Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.08 pm

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, Professor 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

Page: 35

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.

Page: 36

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.

Question proposed.

3.18 pm

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

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 so co-operative.

Page: 37

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? Do the dropping of the leaves to the neighbour's house that may clog up drains, may cause mosquito breeding and may cause dengue or Zika − is this danger? Or the leaves fall to the neighbour's house cause the neighbour to have sleepless nights and subsequently have depression − is this danger? Since there are 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 told 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 felt scared 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 already.

( In English ): Mdm Speaker, these clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill. Thank you.

3.22 pm

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.

Page: 38

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". Now, there are two national parks, Fort Canning Park and the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Singapore Botanic Gardens, and 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

Page: 39

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 multi-racial 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.

Page: 40

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 Resident Committees, non-profit groups and even statutory boards? I hope the Senior Minister of State will clarify the intention of this amendment.

Now, 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.

3.32 pm

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, I have a few clarifications pertaining to the Bill.

Page: 41

Firstly, the focus and emphasis on marine parks, as it is relatively new in Singapore, is welcomed 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 has 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 road sides within residential areas and estates, can I check if there are regular timeline 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.

3.34 pm

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?

Page: 42

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 has 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

Page: 43

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 re-producing 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

Page: 44

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. Thank you, Madam.

3.43 pm

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!

Page: 45

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 reduced. 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 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

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 a 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?

Page: 46

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.

3.52 pm

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 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 is 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

Page: 47

A good example that illustrates this point is the recent 300 tonnes 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 of the proposed amendments 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 to eventually oversees 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 meters coming under the jurisdiction and management of various diverse agencies such as LTA, HDB, NParks and the Town Council.

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 few master contracts that cover the maintenance of plants and trees across the island.

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.

Page: 48

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: Debate resumed.

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 the 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.

Page: 49

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 regards 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 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 the Ministry of National Development, 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 (dBA), and then sometimes last 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 (dBA) should not exceed 15 minutes.

Page: 50

Mdm Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek. Mr Henry Kwek is not in the House. Mr Louis Ng.

4.24 pm

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 we 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 come 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 are 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?

Page: 51

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 in 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 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

Page: 52

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.

Page: 53

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 bring forth talent and character in people. Indeed, for those of us who have experience 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 regards. 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 pre-schools to at partake in, developed 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 in as fully-fledged digital natives, and emotionally disengaging with 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.

Page: 54

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 aesthetic. 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 schools 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 talk about funding for NParks. Over the last few years, I have gradually developed a deeper understanding on what NParks does. NParks continue to build more iconic park destinations, such as Gardens by the Bay, Palau Ubin and HortiPark. NParks continue to plant more trees as we build more housing estates, and many more trees in forested town like the upcoming Tengah town. NParks continue 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 allocating more funding to deliver 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

Page: 55

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 motion.

4.40 pm

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, the scope, the 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: Yes, please.

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.

Page: 56

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 said earlier in my speech and as I 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 these members are 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 Sister's Islands Marine Park, asking why it does not compass 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

Page: 57

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 or 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 the 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

Page: 58

And so 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 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 continued 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 and several Members spoke about this.

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 the National Environment Agency. But NParks does train workers to adhere to appropriate noise protection levels as required by the Workplace Safety and Health regime under MOM.

Page: 59

Assoc Prof Fatimah asked about the pruning schedules of trees. Trees are pruned regularly. The frequency varies according to location, the 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 explained in my PQ 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

Page: 60

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 and 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.

Page: 61

In Singapore, we are different. In other countries, the environment, the greenery and nature envelopes 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 envelopes our nature reserves, envelopes our nature parks, envelops our bio-diversity. And we have tremendous amount of bio-diversity 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 that is to be 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 bio-diversity. Not just keeping it away at arms' length through legislation and prohibitions, but to educate, to excite, to 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, we need to 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.

Page: 62

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 a 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, the 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 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: Er Dr Bee Wah, please keep your clarification short.

5.08 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like 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 I have a nursery in Bah Soon Pah which is in Nee Soon South. Thank you.

Mr Desmond Lee: Madam, 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: Assoc 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 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 be enshrined legislatively, in law, as a nature reserve in the future?

Page: 63

The second clarification is on scale. Are there plans to include the other Southern Islands into the marine park, especially if the marine bio-diversity improves precisely because of the existing gazetted marine park?

Mr Desmond Lee Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his suggestions on the scope of the protections. As I said earlier, we are but three years into managing a marine park. It involves protecting bio-diversity. It involves protecting different forms of habitats, both terrestrial, inter-tidal 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 bio-diversity.

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 bio-diversity. I think it is a tremendous signal in and of itself and I think 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.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [ Mr Desmond Lee ].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Page: 63

Order for Second Reading read.

5.15 pm

The Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Page: 64

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 the Ministry of Transport 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, 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, autonomous vehicles (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.

( In English ): Now, Mdm Speaker, let me 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.

Page: 65

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 the AVs on our general roads.

Clause 6 read with the amendments in clause 3(a), applies to motor vehicles with conditioner 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 autonomous vehicle 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 automated vehicle 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 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

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 the LTA, by the middle of the year.

Page: 66

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 licenses, 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.

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.

Page: 67

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.

Question proposed.

5.29 pm

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.

Page: 68

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 trials and use of autonomous vehicles; 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 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 followed, a month later, with another announcement of nuTonomy's partnership with Grab, one of South-East 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.

(a) Can we trust technology to make the best decision to protect the safety of passengers in autonomous vehicles?

(b) How will our infrastructure, roads and transportation networks, which rely primarily on human judgment and decision, assimilate the entrance of such autonomous vehicles?

(c) What are the legal implications and liability issues when such autonomous vehicles are involved in road traffic accidents?

I do, however, fully agree and appreciate Second Minister for Transport, 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. Autonomous vehicles, when realised, will bring much efficiency and convenience to Singaporeans. The potential benefits are clear for all to see.

Page: 69

Be that as it may, however, I hope that any eventual implementation of ground-breaking technology, such as autonomous vehicles, 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 The 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 is 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

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 transports 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.

Page: 70

5.38 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, 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 autonomous vehicle. 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 autonomous vehicles. 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

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 car, owners may be blaming the vehicle manufacturers and possibly even the suppliers of certain components for the vehicles, including software.

Page: 71

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

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 pertains 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 intend 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 raised will be considered in the proposed regulations.

Page: 72

I would also like to ask the Minister whether they Government has decided on the requirements for ownership and operation of autonomous vehicles. Would the new licensing for autonomous vehicles 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 autonomous vehicle licencing?

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 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. Thank you.

5.48 pm

Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member): Madam, in Mandarin.

Page: 73

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Transport 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 comment on the convenience of their services; but some have reacted negatively. Convenience lies in that people now have 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

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.

Page: 74

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.

5.55 pm

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 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 company did not have its operator licence renewed by the LTA. This was due to the fact

Consequently, its fleet of about 270 taxi drivers were 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 licenced to operate as public service vehicles.

Page: 75

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, the 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-offend" repeatedly and receives a suspension order a few times? Will the 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, 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 the 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 licencing 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 is 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: autonomous vehicles and also in relation to the automated vehicle technology; and classification of vehicles as stipulated by the amendment in clause 4.

Page: 76

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 autonomous vehicles. A decade ago, autonomous vehicles 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, autonomous vehicles 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.

The second question, should we not distinguish the difference between an autonomous vehicle and a driverless vehicle?

The third question, how do we ensure that the concerned autonomous vehicle 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 autonomous vehicle must always have an operator, that is, a person inside, even though if the vehicle is deemed and declared as autonomous vehicle certified?

Page: 77

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 autonomous vehicles 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.

Now, 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 meets the Euro-V requirements, can even be "cleaner" and environmentally-friendly than some petrol-powered motor vehicles. Thus, this advancement in the automobile industry should motivate us to make a regular self-

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.

6.09 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, the rising 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.

Page: 78

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 "Tran-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

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?

Page: 79

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 the 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 maybe 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.

6.16 pm

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, 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.

Page: 80

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 Minister Ng 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 the 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 in 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, 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.

Page: 81

Notwithstanding my comments, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

6.23 pm

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 Minister for the rationale behind this.

I also commend the timely and much-anticipated move to further regulate the private car hire 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

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.

Page: 82

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.

6.27 pm

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.

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 Chamber.

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.

Page: 83

The rest of the world has started moving on this. In June last year, a UK company has 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 autonomous vehicles, 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 expecting 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 autonomous vehicles 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.

Lastly, I would like to talk about preparing our transport workers for the disruption ahead.

Early estimates in the US shows that self-driving vehicles could cost US between four to five million jobs. In a noted study, Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne has worked that most workers in transportation and logistics will be deeply impacted.

For us in Singapore, it goes beyond taxis, Uber or Grab drivers. It could also impact our delivery workers, and even our transportation workers in the ports or the airports. How can we prepare our transportation workers for the road ahead? And more importantly, when should we start preparing our workers?

Page: 84

I am glad to hear that Minister Ng believes that it will take 10 to 15 years before autonomous vehicles 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 a systematic and deliberate way to help our transportation workers adjust to this brave new world.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, autonomous vehicles 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 autonomous vehicles. 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. Thank you.

6.33 pm

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 autonomous vehicles 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 autonomous vehicles world.

In the meantime, I have some questions regarding public safety − safety of the public from autonomous vehicles, and safety of commuters using private hire car and ride-sharing services.

First, let me speak on autonomous vehicles. 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 the Nanyang Technological University respectively. It is imperative that more research and development be done in the coming years to ensure that these vehicles are safe before we start using such autonomous vehicles in the public transport and logistics sectors. While the widespread use of autonomous vehicles may still be a

One of the proposed amendments in the Bill mandates that the company or individual who wishes to carry out autonomous vehicle trials purchases liability insurance, or places a corresponding deposit amount with the 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 autonomous vehicle, 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 autonomous vehicle hit a pedestrian or another vehicle? Would the person or persons in the autonomous vehicle at the time of the accident be liable? What happens if there is no one in the autonomous vehicle when the accident occurs?

Page: 85

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 autonomous vehicle technology becomes more reliable and trials expand beyond the current defined locations, we can feasibly expect to see autonomous vehicles being trialled on major thoroughfares, expressways and even possibly during peak hours. With the potential increase in autonomous vehicles on our roads, would autonomous vehicles 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.

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.

Page: 86