Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.45 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, this Bill is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill 2020 or the "Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill". With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on both Bills take place together. This will allow a holistic debate and enable Members to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I approve.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Deputy Speaker, the term "active mobility devices" refers to personal mobility devices (PMDs), power-assisted bicycles (PABs), bicycles and personal mobility aids (PMAs). Such active mobility devices and new business models for the sharing of these devices have changed the way Singaporeans commute. In 2017, the House passed the Active Mobility Act 2017, which allowed bicycles and PMDs to be used on public paths, including footpaths and cycling paths, and for PABs to be used on cycling paths.

The take-up rate of active mobility devices grew dramatically over the last three years. These devices provide a cheaper, cleaner and more convenient commuting option. But as the device population grew, there were concerns about whether our infrastructure and regulatory framework were adequate.

In November 2019, we reviewed our regulations and took the difficult but necessary step to ban e-scooters from footpaths. Since then, footpath accidents involving PMDs have reduced by 52% and sentiments towards public path safety have improved. The Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill 2020 gives effect to our earlier announced intention to extend the ban on footpaths to all motorised PMDs. With the amendments in this Bill, only non-motorised active mobility devices, such as bicycles and kick-scooters and personal mobility aids, will be allowed on footpaths. The exception for motorised personal mobility aids is for the benefit of those who have difficulty walking.

We recognise this connectivity loss for motorised PMD users and we are ramping up our cycling path infrastructure building plans, so that Singaporeans can continue to benefit from active mobility devices. We will announce more about these infrastructure plans during the Committee of Supply debate.

Collectively, these two Bills will help us to build a regulatory framework for a safer and sustainable active mobility landscape here in Singapore. The two Bills will give us powers to effectively regulate individual active mobility device users, retailers, businesses and device-sharing operators, all of whom have a role to play to ensure public path safety.

The rules and regulations governing user behaviour were developed in consultation with the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP). This body has representatives from seniors, youths, device users and grassroots leaders. AMAP also regularly consults other stakeholders. The Panel has made further recommendations to strengthen regulations on active mobility device users. We have studied them and announced that we will accept them. We will tighten the regulatory regime for device users in three ways.

First, we need to ensure that riders are mature enough and have a sufficient understanding of the rules to behave responsibly. This is especially important for riders of motorised active mobility devices, which have the potential to travel fast and cause great harm to others.

To improve awareness of the rules, regulations and expected safe-riding behaviours, we will require riders of certain active mobility devices – which we call “test-needed-to-drive vehicles” in the Bill – to pass a theory test before they are allowed to ride. We will start with e-scooter and PAB riders. Those who successfully complete the required tests will be issued a competency test certificate. It will be an offence to ride an e-scooter or a PAB on public paths without this competency test certificate. As PABs are also allowed to be used on the roads, PAB riders will similarly be required by Traffic Police to pass a theory test before they can ride on roads.

Active mobility devices are generally very easy to operate and so we are starting first with a theory test. This a calibrated approach to improve awareness of rules and regulations while managing the regulatory burden on device users. If necessary, LTA will have the flexibility to introduce other types of tests, such as practical riding tests, in the future. Under the new section 23G, even if riders have passed the earlier tests, LTA can also require them to take the new tests.

We will also introduce a minimum riding age for motorised PMDs, starting with e-scooter riders. As a general rule, persons under 16 years old will not be allowed to ride an e-scooter on cycling paths. While the Act prescribes both a possible fine and jail term if a rider commits this offence of underage riding, these are maximum penalties. Our Courts retain discretion in imposing punishment, having regard to the circumstances of the case and laws, such as the Penal Code and the Children and Young Persons Act.

The only exception to this underage riding provision is if the underage rider is riding under proper supervision by an appropriate supervisor, as recommended by AMAP. As a start, we will require the supervisor to be at least 21 years old. For example, if an adult wishes to supervise an underage rider to ride an e-scooter on a cycling path, the adult needs to take reasonable and practicable measures to ensure that the underage rider does not ride in a way dangerous to people or property and abides by the path riding rules as per Parts 3 and 3A of the Active Mobility Act. Failure to do so constitutes an offence. We will publish some guidelines to educate supervisors on how to properly supervise the underage rider.

Second, we will tackle distracted riding by tightening user behaviour requirements. Under the new section 22A, it will be an offence to ride or drive any active mobility device or vehicle on a public path while holding a mobile communication device and operating any of the communication device's functions. This is already the case today for motorists under the Road Traffic Act (RTA) and we will further extend the RTA to cover all vehicles used on roads, including bicycles. A person who is holding and using a mobile communication device may be distracted and may not have both hands on handlebars or steering wheels, both of which affect their ability to effectively control the device or vehicle when it is moving.

We will update and clarify provisions to take into account new technological developments in mobile communication devices, such as wearables. As a general rule, we will continue to allow such devices to be used, so long as the user is wearing the wearable device in accordance with the manufacturer's design while riding.

Third, we will put in place additional measures to ensure that users only use compliant active mobility devices on public paths. The current registration regime only requires e-scooter owners to declare that their devices are compliant. Through the new sections 35A, 35B and 35C of the Bill, we will introduce a mandatory inspection regime, starting with e-scooters. Riders will only be able to ride on public paths, e-scooters that have been inspected and certified to be compliant with the prescribed device criteria, such as those relating to weight, width, speed and UL2272 certification. LTA will be rostering e-scooters that are already registered and declared as UL2272-certified for inspections. LTA will also periodically call up certified and registered e-scooters for re-inspections every two years to ensure that they remain compliant and are not illegally modified.

We will also require active mobility device owners to take extra care to ensure that their devices are not illegally modified. If an owner had his or her device inspected and certified to be compliant, but the device was subsequently found to be non-compliant while in their ownership, the owner will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have either modified the device, or caused the device to be modified.

Most device users are largely law-abiding and ride responsibly. However, LTA's enforcement officers detected about 4,900 offences in 2019. This is not acceptable. To send a stronger deterrent message to this group, we will increase the maximum penalties for certain offences. We will generally double the penalties of key user behaviour offences. For example, the penalty for a first-time offender caught speeding on public paths will be doubled from $1,000 and/or three months' imprisonment to $2,000 and/or six months' imprisonment.

Apart from users, retailers must also behave responsibly when advertising and selling active mobility devices. In 2019, there were 28 instances where retailers were caught for various offences, including displaying and advertising non-compliant active mobility devices. We will tighten this regulatory regime for retailers in three ways.

First, to complement the mandatory inspection regime for e-scooter owners, we will also require retailers to send e-scooters for inspection to certify that they comply with the prescribed device criteria before they are allowed to register, display, advertise or sell these e-scooters. Such an arrangement will benefit consumers for an assurance that the e-scooter they purchase is compliant. We will retain the flexibility to extend this to other active mobility devices in future if necessary.

Second, we will strengthen LTA's ability to enforce against illegal modifications. Today, the controls over illegal modifications only cover modifications done to an active mobility device belonging to another person and done in the course of business. This means that an individual can circumvent these controls by claiming that he or she is modifying their own device, or is modifying the device as a friend for free. We will expand Part 4 of the AMA to cover all modification activities on active mobility devices that are allowed for use on public paths, whether or not undertaken in the course of business. This is because all illegally modified devices can pose public path safety and fire safety risks.

Third, errant retailers who sell non-compliant active mobility devices have a disproportionately large impact on public path safety. To send a strong deterrent message, we will significantly increase penalties for retailer offences. For example, the penalty for selling a non-compliant device for use on public paths will be increased by more than four times, from $5,000 and/or three months' imprisonment to $20,000 and/or 24 months' imprisonment, for a first-time offender who is an individual. We will also introduce higher fines for corporate entities that cannot be subject to imprisonment. Hence, for the offence of selling a non-compliant device for use on public paths, we will further double the fine to $40,000 for a first-time offender that is a corporate entity.

Businesses using active mobility devices on paths have a responsibility towards riders and members of the public in the course of their business. To provide victims greater recourse to compensation, we will require certain businesses to ensure that their riders are covered by third-party liability insurance for death or bodily injury to any person that the rider may incur when riding on public paths. We will start by imposing this requirement on our device-sharing operators who are licensed under the Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill and businesses who employ or contract with riders who ride active mobility devices on public paths for work, such as food delivery companies.

Our approach is based on AMAP's recommendation to adopt a staged approach, starting first with imposing insurance requirements on certain businesses before extending it to individuals. We are working with AMAP and the insurance industry to study how best to extend such insurance requirements to individual active mobility device riders.

Sir, if I may now move on to the Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill. Businesses which provide active mobility devices to be ridden on public paths as part of their business have a special responsibility.

The device-sharing licensing regime, which was established in February 2018 under the Parking Places Act (PPA), focused on tackling indiscriminate device parking, particularly by shared bicycles. It regulated device-sharing services that operate in public places. Today, we see a variety of operators using different devices, including motorised ones, causing problems with parking and safety. For example, there have been operators who provide e-scooters for hire on private land and these devices are subsequently observed on public paths. Different business models are likely to be developed in the future. Thus, it is necessary to update our regulatory regime.

The Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill will expand the current licensing regime in the PPA in three main ways.

First, we will extend the scope of the regulatory regime beyond controlling indiscriminate parking to also focus on public safety. This will ensure that operators also play a role in improving the safety of public paths where their devices may be ridden.

Second, we will expand our licensing coverage to all active mobility device-sharing services, for devices that can be used on public paths. It will not matter whether the devices are intended to be parked at public places or not; nor whether the hirers are the general public or only a segment of the public.

Third, we will have the powers to introduce a class licence regime to allow us to apply a differentiated and light-touch regime on operators whose business model or operations may pose less safety or parking concerns.

Overall, this regime will result in a more comprehensive solution to cover different types of operators, but also allow us to take a calibrated approach to regulate them, depending on their individual characteristics.

Firstly, the Bill allows for different classes of licences to be granted. All operators who offer dockless devices for hire will be regulated under the regular licensing regime. We will take a calibrated approach in applying the safety requirements, depending on whether the operators are offering for hire motorised or non-motorised devices. The current process whereby operators have to demonstrate their ability to meet our regulatory requirements under a sandbox licence before being able to graduate to a full licence, will continue to apply. As bicycles are non-motorised and pose less of a safety concern, as a start, we will subject dockless bicycle-sharing operators to requirements that deal with parking matters only. Thus, for now, dockless bicycle-sharing operators regulated under the existing licensing regime will not experience any changes or additional requirements.

There is a need to regulate device-sharing operators who offer for hire motorised devices differently from those who only offer for hire non-motorised devices because of the increased risk of harm to the rider and to the public. Presently, there is a Ministerial safety directive in force under the PPA, as a result of which LTA does not issue any licences to PMD-sharing companies and does not accept new applications for PMD-sharing licences.

Moving forward, LTA will continue to assess the public path safety situation and the readiness of the industry when assessing licence applications by those who offer motorised device-sharing services. Appropriate safety requirements will be imposed if licences are granted for this group, which may include ensuring that the motorised devices are equipped to accurately identify the device location and travelling speed, and ensuring that the devices only operate in limited geographical spaces specified by LTA. LTA will also be able to require operators to ban users who have committed serious offences from using their shared devices.

Secondly, docked device-sharing operators will be regulated under the class licensing regime rather than the regular licensing regime at the start. Class licensees do not need LTA's explicit periodic approval to operate, and only need to register with LTA soon after commencing operations. Class licensees will also be subjected to a smaller set of regulatory requirements, such as installing speedometers on their active mobility devices. This light-touch approach is because these docked operators, such as those who operate from a physical shopfront or who have built racks where their devices are affixed to, cause less parking disamenities due to their use of docking infrastructure. They generally have to incur higher initial infrastructure costs, which naturally restrict the scale of their operations and, correspondingly, their safety impact. Notwithstanding this, LTA will have the flexibility to shift such operators into the regular licensing regime subsequently, if there is a need to do so.

Even for docked device-sharing operators, we will take a calibrated approach. As a start, we intend to apply the class licensing regime only to docked device-sharing operators using motorised active mobility devices, and not to those using non-motorised devices which have fewer safety concerns. Therefore, as a start, docked bicycle-sharing operators will not be required to have a regular licence or a class licence. Nonetheless, LTA will have the powers to impose the licensing regime on them as necessary.

We are aware that this class licensing regime will apply to some existing and currently unlicensed operators and will engage these operators further to discuss the implementation details and to provide sufficient transition time. We aim to minimise compliance costs and make the registration process easy.

Apart from tightening regulations on active mobility device users, retailers, businesses and device-sharing operators, the Bill makes several miscellaneous amendments. These include extending the offence of giving false information to cover all applications that persons make to LTA under the Active Mobility Act, beyond just applications to register a PMD.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the active mobility landscape will continue to evolve and our regulatory framework must similarly adapt. We must continue to adjust our regulatory approach to keep pace with technological and market developments. It is a long-term effort.

These two Bills together make sure that we have an approach that covers the device riders, retailers, businesses and device-sharing operators, with the principle of establishing public path safety as the primary intention and provides us the tools and measures to intervene further should they become necessary.

This set of Bills will ensure safer paths for Singaporeans while promoting active mobility. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.25 pm. Order. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.07 pm until 4.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

ACTIVE MOBILITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have three suggestions to the proposed amendments to the Active Mobility Act and the new measures to be implemented by LTA.

First, with regard to the assessment tests, I would like to propose that LTA build upon the existing training the "Delivery Rider Kit". This was curated by the NTUC in consultation with the food delivery platforms. It will support PMD delivery riders transiting to other modes such as power-assisted bicycles (PABs). The topics that we have included comprises safe riding, using PABs effectively, digital skills and so on. Since November last year until now, 63 riders have undergone training for various modules. Others are starting the training soon.

More recently, Minister Khaw also attended one of these training sessions. We feel that there should be some alignment between the new assessment test and the NTUC’s Rider Kit. Food delivery riders who have attended the training has also given us very good feedback and they are happy with the contents of the training. I hope that they would not need to attend additional classes or to be re-assessed if they have completed those training. The practical assessment and the knowledge learnt during these existing courses are substantial and useful.

On top of that, GrabFood offered its food delivery riders who have completed the safe riding module a safety helmet which has a smart lights feature. The lights help increase their visibility while they are on the road and also serves as turn signals for other motorists to note when these riders are making turns. How great it is if all other food delivery operators also do the same and equip their riders with similar helmets. I hope the Ministry can lend its weight to effect that outcome when they are in dialogues with the other food delivery platforms.

Secondly, safety goes beyond user know-how and the right gear. One other area that we are concerned with and we should pay attention to is whether the riders are exhausted from working long hours or rushing from place to place because of the incentive structure. Many may be working long stretches or trying to hit targets to meet the incentive payouts. The use of, for example, telematics or data analytics could offer options to promote safer rides.

This industry currently is a piece-rate kind of industry structure. The more you do, the more you earn. When you hit a certain target, you get higher incentive. Such a scheme may not exactly be safe for the riders because regardless of their health or their status of their exhaustion, they may try to push for higher targets. We hope to hear, perhaps, another way of addressing this issue rather than let the existing business model continue on, which may affect the riders in a negative manner.

Finally, food delivery operators are now required to offer public liability insurance. That is a move in the right direction. It is, however, not mandatory for them to provide accident or prolonged medical leave insurance for their rider partners. Some do so, majority are not on board yet. I would like to urge for the operators to do so, to help riders deal with the potential loss of income when they get injured or they fall sick. Will we be, therefore, requiring the operator to do so before allowing them to operate such a platform here in Singapore?

To this end, would LTA be looking at licensing the food delivery operators, similar to what was done for the third party ride-hailing apps? Both business models are fairly similar – one, provide point-to-point service for commuters, the other, provide point-to-point service for food delivery.

Moving forward, there is a deeper concern. Are there plans to work with MOM to look at potential employment-related insights? It will be useful to deep-dive into whether there may be issues of skills mis-match among the riders. Are they in this job because of circumstances such as this being a low entry barrier job so anybody can actually enter in without an interview or much other consideration? Or could it be that there is instant cash payout and the incentive scheme in the job attractive? Or could it be that our skills conversion programme may not be effective in helping people land a job, and consequently, they end up delivering food as a mode of making a living?

There could be some fundamental issues here as to whether are there too many workers in this industry or is it a sustainable career for those who have opted for this industry? Do they have adequate CPF savings? Do they have adequate medical protection? And what are the skills sets needed to help those who wish to transit into a new sector, into a new job? Have we been able to do so effectively? I think these are areas in which, perhaps, LTA may not have the full range of skills set or the tools but it would be useful to work with MOM to ensure that workers are assessed appropriately to help them and guide them in their appropriate career option.

Regardless, Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments are a step in the right direction as far as regulations are concerned. Some businesses are responsible and have taken positive acts. While we are happy to see those businesses continue to protect and look into the riders' interest but, in the longer term, we may need to consider whether we need to license the operators so that the responsible actions of a few will be the standard for all that are in the industry. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.31 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to commend Minister for the e-scooter footpath ban which came into effect on 5 November last year. Since then, I have received fewer complaints from residents about reckless riders, and my residents have generally expressed support for the ban. I am pleased to note that other motorised mobility devices like electric hoverboards and unicycles will also be banned from footpaths progressively by March.

I am sure this was a difficult decision to make, in light of those who depend on PMDs for their livelihood and also when we are trying to move towards a car-lite nation. However, as I have said not once, not twice but many times, in this House, something had to be done, given the casualties, injuries, near-misses caused by reckless e-scooter users, besides the fire caused during the battery charging.

Human lives must be prioritised above everything else. It is only after taking care of that, that we can explore new solutions.

I would like to speak firstly on the limitations of the regulations, then on the issues that more PABs and bicycles could bring.

I note that a number of regulations have also been introduced to improve safety with regards to riding of PMDs on public paths. E-scooter and e-bike users must be at least 16 years old and take a theory test to ride on public paths. I think this is great and I, too, have been calling for minimum age and for users to partake in a qualifying assessment before they can hit the paths. May I ask if all existing users of the registered devices have to take this test? How many registered users are there currently and how long will this take to be rolled out? Will those who passed the test be issued certification or licence that they have to carry with them when riding?

I am also concerned about the limitations of the regulations. Multiple people in a household may share a device.

Some of them may use the device without taking the test and this will likely go undiscovered until they get into an accident. This problem is likely to be more prevalent among minors. Children under 16 years old can illegally use the devices belonging to their older family members. How can we ensure that there is effective enforcement? Further, how would these regulations apply to PMD and e-bike rentals? I suppose customers are required to produce their certificate before they can hire a PMD? But what about tourists and other foreign visitors who would not have taken the test?

And on the subject of age, would there be any age limit for seniors to ensure that they are medically fit to ride PMDs? Weak eyesight or other medical problems may cause them to misjudge distances, and navigate obstacles safely on the path, which could cause them to endanger themselves and others.

Motorists above 65 years are required to undergo a medical check-up every three years by a registered doctor if they want to continue driving. Would something similar be extended to PMD riders as well? And if so, we might have to make it easier for those with light mobility problems to get PMAs.

I am heartened to note that my persistent push for third party liability insurance for e-scooter riders has finally paid off. Businesses are now required to cover their riders who use e-scooters for work with third-party liability insurance, and this requirement is also extended to those who use other mobility devices for work. In the latter case, does the responsibility of insurance lie with the employee, or the employer? What if the employee is a freelancer? And as with many PMD riders who work with delivery companies, they are not full-time staff.

Are employers still required to insure them? With third-party insurance in place, what protocols should be observed in case of an accident? Is the PMD rider required to have a copy of the insurance certificate on him so he can give it to the victim to claim against him?

Even with these measures, any accident is one too many. Riders who ride recklessly and go beyond legal speed limits still cause a hazard to themselves and all other users. Does LTA have the resources to catch them and enforce penalties, be it whether they are riding recklessly on path connectors or roads or on footpath which they are not supposed to?

On the eve of New Year, I was on my way to a countdown event at Khatib, I saw a convoy of e-riders happily cruising down along Yishun Avenue 2, as if the whole road belonged to them. I can sympathise, I can appreciate the frustration of the enforcement officers and, in fact, many of my residents expressed sympathy to the enforcement officer who was terminated because he showed his kicking power recently. And also, many residents shared with me that they feel so unsafe when they are waiting for bus at the bus-stops.

I would like to ask: is LTA doing enough in using technology, for example, face recognition, in carrying out the enforcement so as to make our footpaths safe, to make our bus-stops safe?

Next, let me move on to the issue that more PABs and bicycles could bring. Senior Minister of State Lam revealed that 3,550 riders have applied for the e-scooter trade-in grant, with about three-quarters of those opting for PABs and a quarter going for bicycles. Is the Ministry sufficiently equipped to monitor the impact of more PABs and bicycles on the roads?

Riding on the roads can be dangerous and I wonder if there are plans to implement mandatory safety courses and tests for all riders. In the past months, cyclists have died after being hit by cars. There was also one fatal case involving a pedestrian killed by a cyclist. Frankly speaking, I am really worried about having more cyclists on the roads.

Are there incidents of drunk riding on the roads? In the UK, one can be fined up to £1,000 for riding under the influence of alcohol. Are there similar laws for cycling in Singapore? Drunk cycling is a hazard for cyclists, pedestrians and also to motorists.

Furthermore, because of all those fire cases that happened with charging of PMDs, I would like to ask what is being done to ensure that PABs meet fire and electrical safety requirements?

The amendments to the Bill will make our paths safe again. Of course, we also need the cooperation of every motorist and pedestrian to stay alert and stay on the right paths. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many residents have told me that ever since the ban of PMDs on footpaths, they no longer felt scared every day. I am heartened to note that measures that I have been repeatedly calling for are finally being implemented, including the minimum age requirement of 16 years for PMD users, training and third-party insurance.

May I know whether the Government has enough resources to check if users are complying with these regulations? No matter what regulations we have, PMD speeding still poses a big danger. I hope the Government can do more about it.

The Government has also revealed that there were more than 3,000 delivery riders who have switched from PMDs to PABs or bicycles. What impact will it have when there are more PABs and bicycles on the road? We must ensure that these riders have proper training, we legislate against drink-cycling and make sure that PABs comply with the fire regulations.

I thank the Government for introducing these bold measures and for returning peace of mind to our people. I support this Bill.

4.42 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 4 November 2019, in his reply to a few Parliamentary Questions including one from myself, Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min announced in this House that e-scooters will be banned from the use of footpaths, a ban that greatly limited the practical use of e-scooters. He had also announced that e-scooters will be allowed on cycling paths and MOT will step up the construction of such cycling paths to provide clear separation between pedestrians and e-scooters, extending the network of cycling paths from 440 km to 750 km latest by 2025 and to 1,300 km by 2030. While the many unsafe or inconsiderate e-scooter incidents may reduce for now, let us not forget the painful lessons we have learnt in the past few years.

In my speeches on e-scooter issues in the Second Reading of the Active Mobility Bill in January 2017, the Second Reading of the Land Transport (Enforcement Measures) Bill in September 2018 and the Committee of Supply debates for MOT in 2016, 2018 and 2019, I have, among other issues, brought up the following points.

One, we have had a poor cycling or riding culture over the years – bicycles beating red lights, cycling against the traffic and, until the Active Mobility Act came into force, cycling on footpaths. These acts could be seen on an everyday basis. I am not sure even now it has improved in the past three years.

Two, our poor cycling culture coupled with the lack of enforcement by authorities over the years and the lack of political will of past governments to improve the riding culture, meant that in recent years, with the introduction of e-scooters, we need to create from scratch, a new culture of safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs.

Three, there must be sufficient public education and consistent effective enforcement, especially early on, after the introduction of the new Active Mobility regulations. There must be sufficient resources and a willingness from all authorities concerned responsible for enforcement. The Government must ensure that information is made available not just to people who voluntarily look for it by way of voluntary Safe Riding courses or on LTA website or Facebook page. The Government must think of how to push such information to both riders and non-riders, such as pedestrians, and to people who do not seek it, and such efforts can be, not just in English, but should also be in other languages such as Chinese, Malay and Tamil.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the Government still expects e-scooters to be used as a viable tool of first and final mile connectivity, the above points will continue to ring true. While the completion of the extended cycling network may possibly allow PMDs or e-scooters a new leash of life again, we should not be lulled into thinking that the new cycling lanes with a more extensive network alone will avoid all the problems we have seen with e-scooters in the past three years leading up to its footpath ban.

Most of these problems, I submit, had to do with a poor riding culture, inadequate public education and even inadequate enforcement. We should resolve these issues or problems before the extended cycling path network is ready for use. Otherwise, the Government will just be kicking the can down the road.

For a start, will the cycling paths be directly linked to every HDB block, condominium, private landed house, shophouse, office building and industrial building, and I would like to know whether this will be the case?

It cannot be a half-hearted attempt, for example, having cycling paths circling a number of HDB blocks but with no direct link from each block or having cycling paths circling around clusters of private residential estates, expecting e-scooter users to alight and push en route to cycling paths. If this seem too expensive, impractical or ambitious, then MOT may have to reconsider e-scooters and other PMDs as a serious option for first and final mile connectivity.

However, if our cycling path network were to become sufficiently extensive such that PMD riders do not need to alight and push, it may in turn do away with the need for cyclists to share the use of footpaths, which is still currently allowed. This prospect may be welcomed by many footpath users who are still not comfortable with the sharing of footpaths with bicycles. If there is no direct link, the existing footpath ban will mean that e-scooter users technically have to alight and push their e-scooters when on roads or footpaths. How confident are we that all riders will comply accordingly?

On the issue of enforcement, while I appreciate the efforts of many LTA enforcement officers, since the Active Mobility Act took effect, spot checks on certain days of the week or in selected areas may not be adequate. Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min mentioned on 4 November 2019 that LTA had 174 enforcement officers. I was a little surprised that by that time, the number of officers had remained only at that level. People may take their chances and continue to use their devices illegally or in unlawful ways if they think that the chances of meeting enforcement officers are slim.

Even now, I still see e-scooters being ridden on the roads or on footpaths, almost every day. I still see illegal specs e-bikes or PABs on footpaths as well. And I still see many illegal specs e-bikes.

On the issue of public education, as I have mentioned earlier, we also need to embark on a public education that pushes the education to people of all ages, riders or otherwise, including for those who do not voluntarily seek the information. Having sufficient public education to inform and ensure all PMD users as well as pedestrians know what is allowed and not allowed will go a long way to ensure that the right riding culture is developed ultimately.

I would also like to ask the Government to also reconsider one of the questions I have asked in my Parliamentary Question on 4 November 2019 namely that the Government should consider mandatory safe riding certification courses with disqualification rights. I know that Senior Minister of State Lam answered my question then by saying that a mandatory theory test would be more appropriate than a safe riding course. While I do not agree that it should be confined to a mere theory test, certainly, some form of mandatory tests should be introduced together with disqualification rights.

In that connection, I am happy that a mandatory competency test will be introduced by this Bill. In the context of this Active Mobility Amendment Bill and the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill introducing new regulations for shared mobility services, I hope that shared e-scooter services will only be available to users who have passed a mandatory or competency test.

In November 2019, the Senior Minister of State did not comment on disqualification rights but I believe that, with disqualification rights, people will take greater care to use their e-scooters safely and considerately, so I would urge MOT to incorporate disqualification rights in the proposed regulations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment Bill bans underage riders from the use of PMDs, namely under 16 of age, but also allows underage riders to "ride under escort", that is to say, with the supervision of a supervisor. May I ask the Senior Minister of State to confirm that these provisions are not just confined to commercial classes i.e commercial context only? Whether it covers informal context, for example, with friends or families.

I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there will be clearer requirements to be spelt out in the subsidiary legislation for such supervisors and the conditions for such escorts? I am also concerned that if there are insufficient LTA enforcement officers in every location, how do we ensure all escorts and supervisors are compliant with the law?

In fact, why do we not only allow all riders to learn after they have reached the statutory legal age for the use of e-scooters, just like how we do with motorcycles, cars and other vehicles on the roads?

Finally, I would like to know, who should be legally liable if the underage rider causes injury or property damage to a third party due to his own negligence, while under supervision? Will it be the underage rider or the supervisor? Will insurance be made compulsory for all such riding by underage riders?

I would also like to touch on an issue regarding e-scooter battery quality issue. Would MOT consider specifically regulating after-market batteries, sold separately from the devices, including testing and supply, so that access to batteries which do not conform to requisite safety standards is denied completely, thereby avoiding fire risks from their use? In addition to inspections, MOT can work with the Singapore Customs to bar import of off-specs batteries including via individual online purchases.

In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the Government still expect e-scooters to be a viable option for first and final mile connectivity when the cycling path network is expanded, I urge the Government to address the issues and concerns I have highlighted and get things right ahead of the expanding cycling path network. Notwithstanding my concerns, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof Lim Sun Sun.

4.52 pm

Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. No thanks to Kevin Kwan's hit novel and the movie "Crazy Rich Asians", everyone seems to think that all Singaporeans own flashy cars. Well as the joke goes, we all do have access to a BMW – Bus, MRT, Walk. Our extensive and ever growing public transportation network is certainly making us more mobile and walking is a key dimension of active mobility.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity to speak about walking and walkability, as this Bill introduces timely measures to help pedestrians, cyclists and PMD users share our paths safely. Factoring walking into the equation is especially critical as plans have been announced to expand the 440 km of cycling paths here to 750 km by 2025 and about 1,300 km by 2030. Providing dedicated lanes for transport modes with speeds between those for walking and for cars is necessary. But another critical need is to effectively integrate these cycling paths into our urban landscapes so that pedestrians and cyclists can all benefit.

Since we will be actively expanding our cycling path networks, I would like to suggest an active incorporation of design considerations that take into account the needs of pedestrians. To this end, let me draw on research on designing walkable neighbourhoods in Singapore.

Research by Zhang, Azzali, Janssen and Stouffs at School of Design and Environment at NUS identified several issues pertaining to poor walkability of Singapore's housing estates along four different dimensions: connectivity, closeness and spatial distribution, comfort and safety. They found that in HDB estates, apartment blocks have principally been developed for the use of cars where precincts are often surrounded and divided by wide, car-based corridors that impede greater active mobility. So even though pedestrians are usually able to make their way from departure point to destination, walking is made cumbersome because of frequent traffic lights along the route or the need to use ramps and over bridges to cross a street. For example, crossing a road often involves the need to take a long detour and use over bridges or a ramp instead of covering the shortest possible route.

Other studies have also found that many HDB estates and new towns have a car-centric design with wide car-oriented corridors that cut into their urban fabric. They argued that space and time for crossing are not equally distributed between cars and pedestrians, and that traffic priority is always given to vehicles. Also, block units are surrounded by parking areas and leftover spaces. The consequence of this car-centric approach to our urban design is that active mobility is not ideally facilitated and may in fact be undermined due to disruptions and lack of continuity of walking. Adverse consequences such as jaywalking may therefore result.

Another issue previous research has identified is the lack of consistent and well-defined urban block planning, because HDB blocks are not homogeneous or consistent but differ in size, design and pattern. Hence, this makes spatial awareness and navigation more challenging. Each apartment block is surrounded by parking areas and internal car-based streets that reduce the compactness of each neighbourhood. Zhang and his co-authors found that the overriding feeling when walking through an HDB neighbourhood is the unnecessarily meandering trips required to reach a destination. This is due to the lack of continuity of walking and fragmentation of our urban fabric. Given all these characteristics of older HDB neighbourhoods, they are clearly not as pedestrian-friendly as they can or should be. Active mobility is sacrificed for vehicular traffic, thereby making our HDB estates less navigable. This has adverse implications not just for pedestrians but also for the wheelchair bound and young families using strollers and prams.

But we can draw critical lessons from such research as we design our new HDB estates, and build our expanded cycling network. Additionally, human factors must also be taken into account in boosting active mobility. Research by Assoc Prof Lynette Cheah and her team at the Sustainable Urban Mobility Research Laboratory in SUTD has probed into the values that most influence people's choices for active mobility. Using qualitative research methods, they identified convenience, health, comfort and time-cost savings as being the most critical factors. They also established that individuals' experience of travelling on different travel modes also acts as feedback that reshapes their values and perceptions toward current mobility options and expectations for future mobility.

What this means is that if walking can be convenient, promote physical exercise and offer time and cost savings, individuals will be more likely to incorporate more walking into their mobility patterns. Conversely, an adverse experience from navigating a meandering and fragmented urban landscape will deter them from walking as much as could be possible or desirable.

Improving walkability in HDB estates must therefore be a key tranche of our overall plans for active mobility and should not be an afterthought. I urge our planners to take walkability into account even as they plan the extended cycling pathways, to ensure that these pathways are optimally integrated into our urban landscape and that they do not intrude into or undermine the needs of pedestrians. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

4.58 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to share my thoughts on two aspects of this Bill.

The first is regarding accident insurance. Under the new section 58A, businesses will be required to ensure that the drivers and riders they engage or employ are covered by third-party insurance, whether the vehicles utilised are regular or power-assisted bicycles, personal mobility devices, motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters.

I fully support this important amendment. In the event of an accident, the insurance coverage will ensure that the victims will be able to claim medical expenses as well as compensation for any other damages.

Along the same vein, I would like the Ministry to consider if third-party insurance would be useful for all riders. This is to ensure that all victims, not just those involved in accidents caused by business-related riders, can seek recourse and compensation. It would be also helpful if the Ministry can work with insurance firms to ensure affordability.

Without insurance, victims can only try for private settlements through mediation or make civil claims. I have had a few cases where my residents who were victims approached me for help as they were unable to seek any recourse.

Next, I would like to comment on the amendment to address the issue of underage riding of personal mobility devices on public paths. While I support those who are underage riding under supervision, there are risks and challenges associated with the control of these machines.

I would like to suggest that the Ministry consider sharing with supervising adults via on an electronic platform, or through public roadshows or workshops the techniques and methods to teach juvenile riders, with an emphasis on personal and public safety when using these devices. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I would like to comment on the amendment to address the issue of underage riding of personal mobility devices on public paths.

While I support those who are underage riding under supervision, these are nonetheless motorised devices and there are definitely risks and challenges associated with the control of these devices.

I would like to suggest that the Ministry consider sharing with supervising adults, through an electronic platform or public workshops, the techniques and methods to teach juvenile riders, with an emphasis on personal and public safety when using these devices.

(In English): Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.

5.02 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on both the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill and the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill.

It is safe to say that our journey with "active mobility" has not been a smooth one for our policy-makers nor our people since it was first mooted in the Land Transport Master Plan 2013.

It was merely three years ago when bike-sharing was all the rage. In September 2018, a total of 100,000 bicycles were in circulation across the island from different bike-sharing schemes that also saw public outcry of irresponsible rider behaviours. This House had to pass the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill in March 2018 to legislate licensing, restrict fleet size and mandate geo-fencing. Now, we rarely see these shared bikes around even though we still have three operators remaining.

Then, came the next micro mobility revolution with e-scooters. Even more accessible than bicycles given that no special skills are required, their popularity grew due to low barrier to entry, but so did the public scrutiny and outrage with accidents and fire incidents ravaging homes from charging. Registration of e-scooters was the first patch fix in February 2018. Then, came another in August 2019 to limit speed and mandate helmets, and another in September to mandate theory tests, disallow handphones and third-party liability insurance before culminating in the overnight ban of PMDs from footpaths on 4 November 2019. Regulations continue to mount to respond to policy gaps that were uncovered with time.

Sir, my humble observation is that the policy intent to let market forces dictate adoption was well meaning in both cases, yet, safety first must not be left to chance. The faith on the readiness of importers, delivery companies, riders and pedestrians to be gracious and responsible participants may now seem misplaced. The gaps and patch fixes in reaction to challenges over such a short space of time has made both these policy endeavours seem clumsy at best, in design and execution.

So, first, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister what have we learned from the many potholes and patch fixes along this journey? What about our current models of policy formulation and implementation? Do we need to update and adapt because bike-sharing and PMDs will not be the only disruptions coming our way? Asking these questions is not questioning the intention and dedication of our public service at all. It is bridging an open dialogue between those who serve and the ones who are served.

Former Head of Civil Service, Peter Ong, once said that the best policy is only as good as its execution. He also said that there should be no artificial divide between policy formulation and policy implementation, that there should be ownership of policy design to accountability of "how the policy is translated into outcomes that eventually reach our citizens". He emphasised paying attention to details as a key element to improve ability to convert policy formulation into successful execution, even calling the "culture of mastery over details" as one that the Singapore civil service is well known for.

The announcement of the overnight ban of PMDs on footpaths in response to a Parliamentary Question sent shock waves through the PMD rider community, especially thousands of Singaporeans who are not merely recreational riders but subsist with PMDs. It appeared that this segment of our citizens may have been blatantly marginalised during policy formulation and implementation.

Previous policy shifts were progressively implemented but this overnight ban was seen by many as "blunt and rigid" and not well supported with an inter-Ministry response. A corrective action was finally taken on 8 November through the S$7 million e-scooter Trade-in-Grant scheme only after delivery riders gathered across Singapore to speak to their Members of Parliament.

Immediately following the ban on 4 November, Seline, a resident in a rental flat, often skipped her meals with only water so that her four children can go to bed with their stomachs full, because her husband, Sengchiy, who was with three different food delivery companies went from working every day to three days' worth of work after being told off by enforcement officers to get off footpaths. Efforts were made by ground-up groups to link them up to ComCare but there was a week's wait to process the application. Sengchiy finally switched to an e-bike towards end-November but is having trouble adjusting to riding on the road as he is afraid for his own safety. So, he switched to only late night hours. Seline's family is not the only one affected that I know of.

Mr Deputy Speaker, what happened to Seline and her family could and should have been prevented. Given that they are the stakeholder most negatively impacted, the grievances of many riders who depend on the PMDs for their work and subsistence could have been mitigated if they were directly consulted before the ban and not just through the delivery companies. While the ban may have proceeded regardless, the consultation would at least afford these PMD riders a platform to be heard and to offer alternative policy recommendations for the Government's consideration. Moreover, such consultation would also be a good opportunity for the Government to understand and listen to suggestions of different measures which can be put in place to mitigate the negative impact suffered by these PMD riders, so that such measures can be announced alongside the ban.

As we aspire towards "Singapore Together", the Government must consistently allow stakeholders to participate and be empowered. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on the justification for introducing a ban with no consultation with the PMD riders and without advance notice or grace period to allow affected citizens to adjust and adapt.

However, I do acknowledge that the intent with the public consultation exercise and the Active Mobility Advisory Panel was well-meaning and certainly a step in the right direction in participatory policy- making. But the devil is in the details. I note that there was only a representative from the PMD user community on the Advisory Panel but it is not immediately clear to me if he or others represent the interests of riders who use PMDs for livelihoods.

It is also not clear to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we had considered the behavioural impact on safety relating as a result of the reward algorithms of delivery companies. If I am rewarded to make as many delivery trips as I can within the shortest possible time, then I would naturally be in a rush and possibly also tired all the time. Safety – mine and others – is almost certainly going to be compromised. So, we cannot exclude these companies' responsibility in our policy formulation and implementation.

This may be the level of details we have to pay more attention to and get better at as we strive to keep regulation with innovation, and inclusion.

With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to caution that we must not narrow our active mobility conversation to just that of riders against the rest of the society. Unfortunately, riders seem to be vilified with these two Bills, including underage riders. Let me elaborate.

In the Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill, clause 23 allows for licensees to share information to refuse hire to particular individuals if they park improperly after three times. Clause 25 empowers LTA to refuse further to hire vehicles to particular individuals. Clause 26 further empowers the Minister to issue safety directives without giving the affected person an opportunity to be heard.

While the Trusted Data Sharing Framework was introduced in June 2019 to enable the digital economy, I question the usage of data sharing between licensees to create a list of banned individuals. Such systematic targeting could lead to unconscious discrimination of certain groups within our society and will degrade our social compact. Such a policy could leave these individuals unprotected also by rogue licensees. Can the Minister please clarify the rationale for such a provision in clause 23 and what protection is given to the individuals?

Then, there is section 23A of the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill that makes it punishable for an underage rider with fine and/or imprisonment riding a motorised PMD on shared paths. While the Bill does not explicitly define what constitutes as "prescribed minimum riding age" as that will be subject to prescribed regulations where there may be different minimum riding age for different classes or descriptions of PMD, I would like to ask the Minister if he still intends to prescribe the minimum riding age as 16 years of age. This was announced by the Ministry on 4 December 2019 in the press release accepting all recommendations from the Active Mobility Advisory Panel.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by this and I hope Minister Desmond Lee, if he were here, is too. It was only in October last year that the amended Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) defines a "young person" as below 18 years of age, to better protect our children and to be consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Under section 37 of the CYPA, there are clear restrictions on punishment of children and young persons and it clearly states that they should not be ordered to be imprisoned for any offence. Could the Minister please explain why we are passing new laws that go against existing laws, possibly constituting legislative conflict?

Mr Deputy Speaker, in the spirit of the CYPA, the welfare and best interests of the child or young person involved is of paramount consideration to me. I strongly believe in protecting our children and young persons, including their legal rights. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister to consider commensurate measures, other than imprisonment, for a child or young person found guilty of underage riding of PMD on shared paths. Should there not be warnings issued and reformative training actions considered before we impose such inappropriate punitive measures on children?

Last but not least, sections 47 and 50 of the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill will give Active Mobility Enforcement Officers (AMEOs) the power to order the rider to produce his competency test certificate for examination and then seize the certificate and deliver the vehicle for an inspection. We know that as many as 6,000 warnings were issued in December 2019 and in the same month, an Auxiliary Police Officer (APO) sent an e-scooter rider flying at Bedok Reservoir Road. With these amendments, what measures will the Ministry put in place to better train our enforcement officers in approaching the situation on the ground to avoid tension and skirmishes?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the primary aim of active and shared mobility is a better living and safer environment for all citizens that supports a larger vision of pedestrianisation and a car-lite Singapore. We have a worthy and yet ambitious goal of having 90% of our peak hour trips completed by walking, biking, public transit and shared mobility by 2040.

However, these bumps on the road towards active mobility have unfortunately served to narrow our perspectives, putting much of our attention on multiple users with conflicting needs – pedestrians, cyclists and mobility riders – sharing our narrow footpaths, which is, if I may remind everyone, all of 1.5-metre wide. It really should not come as a surprise at all that tensions and accidents would result.

Albert Einstein said, "We cannot solve the problem with the same way of thinking that created it in the first place". So, instead of going at it as a battle against inconsiderate use of a limited space, how can we expand that physical space beyond the current 1.5 metres so that there is more room for more equitable and safer use by all users including our car drivers? Instead of slapping more regulations each time we wish to change behaviours, how can we invest the same, if not, more effort, to build an informed, gracious and adaptive citizenry in an increasingly disruptive environment which must include the most vulnerable amongst us.

5.15 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on record the appreciation of many residents, especially the vulnerable, young and elderly, who have had to live with whizzing devices going around them, bearing down at them at much speed before we instituted the ban. Minister Khaw made the promise to return safe footpaths to Singaporeans and he delivered them. I therefore welcome the amendments to the Active Mobility Act and the incorporation of recommendations by the Active Mobility Advisory panel (AMAP) led by Assoc Prof Faishal.

I had on numerous occasions in this House asked the Ministry to consider the licensing of users, compulsory safety training as well as third party liability Insurance. I am glad that the AMAP has made similar recommendations which the Ministry has adopted. However, there is one area that the AMAP’s proposal and mine differs and that has to do with insurance.

This Amendment Bill seeks to make it compulsory for third party liability insurance (TPLI) for businesses. I have however called for TPLI to be made compulsory for all users. This is a point I wish to continue to push for. While it is undeniable that the vast majority of users constitute those working in food delivery industry, the remaining number of personal users of PMDs and e-scooters is not small either. It would therefore be important to ensure that before the next spike in number of users occurs when shared paths are completed that comprehensive and affordable TPLI be made available and made compulsory for all users.

With regard to testing, I seek the Ministry’s clarification on which companies or agencies will be appointed to do the certification and when can certification begin and end.

On a related point, with the Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill controlling and licensing shared mobility services, how does the Ministry intend to police the users of the shared devices such as in ensuring that they have completed competency testing and how will the law apply to tourists?

Lastly, I wish to seek an update from the Ministry on two additional matters. First, how many summons have been issued since the ban took effect on 1 January and how many PMDs have since been impounded? Secondly, what is the estimated number of non-compliant PMDs still not surrendered to the authorities?

Let me illustrate the point by reading to you an extract from a fire report. A fire was reported involving a PMD battery inside a living room. Battery was brought out to the corridor by the owner. Fire was extinguished by the SCDF. Walls on the corridor sustained soot damage, no evacuation was required, paramedic assessed, no conveyors. Thankfully, no one was seriously injured in this instance and the fire was not extensive. However, this is not an old report. This was dated Sunday, 2 February at 10.30 pm. And this is after our ban on non-UL2272 batteries that took effect on 1 January 2020. While I hope this is a rare occurrence since the ban was put in place, we must never things to chance. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my queries and suggestions, I support both Bills.

5.19 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, the question of how to regulate new forms of transport is not new. The first reference in British legislation to motorised road transport is the Locomotive Act 1861 which dealt with early steam-powered motor vehicles. Drivers of motor vehicles in the United Kingdom were only required to be registered and licensed with the Motor Car Act in 1903. That may not sound alarming until you find out that driver’s licence testing only became a requirement with the Road Traffic Act 1934. The Motor Car Act 1903 in fact allowed licences to be issued to any driver aged 17 and above, unless that driver was specifically disqualified due to having committed an offence. Existing licences, moreover, were grandfathered by the Road Traffic Act 1934.

The point is that we should not be embarrassed that it has taken Singapore a few years to improve on our regulation of new motorised personal mobility devices and services. It took the United Kingdom 73 years to deal with motor cars, or maybe 31 years if you are just counting from the Motor Car Act onwards. And, of course, it took cities decades to upgrade their road infrastructure from being suited for horses, to being safe for cars and people.

Sir, our objective in this Bill is to help develop a more sustainable and efficient means of urban travel for Singaporeans. The fact is that neither the public transport system nor private motor cars are ideal for many short distance trips in Singapore. The public transport system struggles to fill the first and last mile cost effectively, and is very expensive to operate for low-demand routes. Private motor cars cause congestion, and have high environmental costs. So, active mobility devices are potentially a better, more sustainable means of travel. I want to commend the Government for consistently articulating a farsighted vision of shared and active mobility. But moving to realise this vision involves costs and benefits to stakeholders such as pedestrians and existing road users. As we have seen, these concerns are expressed very vocally, and this Bill represents an effort to respond to their concerns.

There has been a strong and consistent narrative to our efforts to regulate active mobility over the years. We all believe that a culture of gracious and responsible usage of active mobility devices is necessary for such transport innovations to flourish and co-exist with pedestrians and motorists. Now, culture has value. There are vast differences between countries in road accident rates, despite similarities in vehicle technology, safety regulations, and driver licensing requirements. Part of the difference is due to motorist and pedestrian behaviour, which we can call culture. But there are also fundamental limitations to the role of culture in the transport system.

Culture does not replace a functioning system of liability insurance. Culture does not create spaces for people to pass safely on a footpath that was not designed for two-way travel on active mobility devices. Culture does not ensure that vehicles are adequately engineered for safety.

If we are not careful, highlighting the role of culture too much becomes a shortcut to magical policy thinking: the belief that we can achieve our policy objectives without considering difficult trade-offs and convincing the public to accept them.

The fundamental trade-off in transport safety regulation is between speed, safety and personal autonomy. The laws of physics dictate this. Faster modes of transport mean safety will be compromised. Improvements to both speed and safety can only be achieved with restrictions on personal autonomy: who is allowed to travel, and how they do it – regulating equipment, design, legally enforceable rules of behaviour. Culture does allow us some room to boost both speed and safety at once. But not that much room.

We were perhaps initially overly cautious about imposing rules on motorised active mobility devices. We did not want to compromise the very qualities that attracted users: low costs, simplicity, flexibility. After all, bicycles are only very lightly regulated, and have been so for over a hundred years. But the case of bicycles perhaps led us to underestimate the capacity of active mobility devices to cause harm and for that harm to be uncompensated.

Safety concerns about new transport again are not novel. The earliest motorised vehicles in the United Kingdom were subject to the Locomotive Act 1865. That Act required a man waving a red flag to walk before any motor vehicle – to protect pedestrians and horses.

Safety regulations for motorists obviously have evolved since then. Likewise, this Bill and our policy efforts have progressively tightened regulations on active mobility device to consider design and construction, speed limits, user behaviour, and now, a ban on footpath use.

In case an active mobility device does cause harm, a common law right of tort has always existed to provide redress, just as it does for any harm a pedestrian might cause another on a footpath. But we have come to realise that relying on this right alone is insufficient because liability is limited by wealth, and legal costs can be considerable. It is more efficient to mandate insurance coverage as a way of ensuring uncompensated harm is minimised. That is the principle adopted for motor vehicles for decades.

This Bill partially addresses the problem of liability with the new section 58A of the Active Mobility Act. We will now require shared mobility enterprises, employers and work platforms such as delivery companies to ensure that third party liability insurance is provided for their active mobility device users. But I would suggest going further.

Basic insurance could be required at the time of purchase or registration of the active mobility device. The duration of insurance could be commensurate with certification requirements. The insurance system does not need to be designed as a direct to consumer market. We could have insurers contract with LTA to provide coverage and then collect fees for insurance at registration. I looked at the debate on the Active Mobility Bill 2017. These suggestions were also made then. Unfortunately, the importance of those suggestions has been borne out by events.

Sir, many of our policy missteps on active mobility devices seem very clear in retrospect. But that is the way of hindsight. I think most would agree that we should not judge our active mobility policy on whether better decisions could have been made with hindsight, but on whether those decisions were the best possible with what was known, at that time.

I find it hard to say any of us could have done much better in managing active mobility device risks and the fallout on delivery workers, businesses and ordinary users, from the active mobility device footpath ban. This is because there is simply little publicly available data and research in the local context that would have allowed the decision maker at the time to foresee the challenges and risks arising from their policy choices. Therefore, the weakness is really in the research and knowledge infrastructure that needs to exist for us to make better decisions.

Consider the basic question motivating much of our regulatory effort. Are active mobility devices actually more dangerous? Pedestrians are certainly exposed to new risks. But what is the magnitude of these risks, relative to other types of travel? Some data was been released in a response to a Parliamentary Question I filed in November 2019 on accidents involving PMDs treated at our hospitals. The data shows that PMD accidents are more likely to be severe. However, the total number of PMD accidents in 2018 was only one-sixth that of bicycle accidents. So, are PMDs more or less dangerous than bicycles, which are much less controversial?

One serious limitation of the data is that we know little about actual travel using these devices. Without travel, we cannot calculate the real risks. For example, we may find that motorised active mobility devices are actually less risky, per km travelled, than motorcycles or bicycles. Risks may also differ by the type of path travelled. Is shifting delivery riders from PMDs to Power Assisted Bikes going to increase or reduce overall risks? We simply do not know and that is because the data required to estimate these effects does not exist publicly.

How much of a positive difference have active mobility devices made to our transport system and to people’s daily lives? Our debate has been driven by anecdotes. LTA has been running the Household Interview Travel Survey or HITS every four years. The last run was in 2016/2017 – when active mobility device usage was just beginning to ramp up. Should there have been a special run of HITS just to cover the rapid growth in active mobility devices? Is there a critical gap in our knowledge about active mobility device travel behaviour because we have not changed the way we run HITS, or adjusted the survey format in light of new transport trends?

Unfortunately, it is very difficult for outside researchers to contribute to this debate, because the practice is that the HITS data is kept confidential, including the survey questions themselves.

To what extent do active mobility devices actually help improve Singaporeans' ability to earn a living? We knew that the footpath ban would affect 7,000 food delivery riders who relied on PMDs. But did we understand that many riders had no alternative jobs or means of transport and were almost completely reliant on using PMDs on footpaths to earn a living? The scale of our misunderstanding was laid bare when hundreds of delivery riders turned up at hon Members’ Meet-the-People-Sessions to petition against the policy.

I commend the Government for addressing their concerns with the $7 million trade-in grant to help them transition to other types of transport. Of course, our high quality and accessible job support services are even more important. But why did this knowledge gap exist? The last Own Account Workers survey, that is publicly available, was conducted in 2017 – that was when the rise in food delivery services through PMDs was just starting. There was no indication then that thousands of Singaporeans would come to heavily depend on food delivery services to make a living. Perhaps, we believed too readily the story that such gig economy jobs are just harmless, flexible side jobs for Singaporeans.

Now, let us consider shared mobility enterprises which the Bill also addresses. The initial heady promise of dockless shared bicycles – low-cost, efficient, first/last mile option – has given way to the realisation that these bicycle-sharing systems create huge costs for the taxpayer through indiscriminate parking and for stakeholders who are left with unrecoverable deposits or business debts.

There was little regulation for months after bike-sharing systems started to appear in Singapore, perhaps because we wanted to reap the benefits without any cost to the taxpayer. After all, LTA had called a tender in 2016 to operate a Government-subsidised bike-sharing system in the Jurong Lake District. So, why pay for bike-sharing when dockless operators were giving it to us for free?

The problem, of course, is that the costs of dockless bike-sharing were hidden. But the answers were actually in front of us all along. If we were prepared to introduce a Government-subsidised bike-sharing system, we would have known that bicycle-sharing systems have great difficulty recovering operating costs from user fees alone. Cities sponsor such systems for the same reason that public transport is subsidised – to improve access and connectivity. This is why many market observers were stunned by the rapid growth of privately funded dockless bicycle-sharing systems. At the time, many fanciful stories were spun about how these bicycle-sharing systems would become profitable based on deposits, selling customer data and so on. Regardless, it did not matter to the operators that they lost money in the short run. And because it did not matter, it meant that market forces, which might otherwise have disciplined their expansion, were useless. Market forces could not constrain the dockless bike-sharing business practice of simply dumping bicycles on the street in order to compete.

While the Parking Places (Amendment) Act 2018 and other regulations have since then helped to constrain the reckless oversupply of shared bikes, the industry has also collapsed because the economics simply did not work. The former operators have in some cases left huge, unrecoverable debts to stakeholders, and there are also the costs of cleaning up defunct bikes, which have been borne by LTA, the Town Councils and private landowners.

With the start of licensing for shared mobility enterprises, we now have the regulatory levers to ensure that risks from unsustainable business models on society and stakeholders are minimised. Let me suggest that where licensing fees are concerned, we could allocate some part of the charges to a fund administered by LTA whose purpose is to assist with settlement to stakeholders. Fees and penalties could also be diverted to this fund instead of the practice under the present Bill, where they are channelled solely to the Consolidated Fund. The purpose is just to ensure that the costs of the business model are internalised.

Now, we may well find that no shared mobility enterprises will enter the market with our new regulations. We should not see that as a failure. It is actually quite unclear right now that shared mobility enterprises are even capable of being financially sustainable from user fees alone. Instead, if we believe that a shared mobility enterprise can contribute to our public transport system, we must be prepared to prove that it makes a meaningful contribution and subsidise it on the same basis as the rest of our public transport.

Sir, much of what we need to realise this vision of motorised personal mobility happens outside this Bill. I am confident that the Government is up to the task of meeting their targets of completing the cycling infrastructure network. But we have to be prepared for cases where what looks ideal on paper may not work in practice. After all, we have decades of experience designing for road traffic, but very little with designing for PMDs. So we should be prepared for the long haul.

It will also not be practical to build out a cycling path network that provides standardised access everywhere. For example, in our private housing estates, there is generally insufficient pedestrian space available to create a cycling path. Some HDB carpark areas also present similar challenges, as do outlying areas of Singapore.

The suggestion then is that a new classification of minor roads be designated, which could be called streets or local roads. The traffic rules could be different there. There would be a mandatory lower maximum speed limit for vehicles. There would be allowance for PMDs and active mobility on these minor roads. Road traffic slowing features, similar to those in Silver Zones, could be introduced as standard in such areas.

Finally, we should ask whether we can improve the way that policies have been developed.

I want to commend the Active Mobility Advisory Panel for putting in unstinting effort over the years. I know several members of the panel. They are experts and stakeholders with the best of intentions. Yet, our experience suggests we need to consider whether such advisory panels are able to draw on a sufficiently broad group of stakeholders, whether they have the resources and expertise to commission research or requisition relevant Government data, to make decisions that we can all agree are the best that could have been made at the time.

Let me suggest something further controversial. When forming such panels, we often have a practice of seeking consensus in the recommendations that are made. This may be implicit. I do not mean to suggest that the panel did so, and I know that there are lively debates behind the scenes. But consensus-driven thinking, unfortunately, tends to support magical policy thinking. Who wants to spoil the general belief that all things can be worked out without too many unpleasant trade-offs? If we are to realise our vision of an active mobility sector that is well integrated with existing stakeholders, we need less magical thinking, and more acknowledgement of the difficult trade-offs. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

5.36 pm

Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is timely that we amend and expand the Active Mobility Act. We need to reflect what we have learnt and experienced in the three years since the original Bill was passed. The proliferation of personal mobility devices has changed the way that we travel, work and play. But at the same time, this has also created new problems, most vividly illustrated by the many high-profile accidents that caused personal injuries and even death.

When the PMD ban was first announced, 30 PMD riders came to my Meet-the-People Sessions to ask for help. They were angry and they felt that their livelihood had been taken away from them without any warning. The sentiment was more intense than a mere transport policy change. There was that perception that their source of income has been killed and this had been enacted out of the blue. There was no consideration for the consequences on them.

PMD riders continued to turn up at my Meet-the-People Sessions to ask for help and this made me increasingly concerned. It soon dawned on me that such delivery riders are gig workers. They are not employees wearing uniforms of the company. They had no protection from the company. And from my interactions, I realised that the PMD controversy was just one instance of how vulnerable such gig workers are.

Many of them that I spoke to are doing gig work as their primary or full-time job. This is their only source of income. They included retrenched PMETs looking to earn money while searching for a new opportunity. There were ex-prisoners who have been marginalised due to their criminal records. Many of them are sole breadwinners supporting a large family.

The number of gig workers is rising. According to MOM’s Labour Force survey of 2018, there are around 210,000 gig workers or what the Ministry calls own-account workers. Of these, eight in 10, or 160,000 of them, did this as their primary job.

These are vulnerable Singaporeans who need more support than they are currently getting. They are one of many disposable contractors who have no bargaining power whatsoever against the companies that they work for.

In the UK, gig economy workers are euphemistically referred to as in "precarious employment". If gig arrangements are here to stay, we need to give gig workers more support and more protection against their companies.

California enacted a "Gig Worker Law" in September 2019. They saw that Uber's market power had substantially decreased drivers' earning potential. Similarly, our local drivers experienced the same thing during the period when Uber pulled out of the Singapore market and before Gojek came in.

Sir, I have heard increasing concerns about the entire gig economy in Singapore. Gig companies have built their businesses around avoiding the costs of employment. Unlike traditional companies, they do not provide leave days, health insurance and other statutory benefits. There has been a constant complaint from traditional companies that compete against them. More importantly, this has created unhappiness on the ground from marginalised workers who feel unprotected.

Left unchecked, I am afraid that this issue is going to grow and fester and become another potential flashpoint. Sensible policies will trigger outsized, emotional reactions. People feel that we are kicking them when they are down. Even sensible policies like the PMD ban that seek to protect pedestrians have triggered strong reactions. The need to manage such reactions would reduce our policy options and it might even dissuade us from doing the right thing.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this PMD matter could merely be the first warning sign in the wider context of the gig economy. There are 41,000 Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licensed (PDVL) drivers, 7,000 PMD deliverymen and many more non-PMD deliverymen. This suggests around 150,000 non-PMD gig workers who face different challenges and pressures. Hence, future issues could affect even more Singaporean gig workers. Many other countries are doing what they can to protect their gig workers, and we need to do the same.

I believe that a solution would be to ensure that gig companies should bear their fair share of responsibility to protect their workers. Other countries have introduced new legislation, but I would argue that this can be achieved under our existing legislative framework in Singapore.

I was heartened to find the new section 58A of the Act mandating third-party insurance. Businesses now need to ensure that the riders and drivers have third party insurance before they are employed or engaged in outwork arrangements. This is definitely a step in the right direction but it is almost certainly not enough.

I propose we go a few steps further and classify gig workers as employees instead of contractors under the Employment Act. Those who work less than 35 hours a week should be part-time workers, and those who work more than 35 hours a week should be full-time workers. This will protect workers by ensuring that they are provided with statutory benefits, including annual leave, sick leave, overtime pay, rest days and are paid CPF contributions, giving them the ability to save for housing, for retirement, and for medical expenses. Why should gig workers be excluded from such benefits?

We know that it is possible that this move will encounter pushback from the gig companies. But our Government needs to balance creating economic growth versus safeguarding worker’s welfare. Innovation is important but it should not be at the cost of workers' welfare. In fact, true innovation should benefit all stakeholders, not just shareholders.

I feel strongly that such a move would help to mitigate gig workers' livelihood concerns and establish us as a caring and compassionate Government. Additionally, we can level the playing field for other companies who are already subjected to the Employment Act.

Implementation will need to be managed carefully. The requirements can be phased in over time. Another option is for gig workers to have the choice to opt in and out of the Employment Act depending on their specific situations.

I believe that this would be a pro-people, pro-worker and pro-business message to help create the policy space we need to continue to pursue the right policies. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

5.43 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the two Bills. The past five years have proven a challenge in our nation’s march towards active mobility. I am happy to say these Bills reflect some lessons we have learned along the way.

In response to dangerous riding, we are banning PMDs from footpaths, introducing competency tests and mandating adult supervision of underage users. In response to careless parking, we are requiring bicycle, PMD and PMA providers to obtain a license and follow standards. These measures together form a regulatory framework that places a premium on safety and spreads the responsibility among users and providers.

That said, I would like to seek clarifications on both Bills and discuss the need to go further in our pursuit of active mobility. I will first discuss my three clarifications on the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill.

My first clarification is about information sharing between licensees. Section 23 allows two licensees to enter into an information sharing agreement. Specifically, it allows them to do so for two purposes: (a) to turn away bad parkers from hiring their vehicles; and (b) to comply with directives from LTA. The Bill’s explanatory statement states that such agreements are authorised "despite" other laws, such as the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

My concern is that section 23 does not contain clear measures to deter organisations from over-sharing private user data. For instance, is NRIC number an appropriate data point to share about a bad parker? How about passport numbers, photograph, phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, or GPS locations?

The modern business collects huge amounts of private data on its customers and this data can be worth huge amounts of money. It is possible that some organisations will seek to acquire private users' information under the pretense of identifying bad parkers.

It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify: (a) what types of information are allowed to be shared under section 23; (b) how would the Ministry ascertain whether an information transfer complies with privacy standards; (c) what regulation and penalties will prevent organisations from using section 23 as a possible loophole for the PDPA; (d) finally, will section 23 apply to class licensees. Licensees and class licensees are mentioned in the same breath in most of the Act. For some reason, class licensees are not mentioned at all in this particular section.

My second clarification is on deposits. Section 13(2i) empowers LTA to collect a security deposit from licensees for the sole purpose of regulatory compliance. This means that customers who paid a deposit to shared mobility companies cannot hope to be repaid from the security deposits. Back in early 2019, Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min reiterated this point and suggested that disgruntled customers should sue to get their money back. It does not seem realistic to ask hundreds or thousands of customers to go to court to get back what might be $50 or $100 sum.

Can the Ministry share whether its stance has changed? Why not allow the security deposits to be used to repay customers? What is the principle keeping us from doing so? After all, I imagine any bike-sharing operators today will have trouble persuading customers to fork up deposits. Once burned, twice shy. Legislation that provides customers with some assurance might then be a win-win for consumers and businesses.

My third clarification is on safety directives. Section 26 enables the Minister to issue a safety directive to prevent death, serious injury, or serious property damage arising from the provision of any shared mobility service. Section 26(2) specifies that these directives cannot be in force for longer than six months to start with and the Minister can only renew it once for no longer than six months. In essence, a directive is capped at 12 months.

Can the Ministry clarify what happens at the end of the 12 months if the Ministry remains concerned about the subject of the directive? Under this law, is the Minister empowered to issue a second directive? If that is the case, what end does it serve to cap the length and frequency of the renewal? Given that these directives are used only in cases of serious concern, it would be helpful to clarify what we can expect that they do get used.

I will now discuss my two clarifications for the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill. My first clarification is on the private right of civil action.

The Active Mobility Act imposes obligations on various persons. For instance, the current section 21 imposes obligations on riders to travel below their path's maximum speed. The new section 23C imposes duties on adult supervisors for underage riding. Contravention of such sections are offences punishable by fines or imprisonment. However, it is not clear whether the Ministry intends for breaches of duties under the Active Mobility Act to give rise to a private right of action. In other words, it is not clear whether an individual injured in an accident involving a mobility device can sue another individual in tort for breach of their statutory duties under the Active Mobility Act. Can the Ministry clarify whether its intention is to confer private right of civil action for the statutory duties imposed under this Act?

My second clarification is on the punishment for underage riding. The new section 23A(2) provides imprisonment as a punishment option for underage riding of a motorised PMD on a shared path. The typical sentencing consideration for young offenders is rehabilitation. Imprisonment will taint a young person's record and seems like an unduly harsh punishment for underage riding of a PMD. Can the Minister clarify the reasons for allowing imprisonment of an underage rider? Can the Minister also clarify in what situations will we call for imprisonment for an underage rider?

On a similar note, the new section 23B describes conditions in which a person is deemed to have facilitated underage riding of motorised PMDs. One condition is that the person had been "reckless" as to whether their conduct would help an underage individual ride the PMD. What does "reckless" mean here? Would it be reckless to trust a child to safeguard an unlocked e-scooter? This is not an edge case. After all, the shared paths on which many young people spend their time are now the only place where PMDs can be ridden. As we mandate good behaviours by PMD owners, we must also help them understand how to comply with the law. To this end, it would be helpful if the Minister could describe scenarios or outline standards that exemplify "reckless" conduct.

Finally, I would like to talk more broadly about our Government’s strategy towards active mobility. The two Bills today deal, for the most part, with problems that have already come and gone. Most of it is directed at PMDs and bike-sharing services, both of which are barely visible in Singapore anymore.

Certainly, if these forms of mobility see a comeback, we will have built a robust regulatory framework for them. But our policy towards active mobility should be more proactive and less reactive. I am heartened by the recent announcement that we will be accelerating our plans to triple the length of our cycling network. But as we spend time building the bike lanes, I hope we can start thinking about the next projects.

First, how can we integrate the use of bicycles with our public transit network? Unlike in many other major cities, you cannot bring a regular bicycle onto the bus or MRT. Even in countries with sophisticated biking infrastructure, there are many who will spend part of their commute on public transportation. We must find ways to integrate our new biking infrastructure with our world-class public transportation network.

Second, how can we make bike parking more secured as we discussed in the earlier Question Time? Many HDB flats have limited space and cyclists need somewhere secure to park overnight. I am happy that LTA is focusing on building more bike-parking facilities. But how many of these spaces are unmonitored and unlocked? Most experienced cyclists will tell you to never park your bicycle outside overnight, even at supposedly secure spots like MRT stations.

What cyclists need are not over-engineered, far-flung parking spaces like SecureMyBike, the automated underground system that recently closed down. What they need are affordable and accessible low-tech bicycle lockers and bicycle parking stations, ideally mapped on the MyTransport.SG app for convenience. Many cities around the world already have much success with these options.

Third and lastly, how can we go beyond incremental additions to our cycling network? Even with LTA's new expansion plans, our cycling networks are currently a patchwork of local connectivity. But if we want cycling to become a true mode of transportation, we have to build ambitious infrastructure such as bicycle freeways, like the North-South Corridor. Will LTA be building more of these?

Sir, in conclusion, I am happy to express my support for a Bill that creates a robust regulatory framework for active mobility in Singapore. My hope is that this leads the way to more ambitious plans, as we not only build in recollection of past learnings but also in anticipation of future opportunities. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

5.52 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) were first introduced in Singapore, they were heralded as a solution to close the first and last mile connectivity gap by enabling commuters to travel from their homes to key transportation hubs. They were also seen as a viable solution to help Singapore transit to a car-lite society by providing commuters with an efficient means of travelling short-to-medium distances with relative ease. The adoption of PMDs was rapid – by the end of 2019, it was estimated that there were about 100,000 PMDs in Singapore. This, in addition to other types of mobility devices like electric-bikes, hoverboards and electric unicycles.

As shared by MOT in a Parliament sitting in November 2019, there were almost 300 PMD-related accidents in 2018 and the number of accidents for 2019 is estimated to be in the similar range, if not higher. There were also a number of fatalities as well. The amendments to the Active Mobility Bill are thus timely, not so much to stop the use of these devices, but to ensure that our footpaths are once again safe for the significant majority of the population.

One of the amendments to the Active Mobility Bill is to prohibit the use of mobile communications devices while operating PMDs. While comprehensive statistics on the relationship between using mobile devices when operating a PMD and the likelihood of accidents might not be fully available, we can take a leaf out from the rationale of banning the use of mobile phones while driving a car.

I thus strongly support banning the usage of mobile communications devices while operating a PMD as I believe this will minimise distractions for riders, and increase their level of attention on the road so that they are not a hazard to others and to themselves.

On the topic of the minimum age of riders and competency tests, the amendments in the bill have made some new provisions pertaining to minimum riding and supervising age. The concept of having a minimum age is important as maturity and responsibility of PMD usage is generally correlated to the riders' age. However, the devil is in the implementation details.

For example, while clause 23A 5(a) and 5(b) stipulate that regulations on different minimum ages could be made for different classes or description of PMDs, how would the different minimum age for the different types of PMDs be determined? Does this imply that some PMDs are deemed to be more "dangerous" than others and would therefore require a higher minimum age? Also, if there are different minimum ages for different PMDs, would the authorities not face a challenge in implementing this on the ground as there could be various permutations of ages and device type that the regulators and enforcement officers have to deal with?

While the competency theory test will certainly enhance the riders' awareness of road safety, the challenge again is in ensuring that all riders go through the test. The new competency test would be relatively easy to enforce for new riders and those who wish to purchase PMDs as it could be stipulated that they produce their competency certificate to PMD retailers before they are allowed to purchase a PMD. However, the same could not be said of existing owners of PMDs or those who co-share a PMD with their family members and friends.

How would the authorities ensure that all PMDs riders are certified to be competent before they ride? Would PMD riders be required to carry with them their competency certificate at all times when they ride just as motorists are required to have their driving licenses with them while they are driving?

I have some other areas of concerns, Mr Deputy Speaker. The amendments to the Active Mobility Bill stipulate that the ban of PMDs on footpaths will be expanded to cover all forms of devices, including hoverboards and electric unicycles, except for motorised wheelchairs which are still allowed on footpaths. I have come across several residents who face mobility challenges, but they are not yet at a stage where they might require a motorised wheelchair specifically.

Would the authorities consider allowing such residents to use PMDs on footpaths if they can get themselves medically certified that they need PMDs to assist in their mobility? In short, are we prepared to allow them to use different forms of motorised devices, other than motorised wheelchairs, to assist them in their daily commutes and movements?

Since the announcement of the ban of PMDs on footpaths in November 2019, our footpaths have indeed become much safer and many food delivery riders who used to ride PMDs have switched to other forms of mobility devices, such as e-bikes. That said, there remain some deviant and recalcitrant riders who continue to ride their PMDs on footpaths in a dangerous manner – I have personally witnessed a few such cases myself. How would the Government propose to curtail such deviant riding and can the Government share any information perhaps, on the number of riders that have been taken to task since the footpath ban came into effect in November 2019?

A related issue would be how the Government intends to equip our enforcement officers with the right training to handle errant riders without compromising their own personal safety? This was referenced earlier by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and I am sure that many of us are familiar with the video of an enforcement officer kicking a speeding PMD rider off his device when the rider refused to stop.

We should not condone the use of force by enforcement officers in their course of performing their duty, but I feel that there should be proper protocols in place for dealing with errant speeding PMD riders. Imagine if the rider in the video was not stopped and subsequently crashed into someone and hurt them badly or worse, even kill them. Would the enforcement officer have then been blamed somehow or held responsible for allowing this to happen because he was not trained to stop the errant speeding rider?

While these amendments will help address some immediate problems, they will not guarantee that there are no more accidents as a result of errant PMD riding. I thus hope that our PMD riders, our PMD users will also play their part by riding in a socially-responsible manner as we progress towards our goal of a car-lite community that is safe for everyone – both PMD users and pedestrians. With that, I end my speech in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Dr Janil.

5.59 pm

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members for their suggestions and their support for the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill and the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill. There were many issues raised, reflecting the wide spectrum of views on this topic. I will make a few general points before I start to answer the Members' questions.

First is that, despite all of the Members who spoke, supporting the Bill, some of their views were entirely contradictory. There were Members asking for increased enforcement, increased regulations and an even tighter regime than we are proposing. And there were some Members suggesting that we are going too far.

Similarly, around the issue of children, access to different devices and so forth. That there are contradictory views from Members reflects the difficulty in this space. Nevertheless, all the Members supported the need for the regulatory regime that we are proposing, recognising that this approach will provide a framework for the riders, the device operators, the businesses and has a coherent approach to making our paths as safe as possible for pedestrians as well as these riders.

The second general point is around walking, and I make reference to Prof Lim Sun Sun's speech as well as some of the others, such as Assoc Prof Walter Theseira. While we may be interested in the numbers of PMD riders, and Members have asked questions about how many there are and how many accidents and how many are compliant and so forth, we must remember that there are far, far more Singaporeans who are using that space to walk. And actually, that is the single, biggest way in which people are closing the first mile and last mile gap through walking.

Walking enables them to access all the amenities of the town as well as our public transport infrastructure.

So, while we may or may not get every part of this regulatory approach exactly right today – and we have some flexibility to adjust. The key thing that we want to do is ensure safety of this space for all users and the base of people walking in this space which is far, far, larger. But the ability of one PMD rider who is errant, behaving poorly in this space, affects a very large number of people walking along that same path.

The third general point I want to make – there were several comments relating to a cultural change or internalising a behavioural change. I agree and I support those sentiments. And indeed, if we do have a culture of looking out for each other, regardless of whatever is our modality of transportation, of ensuring that we have some public spiritedness about our shared spaces, indeed, it will be a lot safer for everybody and a lot more pleasant. This is very, very difficult to do and it takes a lot of time and we may not always reach the end of the journey very easily.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira talked about driving. We have had a very strict regulatory regime for cars here in Singapore for many years. I think we would all agree that we have not reached the end of the road in establishing the kind of driving culture that we desire.

The fourth point, generally, is the issue of cycling infrastructure. There were several questions about the infrastructure plans that we have, the design, the approach that we are going to take. These will be addressed in our Committee of Supply debate and we will have a fairly detailed discussion about it. I do not propose to go into the details today.

If I could now move on to the specific points and questions raised by the Members.

Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Ong Teng Koon brought up some issues to do with the companies' responsibilities. We do agree that companies which engage riders of active mobility devices in the course of work have a social responsibility to ensure path safety both for their riders as well as the general public. And that they must put in place the right incentive structures to encourage safe riding, as has been pointed out by a number of people. These include sufficient time to complete their deliveries and a structure that dissuades speeding or the breaking of rules. Companies should also ensure their riders use devices that comply with our active mobility regulations.

We will require all companies who employ or contract with active mobility device riders to ensure that their riders are covered by third party liability insurance for bodily injury and death. This will protect victims in the event of accidents. We strongly encourage companies to help their riders obtain personal accident insurance coverage. Some, as has been pointed out, already do so and we hope our tripartite partners will work with us to encourage others to follow suit.

The issue of the "gig economy" and self-employed persons is significant and it is something that will cut across a number of industries and a number of domains. It is also complex and it lies, unfortunately, well outside the scope of these Bills. I do sympathise with Mr Ong Teng Koon's suggestions and the way in which he has highlighted the difficulties and challenges of this space. And indeed, it does affect a number of workers which we interface with from the transport sector. But there are many other "gig economy" and self-employed persons as well. We do need to look at this. And I will convey his suggestions to MOM who oversees the Employment Act. But the way in which we address this will need to be based upon our tripartite partnership. We will leverage upon this going forward and we, in the transport family, will play our part.

Ms Anthea Ong, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Mr Louis Ng have asked about information sharing and specifically, the issues around section 23 of the Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill. This enables information sharing between the licensed device-sharing operators to effectively impose a collective ban on individuals who persistently park active mobility devices improperly. There are measures in place to protect individual data and privacy, and the information sharing must be limited to the extent necessary to implement this ban. For all other usage of data that, it is not for the purposes of this ban, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) will continue to apply in full force to all the operators and they are required to comply with existing data protection and privacy standards. LTA will assess the robustness of their systems and processes in place as part of the licence evaluation process.

There were some questions from Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong about the issuance of safety directives by the Minister for Transport. This provision is already in place today. It is intended for exceptional circumstances to allow us to tackle urgent issues of safety expeditiously. But once it is clear what the solution is, we cannot just carry on renewing the safety directives repeatedly. We will address the problem through legislative amendments. So, that is precisely what we are doing today. For example, today, there is a safety directive in place to disallow the usage of e-scooters for licensed device-sharing operators. To be clear, these safety directives are for operators not individual hires.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the recourse for consumers who have paid deposits to shared mobility device companies. Currently, none of the licensed device-sharing operators collect user deposits. This may change. The Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill therefore proposes to give LTA the power to prohibit licensees from collecting user deposits, if the need arises. We shall watch and see how this space develops.

Mr Alex Yam asked about how we would police these shared user device businesses for compliance. There are a number of ways.

The first is that the regular ground enforcement of course will pick up issues of non-compliance when the customers of these businesses if they transgress. Operators, as part of their licensing process, will be required to demonstrate that they have processes in place to ensure that the users that they hired out their vehicles to, for example, have the appropriate test certificate, and this will include tourists. The operational details of how these tests will be administered both to people who have devices and new device owners and tourists, will need to be worked out. We will make some announcements in due course. But, importantly, we will have to work with the operators and businesses to make sure that this is something effective. But we intend for this to cover all riders.

If I could move to the personal mobility aids that Mr Darryl David, in particular, brought up. The ban of motorised PMDs on footpaths, let me state once again, does not apply to personal mobility aids. Such PMAs do not only include motorised wheelchairs. There are also other types of devices such as mobility scooters and so forth. So, to the Member's specific question, if there are individuals with walking difficulties, there are other devices which perhaps, for want of a better word, are not as "medicalised" as a motorised wheelchair that may be more suitable for someone who perhaps is not such a serious condition. And it will be more appropriate for them to use such a device, rather than to have a very, very different process where the individuals then requires a waiver for something like an e-scooter. And that is the way that we will try to help these individuals.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked several questions about power-assisted bicycles (PABs). The aim is to ensure that there are different options available and that device users can choose the best mode of transport based on their needs. So, the motorised PMD users can continue to ride on cycling paths or can switch to bicycles if they want to ride on footpaths. For this process to work, there has to be some ability for individual users to address their own level of comfort, their need for speed, as it were, and how they will make the choice between a power-assisted bicycle, a bicycle or a PMD. But whatever it is, we have to have a robust framework to ensure safety.

On the roads, the PABs will be regulated and already currently are regulated by LTA and Traffic Police (TP). We do not allow underage riding on PABs. There is no opportunity for the similar type of adult supervision of an underage rider. PABs riders already have to be 16 years of age or above. But going forward, PAB riders will need to pass a theory test covering on-road regulations and the Highway Code and be licensed by TP. And when riding on roads, all PAB riders must comply with road traffic regulations, such as travelling in the direction of traffic, wearing helmets and riding safely.

We also regulate the PAB devices. In the same way, we have a framework for the devices, the riders as well as businesses. All PABs must be registered and only the LTA-approved models are allowed to be used in Singapore. The restrictions on these devices prevent sudden accelerations and increases the predictability of a PAB rider to other road motorists. They also have to comply with the device safety standard European Commission EN15194 for electrical and fire safety. We will continue to monitor the use of PABs and take further steps, if necessary.

I would point out one issue brought up by Mr Alex Yam. The sale of non-UL2272 PMDs was actually stopped in July 2019. And the use of non-UL2272 devices will be stopped in July 2020. So, there will be a one-year period for that turnover.

If I may now move to the issue of insurance. This was brought up by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Alex Yam, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Louis Ng. Ideally, yes, all users should have some form of insurance, covering the rider himself and any victim. There is a practical problem, however – there are few active mobility-related insurance products available today. AMAP had consulted widely on this issue and they have recommended that Government take a staged approach, starting first with imposing insurance on businesses before extending it to individuals. We do want to progress in this direction, provide a critical mass of demand and allow the insurance industry to develop more affordable and comprehensive products. We will continue to work with AMAP and the insurance industry. But in the meantime, we strongly encourage all active mobility device riders to purchase such insurance to protect themselves from claims. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira has several suggestions which we will study in some detail and I think they are very reasonable ones indeed.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the balance between the business and employer. Potentially, it could be either, but the business would need to ensure that the employee or the rider, if the business is hiring the device out, has evidence of this third party liability insurance if they are not themselves providing it.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the causes of action. We have no intention to introduce new causes of action beyond what is available today. Today, victims of accidents on public paths can seek compensation from the rider for injury and losses suffered through civil proceedings, settlements and other private arrangements.

Mr Yam has asked about non-compliant PMDs. Currently, there are 54,000 non-UL2272 certified registered e-scooters. Fire safety issues remain a concern. I reiterate that from 1 July 2020, these non-UL2272 certified devices will not be allowed to be used on all paths. I encourage all owners of a non-UL2272 certified and a non-registered PMD to dispose of that PMD before the end of March 2020. Currently, that disposal does not cost the rider or the owner anything. That is almost certainly going to change and incur some fee after the end of March. After 1 April 2020, there will also be a mandatory inspection regime for e-scooters to verify compliance.

Mr Darryl David, Mr Alex Yam and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the testing regime. Firstly, it will apply to all users. How we will operationalise this theory test and enforcement, we are currently working out these operational details and we will release more information once we have worked this through with the operators.

We will continue to ramp up enforcement efforts to ensure compliance to our rules. LTA has caught more than 130 e-scooter riders since 1 January 2020 for violating the footpath ban. We will continue this approach to deter errant riding and ensure safety.

There have been suggestions for our enforcement officers. Indeed, we will continue to train them and equip them to handle different scenarios through more robust rules of engagement and better training. This includes strategies to tackle cases such as evasive riders. I am sure the Members appreciate that I am not going through the specifics of our enforcement strategy and tactics because we do wish them to be as effective as possible. But it does include the further use of technology, as suggested, including for example mobile CCTVs.

Er Dr Lee has suggested that we have an upper age limit for seniors. There are no current plans for that. For people who have difficulty walking, we have made provisions for personal mobility aids to be used. We would encourage those seniors who have difficulty with their mobility and need assistance and who may have the sort of healthcare problems that Er Dr Lee had brought up, to use a personal mobility aid which are safer and more stable, and not a PMD.

But if I may move to underage riding, the minimum riding age would be introduced for e-scooters as a subset of motorised PMDs first. Mr Darryl David asked about the powers under section 23A allowing the prescription of different minimum ages for different classes of PMDs. This is really to give us some flexibility because we cannot anticipate the new types of devices that may arise in the future. It allows us at the time to put in the appropriate regulations where necessary. At this point in time, it is 16 years and only apply to e-scooters. This is something that has been called for repeatedly, by many Singaporeans and AMAP as well, and we have fixed it at 16.

Many families enjoy outings using these devices together and we want to allow for this. Hence, the idea of a supervising adult for the underage rider.

But the supervising adult must behave responsibly. We do not want to be overly prescriptive about what the supervising adult must do. Sensible measures include staying close to the young rider, maintaining a proper line of sight to the rider, knowing and educating the rider of the appropriate rules and regulations, and taking appropriate measures to stop the rider if they are committing an offence or may get into an accident. We are developing guidelines to educate these supervising adults on how to properly supervise the underage rider.

Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Louis Ng asked about the penalties for the underage rider. If I can reiterate what I said in my opening speech – these penalties only provide the limit of the possible sentence. The Courts retain the discretion to consider the circumstances of the case, including the age of the individual and the laws on sentencing of young offenders found in the Children and Young Persons Act, in deciding the actual punishment to mete out.

Regarding the question from Mr Louis Ng about section 23B of the Active Mobility Bill which introduces an offence of inviting, allowing or facilitating underage riding of devices, the principle is to ensure that device owners or device-sharing operators take responsibility for the use of their devices, including ensuring that the devices are not used by an underage individual. This could include putting in place measures to check the age of customers hiring the devices or individuals who are borrowing the device or locking the device so that it is only available for one's own use. Where individuals are concerned, they should make sure that the device is not readily accessed by underage individuals.

Mr Dennis Tan had asked about an issue associated with underage riding and the liability of the rider versus the supervisor. If an underage rider commits an offence, it will not fall on the supervisor to be liable for that offence, for example, speeding or reckless riding. But the supervisor can be held responsible for improper supervision if he or she did not take reasonable and practical measures to ensure that the underage rider would not commit such offences.

As Members have noted, there have been many calls to improve public path safety as well as fire safety arising from use of these devices. We have taken these concerns very seriously and which is why my colleague Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min delivered the Statement on PMDs in August to address these concerns and established that we would have to tighten our regime if the situation did not improve. And the situation did not improve over a number of months. Accidents continue to rise in number and severity. Hence, we had to fundamentally review how we envisioned active mobility devices co-existing safely with other road and path users. So, we made the difficult decision to ban the e-scooters from the footpaths. We had to move decisively in order to prevent more deaths and more accidents.

We were mindful of the impact the move would have on e-scooter users, especially for those who had come to rely on it for their livelihoods. That was why we had provided a two-month advisory period – it is not an overnight ban – a two-month advisory period and worked closely with food delivery companies, the Labour Movement and other partners to support food delivery riders in the transition.

This strong tripartite collaboration enabled us to launch a Transition Assistance Package – a comprehensive approach to help these food delivery riders. We were able to do four days after announcing the ban. We are heartened that the three food delivery companies stepped up to co-fund with Government the e-scooter Trade-in Grant to help the riders transition to other devices. And we empathise with the affected riders. We received feedback that many of them have found the package of measures reassuring and useful. We have approved to-date more than 3,700 applications for the e-scooter Trade-in Grant and about one-third of the riders have already successfully switched to an alternative device, with the rest expected to do so in the next couple of months.

I would like to express appreciation for NTUC’s proactive efforts to develop the Delivery Rider Kit for food delivery riders, a five-day training programme to upskill the riders, helping them develop a greater confidence in switching to power-assisted bicycles on the road and complementing the Government’s efforts in promoting safe riding behaviour. Mr Ang Hin Kee had some suggestions to build on NTUC’s existing training modules when LTA implements the mandatory theory test requirements. These are good suggestions and we will leverage our good relationship with the NTUC to see how we can best operationalise this.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to unequivocally state that active mobility remains an important component of our long-term vision for the land transport landscape. To achieve this, we need the right infrastructure and the right regulatory approach.

The ideal for infrastructure is segregation – keeping different groups of users – footpaths for pedestrians and slow-moving devices like bicycles and PMAs; roads for motor vehicles; and cycling paths for devices of intermediate speeds, such as motorised PMDs and PABs – all separate. Today, we have an extensive network of footpaths and roads. We had previously announced that we will extend the cycling path network from 440 km to 750 km by 2025 and 1,300 km by 2030. We will elaborate on these plans at the Committee of Supply debate next month.

Going forward, we will continue to strike a delicate balance in ensuring Singaporeans can reap the benefits of active mobility, ensuring public safety and enabling business innovation. Where possible, we will try our best to anticipate the changes and put in place the necessary frameworks ahead of time. But it is not possible to predict all the ways that users, retailers and device operators will change their behaviour or find ways to circumvent our regulations. Rather than saying no to all innovations because of this, we want to continue to facilitate in a measured manner where there are clear benefits. And where we cannot anticipate, we will consult deeply, study the matter and move decisively to address the issues and challenges as they occur.

We will continue to consult widely and engage regularly, to ensure that our policies remain relevant to Singapore, Singaporeans and their aspirations – not just on active mobility, but in general.

I would finally like to express my appreciation for the many stakeholders who have made these Bills possible – AMAP members, the tripartite partners, the industry stakeholders, members of the public who provided views and suggestions as part of the AMAP consultation process, and of course Members of the House for their support of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

6.25 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Yes, Sir, I have two supplementary questions. I think Senior Minister of State did not address the topic on drunk riding. That is one question. The second question: for those cyclists that are using the road, when they cycle against the traffic, is it an offence? If yes, what are the measures to be taken? I think more education need to be carried out. I think many of them are not aware that actually it is an offence. And I see that quite often in, for example, Serangoon Garden where there are a lot of one-way road and then I see cyclists in the opposite direction. It can be quite dangerous.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Indeed, the issues that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah brought up are today covered under the Road Traffic Act. One should not ride against traffic and one must remain in control of one's vehicle and ride, drive or progress in a safe and orderly manner. It is easier said than done and we need a combination of enforcement and education, as she has pointed out.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.

Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Senior Minister of State, can I just check with you on what you shared. I appreciate your clarification that the Courts would obviously make the decision and make reference to CYPA. But it still does not discount the fact that the children will first be charged. And I just want to bring to attention that many of the children in low-income families, including in rental flat communities, they use PMDs as a primary form of their transport. For us to have to actually put them through that without considering at least some form of warning? I am not saying they should not be penalised if they are actually errant. I am saying that getting them charged and then getting them directly to the Courts really seem aggressive, particularly for underage riders. So, will Senior Minister of State share if you will consider at least some warnings or some reformative training before we get to exercise, charging them in the Courts.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: I take it that Ms Ong has no objection for there to be a minimum age of riding.

Ms Anthea Ong: For riders to be at least 16?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Yes. I am trying to understand whether she is objecting to the fact that there should be a minimum age of riding or does she agree that there should be a minimum age.

Ms Anthea Ong: No, I am not disputing there should be a minimum age. I am saying that it is still very aggressive. Because 16 is seen, in CYPA, as still a child.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: I understand. So, I just want to clarify that she does support that there is a minimum age for the riders and, hence, someone who is below that age has committed an offence or transgression at the very least. So, I think how the officers deal with that, we need to give them the operational leeway to deal with the circumstances that are in front of them. I think if you have someone who deliberately, maliciously and recklessly drove at a high speed a modified PMD, you would have to consider that quite differently from, perhaps, somebody who is on a family outing but who has then strayed away from their parent.

Indeed, the two scenarios are different. I think the officer picking up the transgression needs to be able to understand that they have to deal with these two scenarios differently, as do the agencies and subsequently the Courts. I think to guarantee that every case is dealt with exactly the same way would be an inappropriate commitment at this point in time.

Ms Anthea Ong: Can I then ask what are we planning to do in terms of getting these new laws and regulations to our vulnerable communities and all the children to make sure that they understand this is going to be in place?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: I think we have to be quite clear about the perspective here. Ms Ong has brought up the vulnerable, low-income many, many times. The most important way for all our communities, including the vulnerable and low-income to get around, is by walking and using public transport, and they close the last mile gap, not through a PMD, but through many other different means.

We have to have our priority in ensuring the safety of that space. I think we will progress as best we can so that those who do rely on this for their livelihood can be supported in some way. And we will make sure that all Singaporeans are well educated about the provisions of this Bill and the enforcement of its provisions.

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. – [Dr Janil Puthucheary].

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