breakthrough in the transport industry. Traditional taxi services are now facing very intense competition. Private hire car booking services are flexible and convenient. From being disgruntled in the beginning, taxi drivers are gradually getting used to this new model. In order to get more business, many of them have joined the online taxi booking platforms.
In Singapore, Uber and Grab have done exceedingly well. Many users commend on the convenience of their services; but some have reacted negatively. Convenience lies in people now having a choice between private hire cars and taxis and a higher chance of getting a ride. Grouses come from the fact that the drivers come from various backgrounds and they may be unfamiliar with the roads and lack relevant experience. Passengers, hence, may face a higher risk. Some drivers, in fact, are using their regular working hours to earn a quick buck! Moreover, plying the same route and using the same booking app, the fares charged by private hire cars are much higher than taxis during peak periods. Taxi drivers find this grossly unfair, as too many people are vying for their business and affecting their livelihood.
This is a microcosm of times of change. New technologies and business models pose a challenge to traditional industries, forcing everyone to change. But in the process of change, social divisions of labour are also changing. Some positions will gradually vanish and the affected workers will have to look for new occupations. Amending the Road Traffic Act will enable emerging transport services to be safer and more reliable. At the same time, I would also like to urge the relevant agencies to safeguard the interest of the current industry players during this transformation period. Driverless car technologies may solve the problem of manpower shortage in the future and private car booking services may provide more choices to consumers. However, we also need to consider the livelihood of taxi drivers. They rely on driving taxis to support their families. Many older people may find it difficult to make a career switch. These are all practical issues.
The market is ever-changing. I hope that Government agencies can engage in close communication with the related industry players, especially innovative companies, so as to understand the unique nature of the industry, adopt the right approach, respect the market and exercise appropriate control. Recently, Uber in Taiwan has announced suspending their services after being heavily fined by Taiwan's Transport Ministry. In Taiwan, Uber was registered as an IT service provider but the authorities thought it belonged to the transport industry. The two sides were not able to arrive at a common understanding in terms of oversight. In this real-life scenario, Uber lost out, the government also did not win, but most unfortunate of all is that commuters have lost a convenient mode of transport.
Mdm Speaker, when facing innovation, the Government has to monitor it effectively. On one hand, it should take care of consumers' interest and, on the other hand, give space for innovation to grow. Only then can the policy be considered an ideal one.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, let me first declare my interest as an Executive Adviser of the National Taxi Association. I concur with what the Minister has shared; the proposed amendments serve to further enhance the safety for private hire car (PHC) users and, to a certain extent, level the playing field for taxis.
Suspension rules have been in place for commuter safety for a long time. This is not an onerous requirement as compared to what other public service vehicles like taxi operators are subjected to. So, I was a bit perturbed when, earlier, hon Member Mr Dennis Tan shared that suspension sounds onerous. But my point is, is not revocation even more onerous?
In 2013, taxi operator Smart had to exit from a lucrative taxi market. Why? Because the company did not have its operator licence renewed by LTA. This was due to the fact that the operator had consistently failed to meet quality standards, such as call booking catering rate, accident rate and first inspection passing rate and so on.
Consequently, its fleet of about 270 taxi drivers was unable to ply the roads. Fortunately, the drivers were able to join other taxi operators as there were no anti-competition rules binding them, a point that I will come back to discuss at a later stage.
The suspension order of up to a month serves as a deterrent to errant drivers and the PHC booking service providers.
Steps in the right direction include increasing the safety and reliability of these new commuting options, such as requiring all drivers to be vocationally licensed, go through proper background checks and medical checks as well, be subjected to regulations on insurance adequacy checks and ensuring that their vehicles are approved and licensed to operate as public service vehicles.
For now, the onus is not only on the drivers to be properly certified, but also on the service providers who will need to up their game, put in place a robust and rigorous system to ensure that their drivers and vehicles are in compliance.
In this amendment, I hope to seek two clarifications from the Ministry.
First, will LTA be setting up a feedback channel to update and inform commuters, when a particular PHC booking service provider has been suspended? It will be useful for commuters and tourists to get timely information on the different commuting options and their availability.
Secondly, what if a PHC booking service provider \"re-offends\" repeatedly and receives a suspension order a few times? Will LTA also consider \"revoking\" their eligibility to operate and not allow them to offer their services to PHC drivers and commuters?
Let me come back to my earlier point about anti-competition. I hope the Ministry can also ensure that PHC drivers are not bounded by anti-competition practices. We should have a free market situation whereby a driver can switch company or choose to use whichever platforms he deems suitable or useful to him. When he leases a car to use for reward and hire purposes, it should not confine him to only using a specific PHC booking service platform. Such an environment will be essential, for example, when a particular booking platform has been suspended and the driver can choose to use other platforms to ensure that his business or livelihood is not affected.
In the amendment, I also support empowering LTA to come up with rules and regulations to prescribe the duties and responsibilities of PHC booking service operators. I would like to, however, suggest one new inclusion, that is, to impose a licensing fee of perhaps 0.02% of the total revenue collected by the private hire car operators. The purpose is to align the fees that LTA currently collects from taxi operators for the purposes of transport planning, enforcement, monitoring and related needs.
Similarly, I believe that LTA will need to hire more staff, deploy enforcement officers and lay the necessary groundwork needed to incorporate PHC into its work. These costs, Madam, I feel, should also be recovered from the PHC operators as well. Madam, I support the Bill.
Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, good afternoon. It is timely that the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276), which is now being proposed to be updated to keep up with the changing automotive landscape not only in Singapore but also with other progressive global cities. Having been involved in the automotive industry for more than 30 years, I can safely say that the changes in the automotive industry are only the beginning, if not more has yet to come.
In supporting the Bill, I would like to highlight two points, which I believe we need to give further attention to, namely: AVs and also in relation to the automated vehicle technology; and classification of vehicles as stipulated by the amendment in clause 4.
Before I elaborate further, please allow me to share my personal experience which happened many years ago. It was somewhere in the year 2009/2010 when I was scouting for a new vehicle. I decided to try something new, which was to switch to an environmentally-friendly vehicle, with the aim to play my part as a responsible world citizen by considering either an electric vehicle or a hybrid. Almost all went well, until the last minute of the discussion, when I learned that the road tax for the hybrid vehicle which I was about to purchase was much more than the petrol-driven version − being reasoned as having a dual-motor system as a basis of the road tax computation.
I was shocked and taken aback. How could this be? Cutting the story short, in consequence, I did not proceed with the purchase. I felt the rule at that time was not somehow in sync with the expectation and the changing automotive landscape.
Glad to say, today, this rule has meanwhile been updated. However, not substantial enough, in my view, to motivate the general mass who have decided to own a vehicle to switch to an environmentally-friendly one. Thus, I urge the authorities to continue and rigorously review our Traffic Road Act so as to keep up with the changing times and serve what it is meant to be, that is, to protect and serve the interest of all.
Let me now turn to AVs. A decade ago, AVs were something which we never thought could be a reality in our daily lives. At that time, it was more like a science fiction. However, today, AVs are already running on the road in the USA and generally accepted as the new and \"in-thing\" innovation within the automotive industry. It is also expected to spread into countries and cities within the next decade, where the infrastructure is ready and available. Being and wanting to be a global city, Singapore has not much choice but to embrace this new development.
While I am for the change and moving ahead together with this new development, I also have concerns. I am unsure if our current Road Traffic Act is geared to meet the challenges which this new automotive innovation brings along with it. Let me share those concerns as follows.
First, can an AV be allowed to be operated on our public road without a driver, meaning driverless? Perhaps, not today, but it will be sometime in the future, I presume.
The second question, should we not distinguish the difference between an AV and a driverless vehicle?
The third question, how do we ensure that the concerned AV is being certified fit for use on our roads where we have constraints in terms of infrastructure, which is not the same as compared to the other global cities? Do we have the expertise and the capability to do this?
The fourth question, how do we ensure that the related laws, rules and regulations are put in place so as to ensure that operators, users as well as the public's interests are protected and served, when the unwanted happens?
The last question, in any unwanted situation, like an accident, immediate human attention is always needed. Should we not make a point that every AV must always have an operator, that is, a person inside, even though if the vehicle is deemed and declared as AV-certified?
I am not at all suggesting at all that we avoid moving into this new area of development. On the contrary, I believe we should engage and prepare ourselves to embrace and manage it. Autonomous driving and AVs will come sooner or later, with its related technological advancement. We should take steps and work faster than ever to make our laws, rules and regulations to accommodate this new automotive innovation.
Referring to our Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, I wish to see more proposed changes in future, so that we keep abreast with the new development in the automotive industry and technologies. I would even suggest that a panel of experts be assembled to engage this new area of development. As such, I support the Bill.
The second part of my concern, Mdm Speaker, is that the classification of our motor vehicles has been in force since I can remember. I believe there has been good intention in doing this. The categorisation which has been formulated has served us well. However, motor vehicle technologies have changed and improved, for the better.
Citing an example, a 1,000 cc capacity engine motor vehicle designed and manufactured in the 1980s is no longer comparable with the ones today. Current motor vehicles with the same capacity class are now packed with an array of new technologies, like turbo and electronic injection engine and more sophisticated software-controlled powertrain, which render \"similar\" class motor vehicles a completely different machine and performance.
A diesel-powered motor vehicle used to be regarded as environmentally-unfriendly. However, with the advancement and introduction of new technologies, new diesel engines which meet the Euro-V requirements can even be \"cleaner\" and environmentally-friendlier than some petrol-powered motor vehicles. Thus, this advancement in the automobile industry should motivate us to make a regular self-check on our classification of motor vehicles. I believe it would be wise if the classification of motor vehicles is to include and consider other aspects, such as impact on our environment.
As such, I support the need to relook and review our motor vehicle classification. It is even heartening to know that in trying to address the need to be quick and nimble in adapting to the fast changes in automotive technologies, the classification of motor vehicles will be managed by LTA through published gazette. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, the rise of Uber and Grab is welcomed by many. It provides alternatives for those who want to have a chauffeured car and it also provides additional income to many who are willing to work hard. However, for the safety of all commuters and other road users, it is good that we put in place some form of regulations on the operators of private hire cabs and their drivers. The private hire car drivers should go through proper training, adhere to certain rules while carrying passengers and, most of all, be screened to ensure that only those with good character are given a licence.
What I hope is that the service quality will improve, now that there is more competition. The improvements in service will also go some way in contributing to the Government's car-lite policy as, hopefully, more people will opt for public transport.
Having said that, I would like to raise the following questions.
First, is there any change in the minimum age of the driver because, currently, for drivers of Uber or Grab cars, those as young as 21 years old are allowed to drive? Based on the feedback from my residents, they feel that these drivers are too young, whereas, for taxi drivers, they must be, at the minimum, 30 years old. So, is there a revision in this minimum age?
Secondly, many taxi drivers have fed back that their livelihood is adversely affected and they need more help from taxi companies. The taxi companies should re-examine their business models. I would like to applaud \"Trans-Cab slashes taxi rebates/SMRT launches new scheme allowing drivers to rent taxi by hours\". Perhaps, more can be done.
To the passengers, what they normally consider are speed and fare. The one who can come the fastest, the better; and the one the cheaper, the better.
To the taxi drivers, there are also two variables to their income ‒ the rental and the taxi fares ‒ and both are fixed by taxi companies. I would like to urge the taxi companies to see what more they can do and see whether they can further reduce the rentals and the fares, like what has been done in Tokyo where they had just recently revised their base fare from ¥730 to ¥430, a 40% reduction. Another thing is to get rid of all forms of surcharges and, hopefully, by doing all these, it can bring more income or make taxis more competitive so that the taxi drivers' income will not be affected so much.
Next is infrastructure. What is the Ministry doing to improve certain infrastructure to cope with the higher number of such private hire cars on the road? For example, will these private hire cars be allowed to use the taxi stands to alight and pick up passengers? If so, many of our taxi stands are often choked with a long line of cabs. Sometimes, the queue tails back to a turning traffic-light junction. Thus, even other motorists are unable to turn and this results in a traffic snarl. For example, it is an almost daily occurrence at the taxi stand at Bugis Junction where taxis queueing to go into the taxi bay cause a tailback and it gets worse with buses and delivery vans all in the line. Most of our taxi stands cater to just three to four taxis and we may need to review future taxi stands when we build them, depending on their location.
We now also know that there are private car operators who are ferrying school children to and from school, in direct competition with school bus operators. I am all for competition so that there is no monopoly for one group of people. But because school children need to be with trustworthy people and safe drivers at all times, we should look into the safety and security of such arrangements. How is the Ministry to regulate this group of car hire operators?
Next, I would like to ask the Minister: is there any restriction on the nationality of the drivers of these private hire cars? There was talk that Malaysians are coming here to drive these cars while on social visit passes. Is this allowed? If it is not allowed, is there enforcement taken and how many such illegal drivers have been prosecuted?
Another point I want to raise is the question of illegal modifications of motor vehicles. I hope the Ministry will be very strict with cars which are being used for private hire, to ensure that passengers are not exposed to any danger arising from such modifications. Some of these modifications would allow drivers to drive at very dangerous speeds, putting passengers at risk. Most important is that the insurance for liability may be void arising from modifications. Please allow me to summarise in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] MOT is amending the law to regulate the private hire car industry, so that consumers can enjoy higher levels of service and safety. There are a few areas that I hope the Government can pay attention to.
First, with more private hire cars on the road, will they be allowed to use taxi stands in the future? Considering that most taxi stands can only cater to a few taxis, will this affect the traffic condition on the street? Does the Government plan to increase facilities in this area?
Second, there was talk that Malaysians holding social visit passes are now coming to Singapore to drive private hire cars. Can the Minister clarify whether there are restrictions on the kind of permit that private hire car drivers must have and how the Government is going to enforce these restrictions?
Third, the Government should have strict controls to ensure that private hire cars are not illegally modified because this could affect passengers' safety and insurance coverage.
Obviously, we cannot ignore the impact on taxi drivers. I hope taxi companies can reduce the rentals and the fares to help their drivers.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, part of this Bill seeks to add enforcement powers to regulate private hire car services. Since Uber and Grab entered the Singapore market in 2013, we have witnessed a shift in commuter behaviour, as well as a great number of people becoming freelance drivers driving private hire cars. Many tech-savvy commuters have used these mobile apps and, coupled with sweeteners, such as promotional discounts and the absence of midnight surcharge, this development has been good news for commuters.
However, there are other aspects of the transport ecosystem we have to consider. Many taxi drivers I have spoken to have indicated that their monthly income has taken a hit due to competition from Uber and Grab. Some of them are not so tech-savvy and are not able to switch to driving Uber or Grab, which requires the use of smart phone features. As commuters increasingly shift their preference to these private hire car services, the traditional taxi drivers have picked up fewer passengers. Many have thrown in the towel and, worse, some are unable to find other jobs as replacement. In fact, several countries and cities have applied certain restrictions or banned Uber and other similar services due to the severe market disruptions they have caused. Car rental companies have also lamented that Uber's affiliate, Lion City Rental, is charging lower than traditional market rate. Backed by large funds, Uber is focusing on growing its market presence with no consideration as to whether its operations are profitable or not.
Madam, allow me to share some of Uber's financials. Uber's losses in the first six months of 2016 was roughly US$1.4 billion and it is projected that its full year loss would hit a record US$3 billion. In 2016 alone, Uber raised close to US$5 billion in equity and debt to fund its expansion. Despite our preferred stand of adopting a balanced, light-touch regulatory stance that Second Minister Ng Chee Meng has pointed out, our local players, with less financial clout and operating in a much smaller market, have definitely been affected.
Mdm Speaker, I accept that disruption in this new age of technology may be inevitable but regulators need to plan ahead. I believe there are good policy reasons to limit the growth of operators, such as Uber and Grab. What if they collapse under the weight of their huge losses only after wiping out our local players? If that happens, commuters will be the ones who suffer.
We should allow more flexibility in our market to adapt to these market disruptions. Hence, I am very happy that LTA has removed the requirement for taxi drivers to clock a minimum daily mileage of 250 km as there is no such requirement for private hire cars.
Another anomaly is that taxi companies have to meet the Taxi Availability standards introduced in 2013 in order to grow their fleet size, which is capped at 2% per annum, but Uber and other private hire car services have increased their fleet size at an aggressive rate without any restriction during this period. The number of rental cars has increased from about 19,000 at end-2014 to more than 51,000 by the end of last year, far surpassing our taxi population of 27,500. Even if we remove the 2% cap on taxi population growth, I am afraid it has become a moot point as, in a Straits Times article on 15 January this year, it was reported that there are signs that the market has hit saturation point with more than 2,000 unhired private hire vehicles and taxis. As such, I would like to explore if it is possible to allow taxi companies to convert part of their taxi fleet into private hire rental vehicles. This will allow for better utilisation of their fleet.
Madam, this Bill gives additional enforcement powers to regulate private hire car services. I believe we have to think about what happens next. Hopefully, we can minimise the impact on taxi companies and their drivers. With the implementation of the requirement for drivers to have vocational licence starting from July this year, I am concerned that the number of private hire drivers may fall. Will this cause Uber and other operators to offer even more incentives to their drivers and commuters? How will this affect our traditional taxi companies and their drivers?
Madam, while I know it will be difficult to have some form of regulation which limits the losses which operators, such as Uber or Grab, may incur in their bid to grow their market share, a parallel can be drawn with European soccer where its governing body, UEFA, has introduced financial fair play rules in 2011. I am not against competition, but I am sure everyone agrees that competition should be fair. We have seen how competition can help drive innovation and prevent complacency by the incumbents. Ultimately, we hope that sustained competition can help to improve service standards. However, we need to be aware of the entire business ecosystem and its effects on all stakeholders. Notwithstanding my comments, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill ensures that Singapore's road traffic laws continue to keep up with the changing times and continue to adapt alongside ongoing changes in the industry and I stand in support of it.
I commend the harsher penalties for altering vehicles and reckless driving, raising the maximum fines from $5,000 to $10,000 in both cases. This is only appropriate. As Singapore continues to experience economic growth and rising levels of affluence, penalties should also rise concurrently. Only then will penalties bring about the right \"pain level\", have the appropriate punitive effect and continue to be an effective deterrent. But, as always, I do hope we do not just focus solely on penalties to shape our behaviours and morals. I hope all of us can realise that innocent lives may be lost as a result of our reckless actions.
I also note that obstruction of driverless vehicles will, for the first time, incur a penalty. As driverless vehicles are the inevitable future for the industry and the world is moving steadily ahead with its development, it is only prudent for Singapore laws to facilitate the testing and use of this innovation. As such, this inclusion is timely and necessary for Singapore to remain at the forefront of innovation for driverless vehicles. However, I would like to raise the point that the maximum penalty of $5,000 for first-time offenders who obstruct driverless vehicles during trials is the same as the current penalty for first-time offenders of reckless driving. This seems to be rather harsh and I would like to ask the Second Minister for the rationale behind this.
I also commend the timely and much-anticipated move to further regulate the private hire car industry. In 2016, LTA's statistics showed that around 27,000 regular taxis plied our roads. In comparison, the number of Grab and Uber drivers is estimated to be around 25,000. This is a sizeable number. Adding another 25,000 cars on the road presents real competition for existing taxi drivers. However, we have understood that the private hire car disruption is here to stay and that it, in fact, does provide a valuable service to the Singapore public.
I have personally experienced being a Grab driver about a year ago and can see how they are a benefit to consumers. At the same time, I have met with taxi drivers and understand their concerns and know that their rice bowls are now affected by this increased competition.
Ultimately, consumers benefit from the additional options. This is a public good for Singapore. As such, the only thing we should do in terms of Government intervention is to ensure fair competition. We must level the playing field as much as possible for both groups.
The changes presented by this Bill are a good start by requiring Grab and Uber drivers to register with LTA, complete a vocational licensing course and undergo background screening and medical checks. However, I believe that even after these changes, the playing field is still not level. For example, taxi drivers are required by their Code of Conduct to be properly-attired ‒ shirt, dark-coloured pants, covered shoes and so on. Such requirements do not seem to be explicit for Grab or Uber drivers. A driver I met just three Sundays ago brought up this point and wanted to make sure we implement the same rules for both taxis and Uber and Grab drivers.
Another example was highlighted in the media recently when a GrabHitch driver brought his dog to pick up a passenger and the passenger was bitten. GrabHitch responded to the media that Grab does not restrict its drivers from bringing their certified pets on board their vehicles, only encouraging them to inform their passengers beforehand. This would not happen in a taxi because rules prohibit drivers to bring their dogs into their taxis.
Lastly, we have also heard in the news recently that it is illegal for Uber and Grab private hire cars to ferry passengers under 135 cm without a child seat. This, however, does not apply to taxis. The issue here is not whether the child is in a taxi, a Grab or Uber car. At times, it may even be the same exact car model. The issue here is safety and the same rules should apply to all. Can the Minister clarify why this is not the case for the issue of the child seat?
And would the Ministry consider imposing exactly the same rules and requirements for taxi drivers to drivers of private car hires so as to achieve our intended objective of fair competition?
Madam, these comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, the proposed amendments on private hire car users strike an effective balance. The proposed regulatory sandbox to promote safe trials for AVs is an excellent move. As such, I stand in support of the Bill.
Automated vehicles will radically alter the face of Singapore and, as Second Minister Ng Chee Meng has shared earlier, offer exciting possibilities for us.
Today, I would like to talk about three issues pertaining to AVs. One, bringing insurers on board for AVs. Two, actively managing the ethical dilemmas that AVs bring forth. Three, readying our transportation workers for the road ahead.
First, let me talk about insurance. Self-driving vehicles have captured the imagination of many. Naturally, as more trials and adoption have taken place, more accidents have also happened. My colleagues have talked about them earlier in the House.
Following the Tesla accident, the US government ordered a detailed safety review. The finding was clear that, even with the increased number of accidents, Tesla's current implementation is considered safer than conventional vehicles. But regardless of how good the technology gets, accidents will continue to happen. Therefore, insurance is a necessity. In fact, industry experts whom I spoke to indicated that the lack of insurance is emerging as a key bottleneck for the full and widespread commercialisation of AVs.
The rest of the world has started moving on this. In June last year, a UK company launched the world's first insurance for self-driving cars. In August last year, Tesla started collaborating with AXA in Hong Kong and QBE in Australia to offer insurance.
To accelerate the adoption of AVs in Singapore, I hope that MOT and MOF can quickly bring on board our insurance companies, even within the confines of the regulatory sandbox. Because this is an evolving field, we might not get the approach right the first time, but it is far better for us to try something quick and then adjust along the way so that insurance is not a bottleneck for their commercialisation.
Second, let me talk about managing the ethical dilemmas. One major dilemma is: how should an automated vehicle decide on whom or what to protect, when an accident is imminent?
This dilemma is commonly expressed in the field of ethics as the \"Trolley Problem\", where a driver of a broken trolley has to decide between injuring five people right in front of him, or to make a conscious decision to divert the trolley, thereby injuring a bystander, who is innocent.
But for AVs, the issue is even more complex. Which must the vehicle prioritise to protect and why? Should it be the passengers of the vehicle? Or passengers of another autonomous vehicle? Or the passengers in a conventional vehicle which can potentially react less swiftly? Or a nearby vulnerable pedestrian, such as an elderly, an expectant mother or a child? Or the largest group of pedestrians? Or an important nearby building, such as a nursery, or a hospital? There is currently no consensus on this issue.
Now, as we accelerate the use of AVs in Singapore, it will be wise if we do not abdicate our responsibilities to technologists or the vehicle manufacturers or the insurance companies. I hope MOT can keep a close tab on international developments on this front and perhaps even convene an ethics panel to deliberate on this important matter.
Some might argue that even as an early adopter city-state, it is unlikely that Singapore can influence the global direction on this front. I think otherwise, because I believe it is reasonable and feasible for us to ask manufacturers to adapt their programming logic to our society's sensibility.
Lastly, I would like to talk about preparing our transport workers for the disruption ahead.
Early estimates in the US show that self-driving vehicles could cost the US between four to five million jobs. In a noted study, Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne have worked that most workers in transportation and logistics will be deeply impacted.
For us in Singapore, it goes beyond taxi, Uber or Grab drivers. It could also impact our delivery workers and even our transportation workers in the ports or airports. How can we prepare our transportation workers for the road ahead? And more importantly, when should we start preparing our workers?
I am glad to hear that Minister Ng believes that it will take 10 to 15 years before AVs are fully commercialised, as this will give our people time to adjust. However, disruptive technologies have a way of surprising others with the pace of adoption. As such, I think it would be wise for us to identify a few key trigger points along the adoption path when we know that we have to step in in a systematic and deliberate way to help our transportation workers adjust to this brave new world.
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, AVs will bring tremendous benefits, but also some challenges to Singapore. I am glad that MOT is taking a major step in pushing for the regulatory sandbox for AVs. It may take some time for us to find the right formula, but I am confident that we will succeed. I stand in full support of the Motion.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I support the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. As Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union, I am heartened to hear the Minister's assurance that the Government will put in place programmes to help Singaporeans who drive for a living, to help them acquire new skills and take on new jobs, should and when AVs are deployed extensively. The Union stands ready to work with the Ministry and the LTA to support our transport workers in the transition to a future AVs world.
In the meantime, I have some questions regarding public safety − safety of the public from AVs, and safety of commuters using private hire car and ride-sharing services.
First, let me speak on AVs. It is timely that we develop a framework to regulate the proper use of such vehicles.
Since last year, LTA has embarked on various trials for autonomous cars and buses in one-north and NTU respectively. It is imperative that more R&D be done in the coming years to ensure that these vehicles are safe before we start using such AVs in the public transport and logistics sectors. While the widespread use of AVs may still be a decade or two away, as indicated by the Minister, it is crucial that we focus on ensuring the safety of our public during the initial trials.
One of the proposed amendments in the Bill mandates that the company or individual who wishes to carry out AV trials purchases liability insurance or places a corresponding deposit amount with LTA during the trial. Can the Minister share with us the penalties that would be imposed on those who fail to buy the appropriate insurance or place the stipulated deposit with LTA?
In the event of an accident involving an AV, will the Ministry be developing and issuing guidelines for other road users on how they should respond and act? Who would be liable should an AV hit a pedestrian or another vehicle? Would the person or persons in the AV at the time of the accident be liable? What happens if there is no one in the AV when the accident occurs?
Another proposed amendment requires the entity carrying out the autonomous vehicle trials to keep records of the sensor data and video footage gathered during the trials and to submit them to LTA when these are requested. Such records may be lost if there are gaps in the process of safekeeping. Would LTA consider mandating that these trial data be transmitted real-time to LTA's Intelligent Transport System Centre?
Not only would this minimise the possibility of lost data, it could also help LTA to get a head start in developing subsidiary innovations that leverage self-driving technology. When AV technology becomes more reliable and trials expand beyond the current defined locations, we can feasibly expect to see AVs being trialled on major thoroughfares, expressways and even possibly during peak hours. With the potential increase in AVs on our roads, would AVs be subject to Certificates of Entitlement (COEs)?
Next, let me touch on private hire car and ride-sharing services. I applaud the proposed changes that serve to level the playing field between the traditional taxi industry and the private hire car industry. However, there seems to be one category of private hire car drivers that has been left out of this Bill, and these are drivers of ride-sharing services, such as GrabHitch and RYDE.
Currently, LTA allows private car owners to carpool and offer ride-sharing services, with the stipulations that drivers cannot charge for profit and are limited to providing a maximum of two rides per day. Would the Ministry consider expanding the Act to regulate this group of ride-share drivers? We heard earlier from Member Mr Louis Ng of the viral story where a GrabHitch driver had a Chihuahua in the front seat of his car and the dog bit a commuter who was alighting. A similar vocational licence for ride-share drivers, with mandatory background checks, would serve to enhance the safety of our commuters.
Mdm Speaker, I agree with the direction of the proposed amendments which penalise the private hire car operators for the conduct of their errant drivers, such as those who engage in street hail or operate without a vocational licence. This mirrors the approach taken towards the taxi industry currently, where taxi operators are taken to task for the collective actions of their taxi drivers, such as meeting the peak-hour taxi availability standards and Quality of Service standards.
Taxi operators in Singapore have to adhere to LTA's Quality of Service standards, which take into account the conduct of their taxi drivers, the ease of booking a taxi and the overall safety of taxi drivers. For example, taxi operators are penalised when too many of their drivers get into accidents and are deemed to have failed the safety component under the Quality of Service framework. Will the Ministry consider mirroring the Quality of Service standards placed upon taxi operators to the private hire car operators as well?
While Singapore adopts a light-touch regulatory framework for our private hire car industry, we must protect the safety of our commuters. Placing the onus on the private hire car operators to ensure that they recruit and retain safe and responsible drivers will go a long way in achieving this. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"In Parliament","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mdm Speaker:\tPursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of 30 minutes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members for their queries and suggestions. Let me try to address the many queries in turn, grouped into: AVs, private hire cars and, finally, enforcement.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Azmoon Ahmad raised pertinent issues about AVs. As we all noted, AV technology is not yet mature. During trials, accidents are to be expected. The LTA has put in place a robust regulatory framework for AV trials to minimise the possibility of accidents.
First, AVs must demonstrate basic roadworthiness and capabilities by passing a safety assessment, before they can even be trialled on the roads.
Second, AVs developers must have robust accident mitigation plans for the trials, including having a safety driver who is trained to swiftly take control of the AV, whenever necessary. In answer to Mr Dennis Tan, these drivers have a Class 3 licence and they have no demerit points. This need for a safety driver can be waived after the AV developers have proven the competency of their AVs to LTA's full satisfaction of navigating our infrastructure and roads.
Third, trials are allowed to start only on lightly used roads like the one we have at one-north. When the AVs are able to demonstrate higher competencies, they will be allowed to trial in more complex environments, including some of our public roads. The proposed RTA provisions will give LTA the flexibility to impose additional requirements or amend requirements, as the need arises, because, in many of these trials, there may be unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, giving LTA the flexibility is the sensible thing to do.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Azmoon Ahmad and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the legal implications and many potential liability issues when AVs are involved in road accidents. Mr Henry Kwek also asked if the insurance industry is being consulted.
LTA is studying these complex issues, together with representatives from the AV, motor, legal and insurance industries, and this is part of the work set up under MOT's Committee on Autonomous Road Transport for Singapore. This is an 18-member strong Committee comprising senior members in Singapore public agencies, public sector and some global organisations. So, it is quite an experienced Committee. In the meantime, LTA has been discussing these issues with foreign counterparts that have also similar test-beds.
On liability, the traditional basis of claims for negligence may not work so well − as Mr Dennis Tan has said − where there is no driver in control of a vehicle. When presented with novel technologies, Courts often try to draw analogies to legal constructs for other existing technologies.
In the case of AVs, the Courts have autopilot systems for airplanes and autopilot navigational systems for maritime vessels, and product liability law to draw references from. As with accidents involving human-driven vehicles, it is likely that issues of liability for AVs will be resolved through proof of fault and existing common law. We will require all test AVs to log travel data to facilitate accident investigations and liability claims.
But having said this, these are early days yet. A lot of detailed studies will have to be done, including the point raised by Mr Dennis Tan on the future framework, whether this class of vehicles requires licensing. I think this will be an area to be studied.
Mr Azmoon Ahmad and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the issue of certification. Indeed, this is the reason LTA, together with JTC Corp, in partnership with NTU, have started a Centre for Excellence for Testing and Research of Autonomous Vehicles. This organisation called CETRAN will spearhead the development of AV testing requirements.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked if our road and public transport network can accommodate AVs. A key requirement of the trials initiated by LTA is that the AVs can operate on our existing roads with minimal supporting structure. Globally, the industry is also gearing towards such infrastructure-light AVs. So, the short answer is yes, the trials will guide the AVs towards infrastructure-light modifications.
Mr Melvin Yong asked what the penalties are for AV trial participants who do not buy the appropriate insurance or fail to place the stipulated security deposit with LTA. Companies or individuals which do not or fail to do so will not be issued a test licence to conduct AV trials.
Mr Melvin Yong asked if LTA would consider mandating that trial data be transmitted real-time to LTA's Intelligent Transport System Centre. Currently, the answer is that trial participants are not required to do so, but I take that point and we are already requiring LTA to get this system set up for real-time transmission in the longer term for all the AV trials.
Mr Melvin Yong also asked if AVs would be subjected to COE should there be an increase in AVs being trialled on our roads. In the longer term, when AV technology is mature and deployed widely in public, there does not seem to be any reason why we should exempt them from our COE system. But again, these are early days. We will review the policy at an appropriate point in time.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the rationale for the maximum penalty of $5,000 for first-time offenders who obstruct AVs during trials. We have set a relatively high bar to deter acts of interference, some of which could cause the AV to behave in a way that endangers the safety of other road users. Five thousand dollars is the maximum penalty for the offence and the Courts will be able to calibrate the actual fine to the severity of the circumstances and consequences of any offence or accident.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Thomas Chua, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Henry Kwek raised concerns that the advent of new technologies like AVs and private hire cars may disrupt the livelihood of Singaporeans. This is something that we are equally concerned about. But as we have all said, rather than impeding the adoption of these technologies, which are beneficial to all Singaporeans, we should focus our efforts on helping our transport workforce adapt to these inevitable disruptions over a 10- to 15-year timeframe. Together with our unions and companies, we can help our drivers upgrade their skills and perhaps take on higher value and better paying jobs. And I am equally happy, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, that companies are coming out with novel rental schemes, including dual shifts and hourly rates, so that taxi drivers can be helped with their earnings.
Next, let me address Members' questions on private hire cars. Several Members spoke about levelling the playing field between taxis and private hire cars.
Mr Melvin Yong asked if we will impose Quality of Service standards on private hire car operators. Mr Louis Ng would like a Code of Conduct to be imposed on private hire car drivers. Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested that we impose a licensing fee on private hire car booking service operators.
We take issues related to the safety of commuters very seriously. This is why we will be requiring private hire car drivers to obtain a vocational licence. And when we do so, this vocational licence framework will impose on private hire car drivers the same demerit point system that is currently applied across the taxi drivers today. Private hire car drivers will also have to abide, under this framework, to similar Conduct Rules as taxi drivers − cleanliness, dressing and all those. As we are not planning to license private hire car booking service operators for now, there will be no licencing fees. This light-touch approach allows the industry, which is still evolving, to continue to innovate and benefit commuters, but also, at the same time, ensures commuter safety. I believe this is an appropriate approach for now, but we will continue to monitor closely and adjust as needed.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked whether we can allow taxi companies to convert part of their taxi fleets to private hire cars and if we will limit the losses which operators, such as Uber and Grab, can incur. The role of Government is to put in place an appropriate regulatory framework for businesses to operate. I do not believe and we should not be taking on the responsibility for their profits or losses as a Government. Operators must make their own business decisions and the market will impose the necessary discipline over a period of time.
As for the conversion of taxis to private hire cars, taxi companies today enjoy some concessions which are not applicable to private hire cars. For example, taxi companies today pay the Prevailing Quota Premium (PQP) for Category A vehicles for all their taxis, despite the fact that many of the taxis belong to Category B of the COE system. Therefore, it would not be right to allow taxi companies to enjoy these concessions on the one hand and then, later, re-registering the vehicle as a private hire car.
Mr Louis Ng asked why private hire cars must adhere to the child seat rule but taxis need not. The child seat rule is imposed on all vehicles for safety reasons. But the Government has allowed a concession for taxis for practicality reasons, as taxis can be street hailed, and it would be quite unreasonable to expect all taxi drivers to ensure that their taxis come equipped with booster seats and child restraints at all times, or to turn away street hail passengers with children.
Private hire cars (PHCs), on the other hand, are pre-booked and passengers can indicate if they require booster seats or child restraints when making the booking. The Government's exemption of taxis from the child seat rule is the outcome of trying to balance between practicality on the one hand and safety on the other. Having said this, I do take your point that an argument can, indeed, be made to similarly exempt private hire cars from the child seat rule. But for now, we have decided to err on the side of ensuring the safety of child passengers on PHCs.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah expressed concern over congestion at taxi stands. Our intent is for taxi stands to remain solely for the use of taxis. This is also in line with our intent to keep the street hail market solely for taxis.
Mdm Speaker, these discussions on various aspects of taxi and PHC services also illustrate that while the two serve similar markets, there are key differences not only in how we regulate them, but the concessions available to them. Hence, in discussing a level playing field, we need to recognise that it would have to be in the total context of not just regulations, but also concessions.
Mr Ang Kin Kee raised two questions on the general suspension order. First, whether LTA will permanently disallow a PHC booking service provider who has received multiple suspension orders from operating its services.
The suspension order, including the possibility of multiple orders, is a significant regulatory threat which we believe will be sufficient to make service providers take the rules seriously. We will consider stronger regulation if and when necessary.
Second, Mr Ang asked if LTA will set up a feedback channel to update and inform commuters when a particular PHC booking service operator has been suspended. LTA will ensure that sufficient notice and publicity to both drivers and commuters are given before a suspension order commences. LTA will study the best channels to do so.
Mr Dennis Tan asked if such a suspension order may be too harsh given that PHC booking service providers are operating somewhat differently from the taxi industry. But I would like to assure him that this actually commensurates with the powers that LTA has over other transport service providers today.
To put this in context, as I think Mr Ang also mentioned just now, LTA has the power today to revoke or suspend the licences of taxi operators which do not comply with LTA's licensing conditions or directives. A general suspension order has the same effect as a licence suspension. Like a licence suspension or revocation, the general suspension order is also a power of last resort to be applied only if they are serious and repeated breaches on our rules. The affected PHC booking service provider will also be given ample opportunity to present its case to LTA.
Mr Dennis Tan also expressed concerns that it would not be fair for LTA to penalise all drivers affiliated to any particular PHC booking service because of the irresponsible action of a few. I would like to clarify that drivers affiliated with a PHC booking service provider who has been imposed with a general suspension order do not lose their vocation licences and they can continue to drive for other PHC booking service providers, just like taxi drivers.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the criteria for PHC Driver's Vocational Licence holders, such as nationality and minimum age.
There are no changes to the criteria announced last year. Non-Singapore citizens will be granted a PHC Drivers' Vocational Licence only if they are employees of chauffeured services companies. And as for a minimum age criterion, our view is that requiring PHC drivers to have a minimum driving experience of two years should be adequate to reasonably ensure passenger safety. And, the number of years of driving experience may, in fact, be more important than age. When the age was set at 30 for taxi drivers, it was meant to persuade drivers not to take this on early in their life as a permanent vocation.
Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested that the Government ensure that PHC drivers are free to switch platforms whenever they deem necessary.
Agreements between drivers and PHC booking service operators, including the possibility of switching to driving for other operators, should be left as a commercial decision, as per my answer to Mr Yee Chia Hsing. Let the market decide. Drivers are advised to carefully read the terms and conditions and ensure that they are fully aware of their rights and obligations, before signing up with an operator. Perhaps we could suugest that the National Private Hire Vehicles Association may wish to take this up with the various operators.
Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Louis Ng asked how we would regulate ride-sharing services, such as GrabHitch. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked how we would regulate what seems to be PHC services that ferry school children to and from school. I believe Er Dr Lee Bee Wah was referring to was Schoolber, which helps parents roster themselves to carpool to send their children to school using their own private cars.
I would like to clarify that GrabHitch and Schoolber are carpooling services, not to be confused with PHC services. Our regulations allow a driver to use private vehicles to give rides to others travelling to the same destination or in the same direction as himself and for the driver to collect a small fee on a cost-recovery basis, not for profit. This is different from PHC services, where the intent is for the drivers to provide rides as a source of income. Hence, we do not intend to regulate carpooling services. Commuters who are thinking of using such services should assess for themselves their own comfort with the services, in particular, service, including the Chihuahua case. Over-regulation of this budding initiative will most likely curtail the growth between private arrangements. If they are not comfortable with such safety issues or have reservations, they may want to use licensed taxis or PHC services or licensed school bus services, if they are really not comfortable with this pooling service.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin commented that Power-assisted Bicycles (PABs) are similar to lower-powered motorcycles and called for compulsory road safety training for PAB users.
The new technical requirements for PABs, introduced last year, limit PABs to a maximum device speed of 25 km/h, which is roughly my cycling speed. The motor must also be cut off when the user is not pedalling. So, if there is no pedalling power, he really cannot get the vehicle to go faster. In our view, this is more akin to being a bicycle with power assistance. Thus, we have assessed that we do not need to mandate road safety training for PAB users. We will continue, of course, to work with the Traffic Police to educate PAB users on safe behaviour and practices, regardless of whether it is more like a motorcycle or more like a bicycle. Nevertheless, safety for them is important.
Mr Dennis Tan asked about seizure procedures and requirements. I did not quite get the full query, but I would try and answer to take in all the questions.
LTA has the power to seize PMDs and PABs as long as there are any behavioural offences, such as speeding and reckless driving. These are offences for seizure, including illegal modifications that do not meet what has been stipulated in terms of the width of the vehicle, the weight of the vehicle and the speed limits structurally placed on the vehicle. Any of these is a seizable offence.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah expressed concerns that illegally modified private hire cars could pose a danger to the safety of commuters. I fully agree with the Member. We take a very serious view of illegal modifications, whether it is of private hire cars or private cars. We will continue to ensure that motorists who illegally modify their vehicles are taken to task.
Before I conclude, Mdm Speaker, I just want to address Mr Azmoon's story about him going green. I applaud that. but the incentives to get more people like the Member to go green would be taken under other initiatives.
Mdm Speaker, in summary, this Bill seeks to update our regulations to cater to various innovations in the land transport sector, most notably the AV technology and private hire car services, while continuing to ensure the safety of the public. It is a balanced stance to ensure commuters' interest, drivers' welfare and business, as many of the Members have raised points about. With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Azmoon Ahmad:\tI would like to have a clarification from the Minister. Does the Ministry make a difference between a driverless car and an AV?
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Thank you. I do apologise I did not get to that point. It is taken into account under the SAE International J3016, where there are different categories of automation. Under our laws, it will be under levels 3, 4 and 5 from high automation to full automation which is driverless. So, it is a range that we put these vehicles under this framework law.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong:\tI thank the Minister for the answers to my questions. Just a clarification on the last point that the Minister was trying to answer. My question relates to non-compliant power-assisted bicycles as well as the other non-compliant mobility devices. For the non-compliant bikes, for example, e-bikes which are supposed to be registered but are not registered. My question is when these are seen in public, when LTA officers see these devices being used in public, will they be seized or do they have to be committing a separate offence, for example, going at high speed or further illegal modification, in the case of a mobility device?
Mr Ng Chee Meng:\tFor such non-compliant PAB and PMD devices, once you are non-compliant, you are liable to be seized. But as most things operational on the ground, much of the executive judgement is left to the enforcement officers and we will leave it as that. Sometimes, a person may really not know that he has contravened something and it was done before this law was passed and, for all the different complexities, I will trust the officers on the ground to make the judgement call. The key point is all these offences are seizable offences.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing:\tMadam, on the conversion of a taxi fleet to PHC, I believe that if we can allow the taxi companies to convert the taxi fleet, it lowers their cost and it allows them to lower the rental that they charge to taxi drivers. Can we then offer the taxi companies an option where we will let them pay a conversion fee to cover the difference in the COE, as well as any administrative expenses that LTA has incurred to do the conversion?
Mr Ng Chee Meng:\tMadam, for the conversion, I have two points. One is that taxi companies have already started their own version of PHC, so there is enough market space for them to do the necessary calculations for a viable business model. To give them a double benefit, it is premature and probably not the right thing to do either. So, for that, we will just leave the space for the businesses to consider their own business models and viability.
Mr Ang Hin Kee:\tA question for the Minister. Recently, LTA doubled the licensing fees for taxi operators from 0.01% to 0.02%. Earlier, the Minister mentioned that there is no plan to currently impose licensing fees on private hire operators. It basically has some irony to that because taxi operators have a lot more rules to comply with and there is doubling of their fees. Whereas now we got to supervise and monitor this group, but there is no fee charged to them and, therefore, other groups have to incur the fees that have to be paid. Perhaps the Ministry should consider and review this process of not charging the fee on the private hire operators.
Mr Ng Chee Meng:\tMadam, I take the Member's point. We can take a look at it. I do understand that a licensing fee of 0.01% does not constitute a large proportion. Like I have said, I take the Member's point. We can take a look at it and see how a level field can be achieved over time as what we had done last year.
Mdm Speaker:\tMs Thanaletchimi. Keep it short, please.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Madam. I would like to seek two clarifications on autonomous motor vehicles. Are regular motor vehicles with auto-pilot function considered a subset of autonomous motor vehicles? If yes, will the eventual insurance that is applicable for autonomous motor vehicles be applicable to this?
The second clarification is on PHC booking service. When issued with the suspension order on a PHC booking service operator, for example Operator A, can the affiliated driver of Operator A join Operator B to provide PHC services during the suspension period?
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Mdm Speaker, the answer to the first question is likely to be yes and yes, in its early days. And whether a driver can drive for another service operator, the answer is also yes.
[(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 Ng Chee Meng.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 20 February 2017.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at \t7.10 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rejection Rates for SME Working Capital Loan Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) since the launch of the SME Working Capital Loan Programme in June 2016 (a) how many SMEs' applications under the programme have been rejected; (b) what are the reasons for these rejected applications; and (c) what other Government financing assistance can such SMEs seek.
Mr S Iswaran: The SME Working Capital Loan was announced at Budget 2016 to help viable SMEs access working capital and continue growing their businesses. The scheme complements existing Government loan schemes and commercial loans offered by financial institutions. SPRING works through Participating Financial Institutions (PFIs), which evaluate the applications for the SME Working Capital Loan.
Since the launch of the SME Working Capital Loan in June 2016, more than $700 million in loans has been catalysed, benefiting about 4,300 SMEs as of end December 2016. This represents a success rate of about 80% to 85%. Common reasons for unsuccessful applications are that the SMEs have poor financial track records, such as lack of profitability, or that owners have adverse individual credit bureau records1, such as late payments on personal loans.
Besides the SME Working Capital Loan, the Government partners PFIs to make loans available to viable SMEs with different needs. The loans offered include factory and equipment loans and trade financing and complement the commercial loans offered by these PFIs. Besides traditional bank financing, SMEs can also tap alternative financing platforms like venture lending.
Beyond the immediate financing needs, SMEs should continue to develop capabilities to transform their businesses to remain competitive and achieve continued growth. SMEs who require assistance in their growth can tap on a suite of Government schemes which can support them in building capabilities, scaling up and internationalisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The two credit bureaus are Credit Bureau (Singapore) Pte Ltd and DP Credit Bureau Pte Ltd."],"footNoteQuestions":["24"],"questionNo":"24"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Checkpoint Toll Charges on Inflation and Food Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the latest reciprocal road charge on foreign-registered vehicles entering Singapore will impact domestic inflation and food prices; and (b) whether the road charge can be waived for commercial goods vehicles.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Reciprocal Road Charge will not be imposed on commercial goods vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Private Car Hire Growth on Taxi Drivers' Incomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has studied the impact of the growth of the private car hire app industry on taxi drivers' incomes; (b) whether there is a difference in income between day hirers and midnight shift hirers; (c) whether taxi drivers' incomes have improved since the recent changes to the Taxi Availability Framework; (d) what more can be done to level the playing field and enhance the income of affected drivers; and (e) whether there are plans to engage taxi companies to adapt fare surcharges and rentals to help them cope with competition.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In 2016, average monthly net earnings per taxi driver came down compared to the previous year, by about 6.2%. Notwithstanding this, in total, since 2013, when the private hire car industry started to grow, average monthly net earnings per taxi driver are still up by about 4% in real terms, aided, in part, by falling energy prices. In addition, gross fare revenue per taxi has remained relatively stable since 2013. This suggests that private hire car services have, in part, catered to new or previously unmet demand.
We do not have income data that is broken down by different types of drivers, for example, night shift drivers.
It is too soon to determine the effect of the removal of the 250-kilometre requirement on taxi drivers. I expect it to be positive, not solely for their earnings but also the additional flexibility for them to plan their schedules. As the market continues to evolve, we will continue to review taxi regulations periodically to ensure that they stay relevant and promote the best outcomes for taxi commuters, drivers and companies.
Ultimately, private hire car services compete against taxi companies for drivers, and the ability to attract drivers to rent either taxis or private hire cars is dependent on the earnings of the respective drivers. This competition can be positive for taxi drivers. I note that taxi companies have recently introduced measures to the benefit of their drivers. Some companies have reduced taxi rentals, while others have introduced innovative rental schemes, including giving rental rebates based on the drivers' performance. Taxi companies can also adjust their fares and surcharges if they assess that this would make their services more competitive and taking into consideration the impact on their drivers’ earnings. Indeed, I hope the taxi industry will rise to the competition through such changes and by enhancing the level and value of service provided.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Facilitating Claims for Injuries from Use of Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Transport with the greater anticipated use of PMDs and bicycles on footpaths (a) how can the Ministry help facilitate injury or damage claims between two parties, to prevent small claims from being settled by costly civil suits; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider setting up a claims tribunal to facilitate injury claims in the absence of compulsory insurance.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Accidents involving serious injury or damages will be investigated by the Police. If a cyclist or PMD user is found to be at fault, they may be prosecuted and the Courts may make an order for compensation.
We will closely monitor the use of PMDs and bicycles on footpaths. It is premature to set up a claims tribunal as the Member has suggested. Meanwhile, we will intensify user education and enforce proper sharing of footpaths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investment Concerns Given recent Political Developments in US and Uncertainties in Europe","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Finance whether recent political developments in the US and political uncertainties in Europe with upcoming elections raise concerns on the long-term investment outlook and whether it will affect the returns of our reserves.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Recent political developments have, indeed, increased uncertainty around the world. We are seeing structural issues that could signal a more challenging investment outlook. In many developed countries, productivity growth has remained subdued since the Global Financial Crisis, while demographics pose long-term challenges. In emerging countries, reforms have been intermittent and the overall pace has been uneven across different countries.
In the short to medium term, political developments across the world, including recent actions taken by the new US Administration and various elections coming up in Europe, have, indeed, raised uncertainty for investors.
That said, this is not the first time that our investment entities have had to face an uncertain future and it will not be the last time. GIC and Temasek, like other global investors, cannot be insulated from volatility in the financial markets.
However, GIC and Temasek are long-term investors. Their long-term orientation enables them to look beyond short-term market volatility and target good long-term sustainable returns on a total portfolio basis. Both investment entities also adhere to the discipline of reviewing their investments regularly and adjusting their strategies where necessary.
Another important aspect is the governance framework. GIC and Temasek have strong professional teams to assess potential investments and take investment decisions. The Government does not intervene in specific investment decisions but, instead, ensures that well-qualified individuals are appointed to their Boards to exercise oversight. This allows the management to focus on optimising long-term returns, while being accountable to the Government through their Boards for their overall performance. This governance framework has served us well through past periods of crisis and uncertainty.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Tenders for Public Opinion Polls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many public opinion polls have been put up for tender on GeBIZ between 2014 and 2016; (b) how many of such tenders have not been put up on GeBIZ; (c) what has been the total amount spent on public opinion polls during this period; (d) what is the total number of respondents covered in these polls; and (e) what criteria does REACH use to determine if the findings of a poll are of interest to the public and, hence, worthy of publication.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: MCI conducts opinion polls to understand public sentiment on issues and to assess public awareness of, and response to, specific Government policies and programmes. Opinion polls have helped the Government evaluate if there are segments of the population who might benefit from a better understanding of a policy or programme. This is in line with our overall thrust of using data to better inform our communications strategy. The data also helps the Government adjust the way it delivers services or implements policies, to better meet the needs of citizens.
All tenders for public opinion polls are put up on GeBIZ. MCI has put in place a whole-of-Government Framework Agreement for Research and Perception Studies on GeBIZ, which enables Government agencies to commission research projects by tapping on a pool of vendors.
Between 2014 and 2016, MCI commissioned a total of 14 opinion polls through the Framework Agreement. On average, opinion polls reach between 1,000 and 2,000 respondents, to ensure that the sample is broadly representative of the national population. The amount spent by the Government on opinion polls is in line with market rates.
REACH periodically releases findings that may be of interest to the public – these touch on topical issues which may have been discussed in the media or other platforms. Such representative polling can help to provide a more holistic and objective sensing of public sentiments on issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Persons Appointed as Non-Resident Ambassadors from 2011 to 2016","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he can provide a list of the persons appointed by the Government as Non-Resident Ambassadors from 2011 to 2016.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: There are 45 Non-Resident Ambassadors (NRAs) appointed between 2011 and 2016 who are still holding their appointments as of date. They are accredited to 48 countries and four International Organisations (UNESCO, Pacific Islands Forum, CARICOM and African Union). The names of these NRAs are published on the MFA website (https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/missions/singapore_mission/mission_locator.html) which Ms Sylvia Lim could refer to for more details.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Application of Massage Establishment Licence in Residential Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Police conducts any additional checks or applies additional considerations when approving applications for a massage establishment licence to operate in/around residential areas; and (b) in view of the risk of vice-related activities being conducted at massage establishments, whether all massage establishments can be restricted from operating in/around residential areas.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are three different categories of Massage Establishments (ME) under Police's licensing framework – Category I, Category II and Exempted MEs. Only MEs with a Category I licence, which has more stringent licensing conditions; or those under the \"Exempted\" category, which has low risk for vice activities, are allowed to operate in residential areas.
Category I MEs are subject to more stringent qualifying criteria than Category II MEs. The criteria for Category I MEs include CaseTrust accreditation and a capital investment of at least $50,000. These conditions ensure that the applicant is a genuine business owner who is willing to invest capital to run a legitimate massage business.
The \"Exempted ME\" category is for low-risk activities, such as open-concept foot reflexology outlets and physiotherapy clinics. These MEs only need to register with the Police and are exempted from licensing. Exempted MEs are subject to strict operating conditions, including no partitions or cubicles within the premises. In addition, all areas in the premises where massage services are carried out must be visible from outside the premises. Police may revoke the exemption of any ME that does not comply with the operating conditions.
The Police assess each ME application on a case-by-case basis. The Police will consider other factors that are specific to an area, such as the incidence of vice-related activities or any related law and order issues. Where there is information on vice in any ME, the Police will take enforcement action against the licensee and revoke the ME licence.
The ME licensing framework allows legitimate businesses to operate and serve customers in residential areas, while minimising the risk of crime and vice activities through stricter qualifying criteria and operating conditions. Police’s data shows that the majority of vice infringements are detected in unlicensed MEs and not those which are regulated, that is, licensed or exempted. The Ministry, therefore, has no plans to restrict all MEs from operating in residential areas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"K2 Enrollment in Full-day Childcare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how many children are currently enrolled in full-day childcare at the K2 level.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Today, more than 90% of Singaporean children aged five to six years old are enrolled in a preschool. About 15,000 Singaporean children, or 45% of the cohort, were enrolled in a full-day preschool programme at K2 level in 2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria to Operate Spa with no Massage Services in Residential Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the criteria applied when URA considers whether to approve an application for the setting up of a business to operate as a spa with no massage services; and (b) in view of the risk that such businesses may end up providing massage services in contravention of the law, whether such businesses can be restricted from operating in/around residential areas.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Currently, all spas (with or without massage services) and massage parlours are considered as \"Massage Establishment (ME)\" use and require a licence or exemption under the Police licensing framework to operate. URA evaluates ME applications on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration land zoning, local planning intentions and inputs from other agencies, such as LTA for traffic considerations and the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department for vice-related concerns. Where the proposed siting of a ME is assessed to result in disamenities to the surroundings, the application will be rejected.
In particular, only MEs given a Category I licence or classified as Exempted under Police’s licensing framework can be considered for operation on commercial sites in residential areas. Category I MEs are subject to stringent qualifying criteria, including CaseTrust accreditation and a capital investment of at least $50,000. These conditions help to ensure that the applicant is willing to invest capital to run a legitimate massage business. The \"Exempted ME\" category is for activities that have minimal risk of causing vice or disamenities; examples include physiotherapy clinics and open-concept massage outlets.
Should any ME be found to contravene the law, the Police will take enforcement action against the licensee and revoke the ME licence if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Certified Early Childhood Educators in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how many certified early childhood educators are there in Singapore; (b) how many are currently undergoing training; and (c) on average, how many are trained each year.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: There are about 16,000 certified early childhood educators as at end-2016. About 3,000 students are currently undergoing training. On average, about 1,800 students graduate from early childhood courses every year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Primary 1 Students Enrolled in After-school Care and School-based Student Care Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how many Primary 1 students are currently enrolled in after-school care; and (b) among these students, how many are enrolled in school-based Student Care Centres.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Around 7,800 Primary 1 students are enrolled in Student Care Centres (SCCs) registered with the Ministry of Social and Family Development. Among these students, 4,800 are enrolled in school-based SCCs whilst the rest are enrolled in community-based SCCs.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has increased the number of school-based SCCs from less than 50 five years ago to 147 today. The overall enrolment has risen from 3,000 to more than 18,000 students. MOE will continue to expand the places in each school-based SCC and expand the number of schools with SCCs, at a pace that does not cause quality to be compromised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3602,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ng Chee Meng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170207/vernacular-Ng Chee Meng Road Traffic 7 Feb 2017 _Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Ng Chee Meng Road Traffic 7 Feb 2017 _Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3603,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170207/vernacular-Thomas Chua Road Traffic 7 Feb 2017 _Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Thomas Chua Road Traffic 7 Feb 2017 _Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3604,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170207/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Road Traffic 7 Feb 2017_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Road Traffic 7 Feb 2017_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3605,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170207/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Trees Plants 7 Feb 2017_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Trees Plants 7 Feb 2017_Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}