Committee of Supply – Head W (Ministry of Transport)

Growing Pains in Transport

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the estimates be reduced by $100".

6.30 pm

Sir, Singapore’s entire transportation industry is undergoing rapid evolution and major change. Technological disruptions and our changing economic and social needs are the main drivers of this.

New MRT lines and stations are being built in many places. Private Hire Cars and their distinct blue decals ply our roads. There is a proliferation of E-Bikes, Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and Shared Bicycles on our roads and pathways. Our once bustling port in Keppel has gone silent as the move to Tuas continues. Changi Airport has transformed from its humble beginnings to an international air travel hub of four terminals with a fifth one in the works.

MOT’s budget estimation for 2018 has grown significantly from 2017 and is now comparable to traditionally big-ticket Ministries such as Defence, Health and Education. And it is absolutely vital that we do so!

Our transport industry is a key pillar and enabler of our economy. It not only connects us domestically within Singapore but also to the rest of the world.

Sir, I think Singaporeans appreciate, understand and accept the reasons and need for this evolution, growth and change in our transportation landscape. However, rapid evolution and major changes in transport have brought about its own set of challenges and issues.

Sir, I spoke at length at last year’s Committee of Supply on Technology in Transport and in particular, the advent of Private Hire Cars in the point to point transportation industry.

Private hire car companies leverage on technology through their mobile apps to plug a service gap by providing a platform to efficiently match private-hire car drivers and passengers directly in real time and space. Their model, significantly shrinks transaction costs, giving passengers greater choices and value. However, this caused a disruption in the point to point transportation industry, leading to many Taxi Drivers, who are facing the pressures of increased competition, to worry and fear for their livelihoods.

Technology has also brought about new options for first and last mile travel between our homes and the various transport nodes. These include, e-bikes and PMDs, and also bike sharing systems.

I expressed reservations about the proliferation of e-bikes and PMDs during the Active Mobility Debate. My reservations are primarily on safety concerns for other road and pathway users as well as whether an adequate accident compensation scheme, like those for motor vehicles, can apply to e-bikes and PMDs. I continue to hold these views.

Bike Sharing Systems, while intuitively an efficient and convenient option for Singaporeans to use for short distance travel, face teething issues such as abusive use and abandonment of the Shared Bikes.

I shall not delve too much into these details as they have been well documented in the mass media and many of my hon Colleagues on both sides of the House will raise the same during this COS.

An important point to note, however, is that New Technologies will continue to disrupt and bring new options into the transportation industry. This is unlikely to abate. Further technology driven changes in transport are already at our doorstep.

BlueSG, Singapore’s first electric car sharing service has been launched. Driverless, autonomous vehicles are being tested and piloted. Difficulties and problems arising from these will not be dissimilar or unique. We should expect it.

This does not mean that we ignore the difficulties and problems. They are real and should never be trivialised. Policy solutions need to be urgently found to solve or mitigate the issues.

The question we should ask ourselves, Sir, is this. Should the Government hesitate to promote technological changes in transport and maintain the status quo because of these difficulties and problems? I think that the clear answer is a clear no.

Stifling new innovative technology can only end in a negative outcome for the overall Singapore economy and for Singaporeans in general. We did not get where we are as a Country by being fearful of the difficulties and problems that change will bring.

The same applies to our MRT system. It is perhaps an understatement to say that it has been a difficult year for our MRT system and for SMRT in particular.

There have been several avoidable lapses. Some minor, others of a serious nature that need to be addressed immediately. This is irrefutable and I do not think anyone disagrees. We need to improve and we will.

However, we are also driving a massive expansion of our MRT capacity. New lines are being progressively completed. The signalling system on old lines is being upgraded to increase efficiency and to cope with increased demand. This is in line with our population growth and new towns and housing estates being developed.

Such problems and difficulties arising from the evolution and changes in the transport industry is not unprecedented. It has happened many times in the past. We built our city from scratch. Public Housing, Town Planning, Port facilities, Changi Airport, Roads and our first MRT system each presented similar difficulties and problems at its time.

Each of these were meticulously planned, executed with vision and foresight by our Founding Leaders. They were policies implemented, not only to satisfy the current requirements of its time but also to cater for the potential needs in the future.

Changi Airport is a great example. The choice of location and the anticipation of our future needs set the foundations for the possibility of the state of the art multi-terminal international airport that we have today.

The same vision is being applied today in the relocation of our port facilities to Tuas, the massive expansion of our MRT lines and the entire array of car-lite initiatives to alter our transportation landscape in the future.

I am sure that we will continue to encounter further difficulties and problems as we move forward, just like what we encountered in the generation before us. We overcame them then, and I have full faith that Minister Khaw and our Transport team, together with our cohesive support of Singaporeans, will overcome them now.

Naturally, due to the various issues and recent lapses, some Singaporeans might have lost some faith in our transportation system. I think we can all empathise. It is understandable. But, as I have said earlier, we will improve and we will do better.

Transport is an indelible part of the everyday life of Singaporeans. On any given day, Singaporeans potentially utilise and come into contact with private-hire cars, taxis, buses, the MRT, PMDs, e-bikes, cyclists on bikes and shared bikes. Any combination of the problems and difficulties faced is likely to cause unpleasant experiences for many people on a daily basis.

It is therefore important that the Government co-opt and communicate effectively with Singaporeans on the vision of our transportation landscape for the future. It is imperative that the Government and Singaporeans work together to leverage on new technologies to its fullest and work hand in hand together to overcome any difficulties and problems we face as we continue to build a first class transportation network for Singapore.

In conclusion, I invite Minister to share with us the Ministry’s current and future plans to holistically address the issues of and arising out of new technologies and the rapid changes affecting the transportation industry.

The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh.

Zero-growth Car Policy

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Chairman, Sir, the move in October last year to remove the car and motorcycle growth rate factor from the supply formula that has been in place since 1990 is a signature transport policy development of this Government.

The previous Transport Minister, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, had indicated that some growth in car numbers was required to meet the aspirational needs of car-owing Singaporeans. This position has now changed. In line with the Government’s move towards a car-lite Singapore and the newly implemented zero-growth car and motorcycle policy, these changes have also provided new opportunities to review fundamental assumptions, beliefs and policies towards vehicle ownership in Singapore.

Decades ago, Mr Lee Kuan Yew revealed that Singapore’s water security made every other policy bend at the knee. Today, raising the TFR is important, if not critical for Singapore. To this end, is there scope to significantly tweak the COE system to support families with two or more Singaporean children with rebates, for example? Smaller families have added mobility needs that are particularly acute when children are young – from birth to around 12-16 years of age. No doubt, there are some families with young children who may not need a car. But each family’s circumstances can be very different.

The Government has tried to raise TFR by offering a slew of incentives. However, the zero car-growth policy which kicked in last month also provides opportunities to review the current COE system and to assess how it can be updated to support other national objectives such as population replacement. Would the Ministry look into this prospect to support families with young children in particular?

In parallel, COE growth for motorcycles has also been frozen. However, many Singaporeans who own motorcycles are our low-income citizens, some of whom also use motorcycles for business. For example, couriers and delivery personnel. In light of a zero-growth policy for motorcycles as well, would the Ministry explore a cap on the maximum bidding price of a motorcycle COE, particularly if it is to be used to own a Class 2B motorcycle?

The Chairman: Mr Melvin Yong. You have six minutes, you have two cuts.

Public Bus Contracting

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Chairman. First, I declare my interest as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union.

The introduction of the Bus Contracting Model (BCM) has transformed our public bus industry and professionalised the job of bus captains. BCM has benefitted bus captains tremendously, as they now earn salaries that are almost equal to the national median wage, and enjoy better benefits and working conditions. New bus depots and interchanges are now designed with the welfare of our bus captains and station staff in mind, and these are very much appreciated by our bus workers.

Mr Chairman, BCM did not just benefit bus captains. It has benefitted commuters too. The PTC’s latest survey on commuter satisfaction has shown that a record 96.7% of commuters are happy with our public bus services. Under BCM, public bus operators are incentivised for good service reliability and reduced bus bunching. Can MOT provide an update on the performance of the respective public bus operators? Have they met their KPIs under BCM? Are there any plans by LTA to further tighten these KPIs? How much incentives have been paid out to the operators since the introduction of BCM?

I ask because ultimately, the ones who are tasked to fulfil these KPIs are our bus captains. With BCM, our bus captains have had to adapt to new performance indicators – and this has added new pressure to an already challenging job. Fatigue can occur in all industries but numerous studies have focused its effects on shift workers and drivers, and our bus captains are both shift workers and drivers. The union hopes to have the support of LTA and our public bus operators to conduct a joint fatigue study of our bus captains. This would allow us to identify stress points and work together on early interventions.

Another key reason behind the high commuter satisfaction in bus services can be attributed to the Bus Service Enhancement Programme, which saw the injection of 1,000 new buses over the past two years. However, the existing bus depots and interchanges, especially the older ones, were not designed to accommodate the increased number of buses. Can MOT provide an update on the plans for new depots and interchanges, and if there are any plans to upgrade existing ones? I do hope that LTA will continue to work with the union to factor in worker-centric designs when building new bus facilities or upgrading the old ones.

To drive these new buses, the operators hired hundreds of new bus captains who are trained at the Singapore Bus Academy. Can MOT share the number of locals who have joined the industry as bus captains after the introduction of BCM?

6.45 pm

Since its inception, the Academy’s focus has been on foundational courses for new bus captains. With the conclusion of BSEP, it is unlikely that we would see a large influx of new bus captains in the coming years. With the recent launch of the Land Transport Industry Transformation Map (ITM) and the risk of displacement from autonomous vehicles, it is timely that we now cast an eye to the future of the industry. Are there any plans by the Academy to develop new training programmes focused on up-skilling existing bus captains? The National Transport Workers’ Union stands ready to work with our tripartite partners to co-develop programmes to future-proof our bus workers.

Rail Maintenance

Our MRT system sees about 3.1 million rides a day, and maintaining a high standard of rail reliability is crucial to keep Singapore and Singaporeans moving. In the latest survey by the Public Transport Council (PTC), customer satisfaction in overall public transport dipped for the first time in four years, mainly due to major MRT incidents in 2017. It is imperative that we continue to improve rail reliability to regain the public’s trust in our rail system.

LTA had identified five major upgrading projects to overhaul our ageing MRT lines. These are multi-year projects which would extend to 2024. Can MOT provide an update on the respective major rail improvement projects?

Engineers from DSTA and LTA have recently been seconded to SMRT to bolster its rail reliability regime. With the major rail improvement projects on-going, and the construction of new rail lines such as the Thomson–East Coast Line, does MOT have plans to increase the number of rail engineers and maintenance staff to ensure rail reliability, both in the short and long term? Are there any plans to work with our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning to ensure that we have enough rail engineers for the future?

To facilitate the rail upgrading works and allow for longer maintenance hours, we have implemented shortened train operating hours on stipulated days. This has benefitted our rail engineers and maintenance staff. Can MOT provide an update on the effectiveness of the Early Closure and Late Opening (ECLO) on rail maintenance work? Would ECLO become a permanent feature in our rail operations moving forward? To accommodate ECLO with minimal disruption to the public transport services, public bus drivers have been redeployed to operate shuttle services during ECLO periods. Are there any plans to hire more bus drivers for such shuttle services?

The Chairman: Miss Cheng, two minutes for both your cuts.

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): With the recent announcement of North East Line, Sengkang and Punggol LRTs to move on to the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF) on 1 April 2018, LTA has successfully completed the transition of all MRT and LRT lines to NRFF.

Under NRFF, LTA will be the owner of all rail operating assets which allows LTA to build up, replace and upgrade the assets in a timely manner. In return, the rail operators can then focus on providing reliable and well-maintained rail services for commuters.

This framework has distinctly segregated the roles and responsibilities of the Government and the rail operators into (i) asset renewal and (ii) operation and maintenance. However, given that there were past incidents of rail operators’ negligence in carrying out maintenance works, this leads to a question on whether there are existing provisions to ensure that rail operators will always remain committed in maintaining and investing in the rail network.

Public Transport Subsidy

Under today’s fare review framework, the allowable public transport fare adjustment is based on a formula that is pegged to macroeconomic factors such as core Consumer Price Index, Wage Index and Energy Index, which track inflationary price changes.

For the last few years, we have seen significant expansion in the capacity of our public transport network through the introduction of more new buses and trains, bus services and rail lines. However, the additional operating costs were clearly not captured in our current fare formula setup. As a result, operating costs have increased drastically while fares have lagged behind for the last few years. This needs to be urgently addressed for a more sustainable public transport system and to prevent increasing burden on taxpayers.

Given that operating costs have increased drastically, it is surprising to see the Public Transport Council (PTC) has granted three consecutive fare decreases. With regard to this, I would like to understand why fare decreases were granted, despite significant operating cost increases for the last three years?

The Chairman: Ms Low Yen Ling, nine minutes. Not present. Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mode Share and Autonomous Vehicles

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, in 2013, the Land Transport Masterplan visualised a people-centred land transport system by 2030 and to have 75% of all peak-hour journeys to be made on public transport. Are we on track to meet this target as at 2017? Will the Ministry be able to give a breakdown of the mode share distribution of our train, bus, taxi and private hire cars in 2017?

What is the likely breakdown by the different public transportation mode come 2030? The Transport Minister also recently unveiled the Land Transport Industry Transformation Map (ITM) where we will leverage emerging technologies to deliver a transport system that is safe, efficient, reliable and comfortable for commuters. One such technology is autonomous vehicle (AV) which has great potential to change the way we commute.

We started AV trials back in 2015. Is the Ministry able to assess what is the estimated share by AV, come 2030? With the implementation of AV and with possible larger presence by 2030, what are the number of workers who may be potentially displaced? What are the targeted and transition measures to help those at risk?

I would like to declare my interest as the Advisor to the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicle Association.

Currently, we have approximately about 70,000 active drivers. To help them cope with potential disruption by AV, I have two suggestions.

Firstly, for those who have yet to enter this industry but are contemplating to do so, can we provide them with information about the career option and potential risk involved? This serves to help them make an informed decision and what to expect before joining this sector, and not hastily change job to become a chauffeur-ride service driver.

Secondly, can we help existing drivers, especially the older ones, equip them with digital skills and learn to be tech-savvy, to help them be more resourceful, and to do their job more efficiently?

I hope that the LTA will work quickly with the industry partners, stakeholders and the union to cater enough lead time to help taxi and private hire drivers, who are likely to be impacted, to acquire new vocational skills to transit into a new sector or a new role within the land transport industry.

Autonomous Vehicles

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye: Mr Chairman, the transport landscape of today is one characterised by innovation and disruption. The recent years have seen the introduction of private-hire vehicles and bicycle-sharing, both of which have disrupted the sector considerably. In the not-too-distant future, Autonomous Vehicle (AV) technology is set to do the same. In the past two years, the LTA has initiated several AV trials with various companies. I would like to ask the Ministry to provide an update on the status of these trials.

The Ministry had also earlier announced plans to introduce the pilot deployment of autonomous buses in 2022 at Punggol, Tengah and Jurong Innovation District. How ready are we to implement AVs by 2022? Do we have the required infrastructure and the trained workforce? Will we have the necessary legislative framework to deal with an accident involving an AV?

Singapore is not alone in the "race" to develop and deploy AVs. Has the Ministry done any studies on the development and use of AVs in other countries? What are the experiences and challenges faced by cities which have similarly embarked on AVs?

With AVs, individuals who depend on driving as a livelihood will be affected. Bus captains and taxi drivers, including private hire vehicle drivers, will be displaced by driverless technology. Many of them do not have much working experience outside of driving. How can we ensure a proper and smooth transition for these drivers?

Investments in Transport Infrastructure

Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast): Mr Chairman, Mercer Consulting, which ranked Singapore as having the Highest Quality of Living 2017 has this to say about Singapore: "Singapore’s highly efficient and super-fast public transport is world-famous. Residents use the mass rapid train (MRT) system. The MRT has 106 stations and is the second-oldest metro system in Southeast Asia".

Train to a city is like an elevator to a skyscraper. It connects people and ideas. It joins discrete spaces and make them valuable. Good transport infrastructure drives economic competitiveness.

International recognition notwithstanding, we cannot rest on our laurels. Our plans for the future are firmly in place: Thomson-East Coast Line, Circle Line 6 and North East Line extension. In addition, we are starting to plan for two more new rail lines – the Cross Island Line (CRL) and the Jurong Region Line (JRL).

Besides rail infrastructure, we have also improved bus connectivity. Earlier on, the Government has invested S$1.1billion in 1,000 new buses under the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP). The Government is also building a $3.2 billion rail-and-bus depot at Tanah Merah to support three converging MRT lines: East-West, Downtown and Thomson-East Coast line.

At the national level, we have big plans for Changi T5 and the Mega Port in Tuas, which will cost tens of billions of dollars to complete.

With MOT investing heavily into these transport infrastructure, would the Ministry consider using investments to catalyse the industry development in transport technologies? Does the Ministry foresee our private and public sector building new industry capabilities in engineering, design and system integration along the way?

How does the Ministry plan to co-develop the various technologies with the private sector in support of Smart Mobility 2030 vision? How would the Ministry encourage Singapore entities to capture the intellectual property created, so that we can monetise them and invest in our future?

Does MOT see the need to champion R&D activities in intelligent transport technology? Would the Ministry consider organising more conferences to showcase future transport technologies and advanced prototypes in support of a smarter transport workforce and population?

Funding Changi Airport Terminal 5

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, recently, Changi Airport announced that it is expected to charge travellers and airlines more to fund the Changi East Project, which includes the new Terminal 5.

On 28 February, the MOT and the CAAS announced that the travellers flying out of Changi Airport will have to pay $13.30 more from 1 July due to an increase in passenger fees, and a new levy to fund the Changi East Project. A bulk of this $10.80 comes from the airport development levy.

While the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has expressed its disagreement with the move, other airports including Hong Kong, Dubai and Qatat have also done the same for expansion projects.

However, the Incheon Airport, expansion was done without having to raise charges. Therefore, this raises the question of whether it is possible to optimise out expenditure on the new airport, while still keeping to the required international standards and expectations of Changi.

If we do have to increase passenger fees, can we not do it in a differentiated way whereby long-haul passengers end up paying more than regional passengers? That way, we do not have to lose our competitiveness as a regional hub.

The impending demise of the A380 fleet that has previously heralded the long-haul "Hub-and-Spoke" model of air travel is under threat. So, perhaps. Changi Airport should focus more on consolidating its position as a regional hub.

The Changi East Project is expected to also require funding out of the Government Budget for several years. According to MOT and CAAS, the Government will cover the bulk of the project cost and has already contributed about $9 billion to it. Though the agencies have ruled out borrowing to financial burden of the project, so as to help balance the future burden on taxpayers.

With these updates, it will be useful for the Ministry to update us on the projected costs of the new Terminal 5 and how much more of these costs will come from Government coffers.

In addition, can the Ministry also update us on what alternative means of funding it plans to undertake? Will the Ministry consider raising funds or bonds in the private market? Why is the Government funding a major part of the expenditure, rather than leave it to Temasek Holdings to fund it from the private market?

In conclusion, I would like to ask the Government to consider all options, sothat we do not lose our competitiveness, and also we do not overly burden our taxpayers with this expansion. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Use of Drones

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Drones are popular for recreation and work purposes. The former provides an exciting opportunity for amateurs to take pictures from a bird's eye view while the latter provides new business opportunities. However, CAAS has imposed many rules and restrictions to make it quite impossible for drones to take off, thereby limiting many exciting opportunities. To this end, I am glad that MOT has designated one-north as the first drone estate.

7.00 pm

I have two suggestions for MOT to consider. Firstly, can the boundary of the "drone estate" be extended to include the National University of Singapore and Science Park one and two? This would encourage the use of drones for research and development in these tertiary and research institutions. Secondly, I hope that MOT could allow amateur drone enthusiasts to practice, play and experiment with their drones in the drone estate. This would help to promote interest in drones in a safe and controlled environment, and may be one day, we can produce the "Bill Gates of drones".

Worldwide, people are coming up with new ways in which drones can be used. In the UK, drones inspect bridges for safety, saving thousands of pounds. UPS has started using drones for residential deliveries. BT has been experimenting with using drones to provide temporary internet coverage to battlefields, disaster zones and hard-to-reach areas. Even drone taxis which can carry passengers are in the works.

Third-party Ride Booking Apps

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, the advent of third-party ride booking apps has transformed our chauffeured ride services and the way many of us travel.

When I previously sought for LTA to regulate the third-party ride booking apps operators, the LTA has selected a light-touch approach.

As the popularity of private hire car services grow, they are fast becoming a major part of our public transport landscape. Recent alliances forged between the two key players, Grab and Uber, together with the taxi operators, have further established their market dominance.

I feel that it is timely for the LTA to assess if there is a need to strengthen the regulatory control and safeguard the interests of consumers and the drivers. Once an operator establishes a dominant market position, commuters may potentially have to bear with higher costs when they are left with limited choices. Drivers, on the other hand, may be compelled to follow any terms and conditions set by the operators or risk losing their livelihood.

Information such as safety and condition of their vehicles fleet should also be submitted to the LTA to enhance road worthiness and also to provide protection to personal data of commuters and drivers. Whilst commuters now have more choices, the ride service industry may not be able to sustain and will become an issue if costs suddenly rise suddenly and there are too many drivers chasing after a finite number of commuters.

It may be worth considering limiting the number of private hire and taxi vehicles on the roads, as well as the number of new full time drivers and new entrants. We must avoid an over-supply situation and a "churn" mentality among the operators if the numbers are not managed.

Currently, taxi fleet is subjected to an annual growth rate if they meet the Taxi Availability indicators. Perhaps we can adopt a similar approach for private hire vehicles. At the end of the day, we want to encourage fair competition, and I urge that the LTA review our regulatory approach so that drivers and commuters' interests may be safeguarded.

Safety in the Straits of Singapore

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer.

The Straits of Singapore is one of the busiest waterways in the world. 84,000 vessels passed through the Straits in 2016. Between 2007 and 2017, there has been an average of nine collisions, nine sinkings, 30 groundings and 71 contact incidents reported within our port limits and the Straits of Singapore per year. This translates to about one reported maritime casualty every three days. This figure does not include major incidents involving loss of lives, pollution or navigational safety.

I am concerned whether the regularity of such incidents will lead some industry players to regard Singapore as an unsafe port thereby affecting our port's reputation. Is the Government taking any measures to enhance safety and reduce the number of maritime casualties? To improve navigational safety for all vessels, I would like to propose three changes for the current Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) in operation in the Singapore Strait.

One, ban crossings over the TSS for ships leaving or intending to enter the Port of Singapore from or to the Straits. Vessels should be required to make U-turns at either ends of the TSS at (i) South of East Johor Straits and (ii) South of Tuas to access the desired directional lane of the TSS or to enter our port waters or anchorages. Without ships cutting across the two directional lanes of the TSS, traffic flow and safety will be enhanced.

Two, review the locations of pilot stations around our port waters or consider reducing its numbers to minimise the risk of ships drifting while lying in or near the TSS awaiting pilot boarding.

Three, require all ships to install and switch on their AIS system while transiting the Singapore Strait. Such vessels should include wooden ships as well as naval and other government vessels; some of which may not currently be doing so.

AIS helps to identify a ship's call-sign, speed and course of vessel which will assist navigators in all ships in the vicinity to avoid collisions. Naval vessels often do not switch on their AIS. But in the interest of the safety of the many vessels passing by this busy waterway every day, there is a case to reconsider this.

Had the destroyer USS John S McCain switched on her AIS in August 2017 when she was near Pedra Banca, it might well have assisted the oil tanker, Alnic MC, to be better able to spot the McCain and take better measures to avoid collision or minimise the damage suffered which included injuries and loss of 10 lives.

The TSS is like a busy highway. If military vehicles using a busy highway are expected to follow all road safety rules, why should naval vessels be any different? Congestion at the TSS or anchorages increases the risk of casualties. The consequences of any oil pollution resulting from a maritime casualty can be even more damaging. We should strive to enhance the safety of the Straits and minimise the risk of any casualties.

We may have to initiate discussions at the International Maritime Organzation level for some of the measures I have suggested. But it will be worthwhile doing this in the interest of safety of lives at sea and the reputation of our port.

Challenges in the Maritime Sector

Mr Ang Hin Kee: Singapore's position as the leading port in the world has been constantly challenged by the rise of China and rapid developments in China. For instance, Shanghai port is far busier than Singapore's port. China is also making aggressive moves to build ports in South East Asia under its Belt and Road Initiative to reshape trade across Asia.

China is planning to build a 873-kilometre high-speed rail linking China directly to Thailand's port, and plans are in the pipeline to build a 135 kilometre Kra canal across southern Thailand which would allow ships to bypass the Strait of Malacca in Singapore.

In Malaysia, China is funding the construction of East Coast Rail Line (ECRL) under its Belt and Road initiative. In addition, Port Klang Authority has announced to build a S$64 billion giant port in Pulau Carey. The ECRL will connect ports on the east and west coasts of Peninsular Malaysia and that may alter the current regional trade routes, which ply between the busy Straits of Malacca, passing by Singapore before reaching the South China Sea.

How is the Government working with PSA to fight such fierce competition fuelled by the Belt and Road initiative so that the new Tuas mega port will be our competitive advantage, rather than a white elephant? How could Government consolidate our position, renew our strategies and innovate, taking advantage of digital and other emerging technologies? Are the existing maritime workers and companies prepared for possible technological disruption? How will the Government help local maritime companies adapt and take advantage of the digital transformation?

Regulation of Bicycle-sharing Operators

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, shared bicycles serve a useful function in providing the last mile connection for residents to the nearest transport hub. Thus, a resident who does not live near a bus stop or an MRT station can now pick a bicycle near his home and ride to the nearest bus stop or MRT station and thereafter continue with his journey via the public transport.

Unfortunately, despite the convenience, the lack of infra-structure planning by the Bicycle Sharing Operators (BSO) has resulted in much public unhappiness about the bicycle sharing scheme. During my dialogues with residents of the private estates, I received so many complaints about bicycles that are parked in a haphazard manner and which obstruct others. Residents complain about bicycles which are left just outside their homes; bicycles left outside the gate of the condo; bicycles strewn on the middle of the footpath, left at HDB void decks, by the grass verge and so on. When I drive, I can even see bicycles lying by the slip road next to expressways and I wonder where was the cyclist going to in the middle of the expressway?

The general unhappiness seems to be the lack of proper parking places for the bicycles and the indiscriminate and inconsiderate dumping of bicycles. So, I am glad that LTA has taken the feedback of many Members of Parliament at the last sitting and introduced the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill yesterday.

I understand that the bill will require Bicycle Sharing Operators to provide proper parking places for their bicycles. This is akin to bicycle rental stations in other countries where there is a fixed spot to rent a bicycle. Pending the Second Reading of the Bill, may I ask Minister how does LTA intend to ensure that there are adequate parking places for the shared bicycles? The current advantage of the current bicycle sharing scheme is the ability to find a bicycle almost anywhere as compared to the systems in Europe, Taiwan and other countries where cyclists must walk to a bicycle rental station to rent a bicycle.

So, if a rider wishes to pick a bicycle from outside his home and ride to the nearest bus stop or MRT station, how will the Bicycle Sharing Operators (BSOs) provide adequate parking places? Will it be that they will provide parking place for the bicycles next to the condo, next to the bus stop or next to the MRT station? If there are insufficient parking places, does this mean that the riders may still dump their bicycles all over the footpath or by the roadside? Just look at the photographs in The Straits Times today, showing the bicycles are strewn all over the place.

Who shall be responsible for the costs of providing the parking places? In my view, the responsibility of providing the parking places or say, drawing yellow boxes should lie with the BSOs, as they profit from the letting of bicycles. There is no compelling reason why the Government should be put to expense for providing parking places or for drawing yellow boxes for parking of rented bicycles.

In the event that the bicycles are not parked within the designated parking places or the yellow boxes, BSOs should continue charging the hirer of the bicycle until the bicycle is parked within the designated parking place. This will ensure the hirer has an incentive to park the bicycle properly. Further, if the hirer of the bicycle dumps the bicycle in an indiscriminate manner, or obstruct others, I would urge LTA to work with the BSO to identify the hirer and thereafter prosecute the hirer for illegal dumping of bicycles.

Judging by the unhappiness raised by members of the public, I urge LTA to implement the new regulations to curb the illegal and inconsiderate parking of bicycles quickly. This is a time to show that the Government is responsive to feedback on a matter which has adversely affected many residents.

Car-lite Singapore

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, we are moving rapidly towards a car-lite Singapore. It appears that in our rush to accommodate bicycles and PMDs, we have somewhat sacrificed the safety of pedestrians. I often hear feedback about cyclists committing hit-and-run. I have said it before and I will say it again – without licensing and plating of bikes and PMDs, we cannot identify the culprits. Glad to hear that the Active Mobility Advisory Panel has recommended registration for e-scooters. I hope LTA adopts this promptly and considers widening registration to all motorised PMDs except wheelchairs. Enforcement also needs to be stepped up.

Besides the mindset of our bicycle and PMD users, infrastructure plays a role. When I went to Copenhagen, I saw dedicated cycling lanes parallel to the roads. They are often on both sides of the road, so cyclists only move in one direction following the flow of traffic. The Copenhagen way also enables cyclists to go quite fast, making cycling a more attractive option. There are proper stop signs and zebra crossings where the cycling lane intersects with footpath. And they follow the rules.

In Singapore, we seem very resistant to provide such crossings. I have been asking for such a crossing at the exit of Naval Base Primary where residents have often expressed the concern of their children the moment they step out of school gate. So far, I have not been successful. I do not know why. We have on-road cycling lanes on Tanah Merah Coast Road.

Can the Minister share the results from such infrastructure and will more be built? If not, then in many places, pavements need to be widened and segmented. Is there a plan to do this fast?

Another area we should look into quickly, and I stress, quickly, is the eye-sore caused by bike-sharing schemes. The bikes are indiscriminately strewn just about anywhere. I feel that a penalty should be imposed on the users and bike companies for such acts. I have been told that a blind resident fell because his white cane got entangled among the pile of bicycles! You can imagine how painful it is! In areas where these bikes cause congestion like near MRT stations, perhaps mechanised parking system for bikes should be built and paid for by the bike companies.

7.15 pm

A word of caution, some bike-sharing companies have already gone bust overseas, leaving their bikes all over the place.

Given that most of these companies are headquartered overseas, perhaps LTA should impose a deposit on them, to manage such a scenario without using too much of public funds. These bike companies should be licensed, and all these undesired outcomes should be addressed before licences are issued.

I have even heard of people giving up their daily walks because they are scared of bikes and PMDs. For these pedestrians, the dream of car-lite Singapore has become a nightmare. I hope we get our infrastructure, regulations and mindsets right, so car-lite Singapore will be realised, not as a nightmare but as a beautiful dream.

Regulating Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and Shared Bicycles

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Chairman, Sir, with better free access and more linkways built, we find more personal mobility devices (PMDs) and bicycles being used on our pedestrian walkways. However, the width of these walkways have now increased and pedestrians are annoyed at the inconsiderate use of bicycles or PMDs which speed past them or ring the bells at them when overtaking, as Member Lee Bee Wah has just mentioned earlier. There have also been many instances where these have resulted in close brushes or accidental hits on pedestrians as they try to speed past the morning or evening crowd.

While the LTA has promoted the use of PMDs and bicycles in our towns, the expansion of walkways and bicycle-ready pathways have not progressed as quickly. When we have them, we must make the bicycles and PMDs use them and restrict the use of normal pedestrian walkways when the alternative is available.

Some residents have also expressed concern that the speed limit on PMDs may be fine for an open walkway but, perhaps, it is less safe for pedestrians on a narrow footpath with people try to get to and from work. Furthermore, the emergence of bicycle-sharing apps has compounded the issue of indiscriminate parking of shared bicycles as many choose to leave bicycles along walkways, shelters and almost anywhere near residential estates and town centres.

Sir, I welcome the introduction of the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill introduced yesterday which I hope will help address indiscriminate parking issues under the new licensing regime which will also control fleet sizes of shared bicycle providers and implement temporary ban of recalcitrant users who parked indiscriminate. I support LTA's car-lite strategy but it needs to do more to pre-empt issues by these alternative modes of transportation.

In addition, I would also say that infrastructure needs to be a priority, especially for heavily utilised pedestrian route in our estate.

Can the Ministry share with us its strategy to better balance pedestrians, cyclists and PMD user experience? Would the LTA re-work the specifications of all major pedestrian walkways to enable special lanes for PMDs and bicycles? In addition, can the LTA share the effectiveness of its education and enforcement efforts on inconsiderate users and accidents involving PMDs and bicycles with pedestrians?

As we move towards a car-lite society, it is important that we also pay attention to the alternative modes of transport and how they can support this vision.

Mr Chairman, as I have some time left, I would like to ask on behalf of my GRC colleagues Ms Low Yen Ling and residents of Gombak on whether the Ministry has any positive update on whether the opening of Hume MRT station will be a reality any time soon. It has been the longstanding wish of residents in Hume and, on behalf of the GRC, I think they also hope that the Ministry will consider opening the station.

The Chairman: Mr Png Eng Huat, you can take your three cuts.

Bicycle-sharing and Geofencing

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, bike sharing is not a new concept but the advent of mobile technologies has allowed bike sharing companies to go dockless. What is really new about dockless bike sharing is the proliferation of indiscriminate bike parking. These shared bicycles are usually parked haphazardly at void decks, footpaths, lift lobbies, stairways, and I saw two of them parked in the middle of Nicoll Highway yesterday.

The amount of fines collected from bike sharing operators for not clearing their illegally parked bicycles and number of bicycles impounded by LTA, as reported in the news last month, is probably just the tip of the iceberg, due to the lack of resources to monitor the indiscriminate parking and enforce the fine.

In last October, LTA had initiated an agreement with bike sharing companies to implement geofencing by end of 2017 to rein in indiscriminate parking by errant riders. I am not sure if geofencing for bike sharing is in operation already but from the looks of it, I doubt it is.

Geofencing will not solve the problem of indiscriminate bike parking. It just confined the problem to a designated area and the boundary is not even accurate. Geofencing may just turn into geo-dumping over time as the designated area would be flooded with shared bikes, causing severe congestion and safety concerns, especially for elderly residents.

Adding QR code to complement geofencing is an improvement but such codes can be easily copied with a camera and printer, and you will have a list of parking stations to scan on demand to end your trip even if you are not at the designated parking lot. If the authority is going to such length to implement QR code geofencing to ensure bicycles are properly parked within a designated area, why not just implement a docking station? A quick search on the internet for bike sharing services around the world shows that most existing operations in big cities like New York, Melbourne and Paris all come with docking stations.

While I do hope the proposed licensing framework would help to rein in indiscriminate bike parking, I am concerned that geo-dumping would be the next big headache for bike sharing services. Sir, it was reported that there are about 100,000 dockless shared bicycles out there. How many QR code geofencing stations will be required to effectively tackle the indiscriminate parking problem? I hope LTA can share more on this because dockless bike sharing has turned Singapore into one giant bicycle parking lot.

Personal Mobility Aid in an Ageing Society

My second cut. Sir, the proliferation of Personal Mobility Device (PMD) and Personal Mobility Aid (PMA) in our estates and footpaths is phenomenal.

PMD allows users, usually with no mobility issues, to zip from one place to another faster. Some owners of PMD even use them to piggyback their children from schools, bus stops or train stations. PMD basically saves time for the users.

PMA, on the other hand, allows our elderly Singaporeans to get out of their homes to eat, shop, or just watch the world go by. It allows them to continue to do the simple activities of community living, without which, they may be confined to their homes. In short, PMA allows our elderly citizens with mobility issues a quality of life,

I am seeing more PMA in my estate now. I am happy to see these elderly residents living independent lives. However, moving about in a PMA can be challenging on existing footpaths. PMA comes in all shapes and sizes. All of them are larger than PMD and they move a lot slower. The footpaths along the roads are certainly not PMA-friendly. I had seen some PMA moving precariously close to the edge of some busy footpaths and I was worried they may tip over.

The footpaths from the nearest bus stops, train stations, hawker centres, suburban malls, neighbourhood centres and so on, to the nearest HDB block or private estate need to be widened soon to accommodate these mobility aid.

I also urge LTA to do another round of initiative to mop up those remaining spots with barriers so that PMA users can have a smoother connection on our footpaths.

Last, I also hope LTA could initiate a whole-of-Government approach to accommodate PMA in our society, which in my view, has given our elderly a fresh breath of life in their sunset years.

Safer Signalised Junction

My third cut. Sir, I have spoken about making signalised junction safer in the Committee of Supply debate in 2013, and again in 2015.

Traffic lights are supposed to give all road users a sense of order, safety, and security. Our children are taught from young by their parents and in schools to wait for the green man signal to come on before they can cross the road. When the lights are in your favour, it must surely mean it is safe to cross. But as it turns out, this is not a given, depending on the traffic junctions you are at.

This presumption of safety is lost when signalised junctions are programmed with shared green time. Such junctions allow vehicles to turn when there are no pedestrians crossing during the green man phase. This, according to the Minister, is to ensure smoother traffic flow on our roads.

According to the Ministry, there were on average about three fatal accidents and 40 injury accidents per year at signalised junctions involving a pedestrian or cyclist and vehicles turning right during the green man phase. Although the Ministry did not have the breakdown of whether these accidents happened at what type of junctions, 90% of our signalised junctions are programmed with shared green time. I am sure there are many unreported near misses as well.

Last October, LTA was reported to be taking steps to make such signalised junctions safer after some pedestrians involving vehicles knocking down pedestrians who had the right of way came to light. There were two cases cited in the news, one of which was fatal. It was reported that the fatal accident happened at a signalised junction with shared green time.

Not only pedestrians are not protected at such junctions, they may also be assigned 15% blame as a Court of Appeal ruling in 2016 had shown, even though the lights were in their favour.

Sir, if green man signal at such junctions cannot guarantee safety for pedestrians, then the anomaly must be resolved. The president of the Automobile Association of Singapore was quoted to have said, “Overseas researchers have shown that pedestrians are better protected with the implementation of split-phase lights. Statistics have also shown that there is a larger decline in pedestrian incidents as well as multi-vehicle crashes when green man time is not shared”.

I truly believe that ensuring a smoother flow of traffic on our roads will not cultivate a road safety culture. Enforcing a little patience by doing away with shared green time at signalised junctions, on the other hand, will ensure road safety by default.

The Chairman: Miss Cheng, you can do your two cuts.

Bicycle-sharing

Miss Cheng Li Hui: It has been more than a year since bike-sharing firms started. Over the year, we have seen many cases of shared bikes indiscriminately parked. However, with the setting up of more designated bike parking zones near bus stops and drop-off points, this has improved. In anticipation of more bike-sharing companies setting up here and a larger bike fleet size from existing incumbents, it leads to a concern on whether there will be sufficient designated bike parking. Failure to provide a sufficient number of designated bike parking zones could worsen the situation. To address this concern of large influx in bikes but inadequate parking zones, authorities can consider imposing a cap on the number of bikes allowed under each bike-sharing firm.

PMDs

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last month, the Active Mobility Advisory Panel appointed by the Government suggested that electronic scooters be registered with the LTA, just like electronic bicycles.

Recently, there has been an increase in the number of accidents allegedly involving personal mobility devices (PMD). Between January and September last year, there were 110 such accidents, with an average of three accidents occurring every week.

PMDs, especially e-scooters, make it convenient for users to commute. However, when PMDs travel at high speed, they pose dangers to pedestrians. Some PMD users are also reckless and have little regard for the safety of other road users.

Nevertheless, I believe that most PMD users are responsible. They are therefore concerned that the registration process would be inconvenient and incur extra costs for them. I would like to ask the Minister to address the concerns of this group of PMD users.

The Chairman: Mr Ang Wei Neng, you can do both your cuts.

Mr Ang Wei Neng: Chairman, it is quite rare that both sides of the House are united on one issue. That is, speak up against the negative externalities of bike-sharing scheme and the use of PMD. And I want to add another step on this issue as well. During my house visits, a sizable number of residents have related horrific experiences with irresponsible PMD users. There were many near-misses and in some cases, there were injuries and the injuries were quite serious. In one case, one of my resident’s toes were fractured by a passing e-scooter in the Chinese Garden. The user of the e-scooter was in uniform and was wearing a big bag belonging to a food delivery company. There was CCTV in the area and these residents made a complaint to the company that provide food delivery, made a police report and also requested NParks for the CCTV images. But all his requests were ignored.

Sir, I do not think this is an isolated case. This could be a tip of the iceberg. As we promote the use of PMD, we can expect more of such incidents and I would like to urge MOT to work with the Police and related agencies to devise a framework to better regulate the use of PMD and consider setting up a dedicated unit to prosecute irresponsible PMD users. I think the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill also seeks to regulate e-scooters is a step in the right direction.

Walk2Ride Programme

The next cut. Sheltered walkways linking neighbourhoods to MRT stations and other transport nodes are well received by the residents. More are walking to the MRT station instead of taking shuttle service or feeder buses. However, many residents feel that certain shelters built by LTA are under-utilised. On the contrary, other paths leading to transport nodes are well-used by residents but do not have shelter despite repeated requests by the residents. LTA's reluctance to build the shelter because it is slightly out of scope based on its internal guidelines.

Another example of inflexibility is with regards to the choice of passenger overhead bridges (POBs) where LTA chooses to build a passenger lift.

In Jurong, LTA has decided to build a lift at the POB nearest to the Chinese Garden MRT station, although that bridge itself is under-utilised as compared to another POB that is slightly further away. The bridge that is further away is very well utilized because it is connected to a town centre.

7.30 pm

For this case, I hope LTA could consider installing a lift at the POB that is more popular with the residents. More importantly, I hope LTA can make an effort to consult more with the residents and the community before deciding which POB to build the lift. And when it adds more sheltered walkways, they should also consult the residents more.

The Chairman: Mr Yee Chia Hsing, take both your cuts together.

Indiscriminate Parking of Bicycles

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, many residents have complained to me that users of bike-sharing services parking their bicycles in an indiscriminate manner after using them.

Sir, as fellow Members have voiced similar concerns and it is past 7.30 pm, I will not repeat what has already been said. I would like to ask MOT what is being done to address the disamenities caused by these users of bike-sharing services. Next cut.

Accidents Caused by E-scooters

Chairman, I have received a lot of feedback both from residents and personal friends that they know of people who have knocked down by e-scooter users on pedestrian footpaths. Usually such e-scooter users are young and do not stop to render any assistance and just speed off.

I would like to know if the Ministry is aware of this problem and how it intends to address it. In particular, may I suggest that the current speed limit of 25 km/h for e-scooters approved for import be further reduced to 20 km/h to reduce the potential for serious injury?

Safe Use of PMDs and Bicycles

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The introduction of the Active Mobility Act last year brought new laws over the use of PMDs and electric bicycles. However, inconsiderate or reckless usage of e-scooters and its illegal use on roads have continued. Many elderly folks are terrified of sharing walkways with them.

Although electric bikes are now required to be registered and only pre-approved models are allowed to be used and riders are required to wear helmets, we still see illegal or unregistered e-bikes on the road and e-bike riders not using helmets.

Enforcement efforts by the authorities have stepped up last year. We read of publicity of e-scooters being impounded for illegal use on roads or illegal e-bikes being impounded. We see many banners hung on street lamps highlighting the PMD ban on roads.

To be fair, the increase in enforcement against errant e-scooter users is a step in the right direction. If insufficient efforts are rendered at this stage, we will have a long term problem of illegal, reckless and inconsiderate usage. A poor riding culture will perpetuate.

Our cycling culture is a case in point. In my speech during the Second Reading of the Active Mobility Bill, I highlighted the legacy of the lack of enforcement against errant cyclists. Today, we can still see cyclists riding against the traffic or not stopping at red lights on a daily basis. Inconsistent enforcement between errant cyclists and PMD users raises questions of selective enforcement.

Timely and consistent enforcement is important as it sets the boundaries for human behaviour. But law alone is insufficient. We need to create the right culture. In developed countries like Netherlands and the UK, cyclists comply with cycling rules not because they fear a fine but they grew up learning how to put on the right behaviour.

We have a problem with our riding culture here, first with cycling, then with e-bikes and now with PMDs. The lack of political will for enforcement and to create a right cycling culture in our earlier years has made it much harder for us now. In the past year, the problem has been compounded by the popularity of bike sharing.

Enforcement alone without education is insufficient to change our riding culture. I support our current public education efforts. But we can do more as much of the existing efforts are voluntary, not prescriptive and their reach is limited even if targeted at certain classes of cyclists.

I shared with this House previously that as a university student in England, I cycled on a pavement once and got roundly told off by an old lady. As a pedestrian, the old lady was familiar with the rules even if she might not be a cyclist, and she spoke up.

I urge the Government to try and reset our riding culture by having a structured compulsory course in our schools for the legal, safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs. The next generation will grow up knowing what is right and acceptable

The course should cover all basic rules and etiquette governing the use of bicycles, electric bikes and PMDs. Basic road traffic rules applicable to cyclists, PMD users and pedestrians should also be taught. This course can be split up over different age groups over time. For example, start with an introductory course for pre-schoolers and have subsequent courses in early and late Primary school levels. If a young child can learn to keep left on a skate scooter while riding along the footpath in the park or slow down and give way to an elderly auntie passing by, over time, it will help to engender the right cycling culture in the long run.

Meantime, please step up on our existing public education efforts for all age groups: more banners, posters, exhibitions or even a campaign on social media and television. Do this for all types, not just PMDs. When everyone knows the rights and wrongs, more people will refrain from wrongful or inconsiderate usage.

The Active Mobility Advisory Panel has recommended the registration of e-scooters. It may help to identify users and facilitate enforcement and hence better accountability. However, it alone will not resolve existing problems with our riding culture.

In conclusion, may I implore the Government to work towards creating a culture of legal, safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs?

Enforcing Safe Cycling and Use of PMDs

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, clear and strict rules govern driving and more can be done to improve driving behaviour. At the same time, we should re-consider the regulations guiding the use of bicycles and PMDs as well as the enforcement of those rules. In particular, Sir, we should examine if the interaction of cyclists and PMD users with other road users is a cause for concern.

I have witnessed groups of cyclists cycling on pavements as well as against the flow of traffic, sometimes alternating between the two. I have also seen PMD users on roads regularly. Drivers often give way to these two groups of users. However, pedestrians often have to avoid them. Often, cyclists and PMD users appear very suddenly and seem incapable or unwilling to brake in time.

Some of our pavements are clearly unsuitable for PMD and cyclist use. When such users navigate narrow pathways, they often switch between the road and pavement. When users of bicycles and PMDs do not appear to follow traffic rules for either vehicles or pedestrians and switch between the roads and pavements at high speed, other road users are at least inconvenienced, at worst endangered.

I would like to ask the following questions. What are the definitions of dangerous use of bicycles and PMDs that the Ministry bases enforcement on? Are there rules that determine whether a cyclist or PMD rider who switches from roads to pedestrian walk has right of way against pedestrians? What are the rules or guidelines for groups of riders on pedestrian walks or pavements? What are the rules governing use of electronic devices by cyclists and PMD riders? Finally, I have begun to see adults ferrying young children on PMDs these days, and I am wondering whether the Ministry takes account of such developing trends rather than allow them to occur.

I urge the Ministry to explore forward-looking approaches to addressing what is the appropriate way to share use of our public spaces.

The move towards to a car-lite society cannot be used to justify indiscriminate use of alternatives. If there are clearer rules for responsible cycling and use of PMDs, it will encourage healthier lifestyles by everyone, including those who do not cycle and use PMDs but still prefer to have a safe stroll on our pedestrian walks. We are all road users, pedestrians or cyclists. Why is the minority allowed to define the low standards of public behaviour we witness so regularly these days?

Concerns on Accidents Involving PMDs

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Chairman, in 2016, the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) had recommended rules and code of conduct for cyclists and PMD users. Since then, usage of active mobility devices has taken off and we have seen an increasing incidence of accidents involving PMDs and pedestrians. Will AMAP be reviewing its earlier recommendations in order to tighten the approach towards active mobility device usage? And, if so, when will the review be completed? Apart from rules and code of conduct, will AMAP also be reviewing the insurance and compensation framework for active mobility device usage?

One possibility is to mandate the purchase of third-party liability insurance similar to that similar to that for all motor vehicles in order to compensate injured pedestrians and case of an accident. Another possibility is to set up a fund similar to that set up by the Motor Insurers Bureau for accident victims who are not protected by third-party insurance.

Bicycles and PMDs

Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Chairman, Sir, I join many of my colleagues who spoke before me about the proliferation of bicycles and PMDs. I am actually standing here to speak even though I have lost my voice because I promised my residents that I will speak for them. Many important points have already been highlighted by my colleagues including the nightmare that hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah shared. My residents too have nightmares with cyclists and PMDs. So, I would not repeat the long list of things that I intend to speak on. Instead, I would like to highlight to the Minister that the law and order for the co-habitation of PMD riders and cyclists with pedestrians and other road users have not kept up. I am very happy to see the announcement of the licensing regime for dockless shared bicycles under the Parking Places Act yesterday.

But what other measures can the Government take to facilitate a safer and more pleasant shared use of our public spaces between pedestrians and riders? And how can errant cyclists and PMD riders be dealt with promptly?

Silver Zone Programme

Mr Ang Hin Kee: Chairman, by 2030, the total number of elderly Singaporeans will increase to 900,000. The Silver Zone programme, started in 2014, is one good initiative. It involves introducing traffic calming measures and safety features to make the roads safer for senior citizens.

There will be 50 silver zones come 2023. To-date, eight silver zones spread across the island have been completed. I would like to enquire: has the programme been effective in reducing the number of accidents involving senior citizens? Can we speed up the projects' implementation so that more mature estates with a large number of elderly residents, such as Ang Mo Kio Town, can have safer roads for senior users? I have two hawker centres and markets in Cheng San Seletar and many elderly residents will benefit from early adoption of the silver zone in this area.