Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.12 pm

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

A few months ago, LTA launched the latest Land Transport Masterplan (LTMP) outlining our vision for a well-connected and convenient land transport network by 2040. Taxis and private hire cars (PHCs) are very much part of this vision and complement our bus and MRT networks. Today, about 6% of all journeys are completed on taxis or PHCs, which make up the Point-to-Point Sector, or P2P sector for short.

In many other cities, the introduction of PHC booking service operators has led to disruptions, strikes, and protests by taxi drivers. Here in Singapore, the Government, operators and the driver associations have worked closely together to address the challenges that came about as a result of technological disruption and the emergence of new players. The regulatory framework has evolved gradually and smoothly, in partnership with our tripartite colleagues. Today, we enjoy a P2P sector that is able to meet the needs of commuters and drivers, as well as our broader transport objectives, while also allowing innovation to thrive. This healthy balance is only possible with responsible operators, sensible commuters and safe drivers, and in addition, the active involvement of our colleagues from the Government Parliamentary Committee led by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and his deputy, Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Prior to the entry of the ride-hail platforms into Singapore in 2013, P2P services were primarily delivered by 28,000 taxis. Taxi drivers would mostly cruise around or queue at taxi stands to look for and pick up passengers. These are what we call "street-hail trips". This is in contrast to what we label "ride-hail trips", where the ride is booked in advance. Prior to 2013, this booking was usually done by a phone call or text message and accounted for only a small proportion of rides. Long wait times and a lack of available taxis, especially during peak hours, were common complaints.

The commuter experience has significantly improved. Today, there are about 20,000 taxis and 45,000 PHCs, providing many more P2P options and improved service standards.

With the convenience and popularity of ride-hail applications, commuters have benefited. Today, more than two-thirds of all P2P are ride-hail trips, of which 30% are carried out by taxis.

The matching of demand and supply has also been enhanced through these ride-hail apps. As a result, commuters now enjoy shorter waiting times for both street-hail and ride-hail trips. For example, the waiting time for a taxi booking has fallen by about two minutes in 2016, to just under seven minutes in 2018. Dynamic fares have also allowed better matching of supply and demand – with higher prices during peak hours and also lower prices during off peak hours. This allows commuters to have a range of options at different price points.

Commuters have also benefited as operators innovate to attract passengers, through pricing strategies, trip incentives and value-added services. There are even specialised services to meet different commuter needs – from families with young children to commuters with pets.

Street-hail services will continue to have an important role and LTA’s data shows that commuters prefer street-hail services in areas with a higher concentration of commuters and taxis, such as central areas and around Changi. Commuters also prefer street-hail services for shorter trips as it is more efficient to street-hail a taxi than to wait for a booked ride. Almost all respondents in a recent Customer Satisfaction Survey were satisfied with P2P services.

The increased efficiency of matching drivers with commuters has benefited drivers as well. Drivers have a higher chance of finding commuters and can also reduce the amount of time spent cruising without a passenger.

All this demonstrates how market-driven innovation can benefit commuters and drivers. Members can easily appreciate that if there were to be excessive regulations, this may compromise the current environment and the current situation. But it is also important to understand that these benefits can also easily be lost if there is insufficient regulatory oversight. For example, operators may compromise commuter and driver safety at the expense of profits. Operators might also try to compete by "locking in" drivers using exclusive contracts, which would affect market contestability, which in turn harms commuters by increasing prices.

Mr Speaker, it is timely for us to review the regulatory framework for the P2P sector, and to put in place legislation that will help to maintain the current balanced position we enjoy. This Bill has benefited from extensive consultations with operators, drivers, the National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, members of the public and the GPC. Their feedback, suggestions and active involvement have improved this Bill. The framework aims to protect the safety and interests of commuters and drivers, while facilitating an open and innovative P2P sector.

Sir, let me now outline our overall approach to regulating the P2P sector.

First, we will license PHC booking service operators. Currently, LTA already regulates taxi operators under the Road Traffic Act (RTA), and third party taxi booking service providers under the Third Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act (TPB Act). Like taxi operators, PHC booking service operators have an equally important responsibility in ensuring commuter and driver safety in the course of their operations. The Bill will give LTA the necessary regulatory levers to ensure that the PHC booking service operators discharge these responsibilities. With this change, LTA will have regulatory oversight over all major P2P operators in Singapore.

Secondly, we will regulate P2P operators based on whether they provide street-hail or ride-hail services. Currently, LTA has one set of regulations for taxi operators, which generally provide a mix of street-hail and ride-hail services, and another set of regulations for TPB service providers. However, street-hail and ride-hail services have different characteristics and need to be regulated differently. This will ensure that our regulations are fit for purpose. Given the growing proportion of ride-hail trips, it makes better sense to have one set of regulations for all street-hail services and a different set of regulations for all ride-hail services, regardless of the type of vehicle used. This means that taxi operators will be required under our new regulatory framework to hold separate licences for their street-hail and ride-hail services. PHC booking service operators and TPB service providers will be licensed as ride-hail service operators. LTA will also be able to issue different sub-classes of street-hail and ride-hail service licences, such as for operators offering different types of services.

Today, we already regulate drivers through the Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL) and Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence (PDVL) process. We currently also regulate vehicles at the vehicle level. What this Bill sets out to do is to regulate the operators by regulating them on the basis of the service they provide, not on who the operator is.

Mr Speaker, let me now elaborate on the three key areas of the proposed licensing regime for operators that carry out P2P services using taxis and PHCs.

First, our licensing regime focuses on the larger operators, given the wider impact they have on commuters and drivers. This will also manage regulatory costs for smaller ride-hail service operators and will allow small, new and innovative services to emerge. Today, all taxi operators have a minimum fleet size requirement of 800 taxis to ensure that they can provide an adequate level of service to commuters. Moving forward, this requirement will continue to be imposed for street-hail service operators – no change. We will also license all ride-hail service operators with 800 or more vehicles on their platform.

Ride-hail service operators with fewer than 800 vehicles on their platform will be exempted from the need to obtain a licence. Nevertheless, we will continue to impose basic safety regulations on them to ensure commuter safety. These operators must ensure that their drivers and vehicles are appropriately licensed and insured. LTA will continue to have the powers to issue a suspension order under the Road Traffic Act to prohibit drivers from driving for these exempt ride-hail service operators if their participating drivers fail to meet this requirement. We will continue to safeguard commuter safety via the separate licensing of drivers and vehicles.

It will be an offence for any person to provide street-hail or ride-hail services without a licence or an exemption. If convicted, they may face a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to six months, or both. A further fine of up to $500 will be imposed for each day that the offence continues after conviction. It will also be an offence to drive for these illegal operators.

The Bill has provisions for LTA to have regulatory oversight over the entire P2P sector. This includes the ability to regulate new business models, or P2P services involving new vehicle types. This will allow LTA to respond quickly and effectively to rapid technological and commercial trends in the sector.

Secondly, our licensing regime will require operators to ensure the safety of commuters and drivers. We will extend today’s safety-related regulations for taxi operators to all licensed ride-hail service operators.

The need for enhanced safety measures is an area that industry stakeholders and members of the public agreed is of critical importance. The Bill will give LTA the powers to set safety requirements on licensed operators. LTA will track the number of accidents and driver offences that occur when a driver carries out a trip for a particular operator. Operators whose drivers have committed too many accidents or offences can be penalised through regulatory sanctions. This is to ensure that operators play their part to encourage safe driving behaviour and reduce driver offences. Operators must also ensure that the vehicles used to provide P2P services are able to pass the requisite vehicle inspections and are roadworthy. This ensures that operators play their part to keep the vehicles they deploy well-maintained and serviceable, for the safety of commuters, drivers and other road users.

The Bill also gives LTA powers to issue emergency directives to all P2P operators, including licence-exempt service operators. For example, LTA will be able to prohibit operators from using vehicle models which are found to be defective and therefore pose safety risks.

Thirdly, in regulating the P2P sector, we will keep the market open to support the development of innovative and accessible services. We have benefited from having an open P2P sector, with increased ride availability and improved service standards. We should continue to allow market forces to drive service delivery and improvement. As the market has evolved, LTA will adopt a light regulatory approach towards service standards and will streamline regulatory requirements where possible. This will help to lower compliance costs.

We intend to prohibit operators from offering exclusive arrangements to "lock in" drivers that in effect prevent them from driving for other operators. This is because such arrangements make it difficult for new players to enter the market and naturally favour incumbent operators. This is detrimental to driver and commuter interests. We will, however, make an exception for operators who directly employ drivers, as full-time employment is inherently exclusive.

In line with our vision for an inclusive transport sector, we will ensure that P2P services continue to remain accessible to all commuters. For now, LTA will continue to require taxi companies to provide call booking services. This ensures that those who may not be comfortable with an online booking process or an app, will continue to be able to book trips using a phone call.

The Bill also includes other standard regulatory provisions such as requirements for operators to keep records, and to provide relevant information and data to LTA. Operators who fail to comply with LTA’s regulatory requirements will be liable for financial penalties, suspension or even revocation of their licences.

Mr Speaker, today, the Public Transport Council (PTC) has regulations to standardise taxi fare structure, while leaving fare amounts deregulated. However, there are no such regulations for PHC fares. Fare evasion and overcharging for PHC trips are also not prohibited, unlike for taxi trips today. Given the rising proportion of trips by PHCs, we are amending the Public Transport Council Act (PTC Act) to give PTC the powers to extend today’s taxi fare regulatory approach to PHC fares. The amendments will empower PTC to safeguard commuter and driver interests in the area of taxi and PHC fare transparency in the following ways.

Firstly, for street-hail trips, there will be no changes to existing fare regulations. Street-hail service operators will continue to be required to charge metered fares for street-hail taxi trips, in accordance with the fare structure now set by PTC. This allows commuters to compare fares across taxi operators more easily.

Secondly, for ride-hail trips, licensed ride-hail service operators can continue to offer metered fare trips using taxis, as is the case today. Licensed ride-hail service operators will also be allowed to independently set flat fares for ride-hail trips using taxis and PHCs. The only requirement is that these flat fares for taxi and PHC bookings by licensed ride-hail service operators must be provided upfront to commuters. We will allow licensed operators to adjust both metered and flat fares.

In addition, we will amend the PTC Act such that the offences of fare evasion and overcharging extend to PHC trips booked through licensed ride-hail service operators. This is to deter such behaviour, to protect commuters and to protect drivers.

Lastly, the Bill makes related and consequential amendments to update provisions in certain Acts and to clarify our regulatory intent.

Sir, this Bill sets out a forward looking and flexible regulatory framework for the regulation of P2P services and providers in Singapore. We will open licence applications for street-hail and ride-hail service operators in February 2020, and the new regulatory framework will commence in June 2020. This will help to facilitate an open market to support the development of responsive P2P services, while also providing sufficient regulatory oversight to protect the safety and interests of commuters and drivers. It is a necessary piece in our long term vision for a well-connected and convenient land transport network.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the stakeholders who took the time and effort to contribute invaluable feedback during the consultation process – operators, drivers, the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and members of the public. This feedback has allowed us to better understand commuter, driver and industry needs and has helped to shape a better Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.29 pm

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Six years ago, Grab and Uber have disrupted our local taxi market. At that time, taxi drivers were worried about livelihood. They did not know whether they would be ousted. In comparison, taxi drivers and operators from other countries were also thinking of ways to stop private hire cars from sinking roots into their local markets. Some taxi drivers even had conflict with PHC drivers or went protesting on the streets. They did not think of a space where the two can co-exist. The only choice was to fight.

Compared to them, although our taxi drivers were also concerned, they did not create conflict and disturb our social order. Everyone has made huge effort, learn to adapt and use technology. This is our unique Singapore spirit. Things do not come easy. I hope we can cherish what we have today.

Today we can discuss in a very peaceful environment debate on this P2P legislation, we must thank our taxi drivers. They are very patient and adapt to market changes and challenges in a calm manner. They believe we can provide a good arrangement for them. In many industries, new technologies, funds worth of billions of dollars and the digital economy have brought about many new opportunities. To be successful, the mindset of workers are more important. Our taxi drivers have demonstrated resilience by overcoming the challenges, embracing new things and learning to take on technologies as opposed to fearing them. This attitude is worth encouraging. Today we also have taxi drivers in the gallery. This is the first time in Parliament. I hope in the subsequent debate today, we can give them a very positive response and give them some encouragement.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the first ride-hail operator I met was about six years ago in Singapore. The company was called Hailo. Subsequently, many came and left, even as I participated in many debate about its impact. Fast forward to today, we have over 40,000 private hire and 100,000 taxi drivers in Singapore.

Together they serve over 1.2 million daily trips, up from where we had only taxis which served a million trips a day.

Indeed, many livelihood and commuter convenience are dependent on how the industry operates and how the LTA regulate the sector. Once this regulation of point-to-point is in place, I hope it will lead to fair competition among the various types of point-to-point operators and ensure greater accountability to our drivers and commuters.

Who can be an operator moving forward? Currently, as we heard from Senior Minister of State Janil that only taxi operators are subjected to regulatory controls and we have previously called for and I am glad that the LTA will regulate the private hire operators as well.

Back when Uber suddenly left Singapore a year plus ago, many felt that the way that these ride-hailing firms operate made it very easy for them to exit and it also left drivers, commuters and their employees in a lurch. Nobody knew what happened because overnight they closed their office and all the senior management exited Singapore.

To avoid such negative outcomes, all street-hailing service and ride-hailing service operators should comply with the Tripartite Standards in managing self-employed persons. In some cities, Mr Speaker, regulators have considered treating these drivers as employees because, truth be told, many of them are tied to employee-like requirements. But I believe Singapore, again, has a better solution in that the Tripartite Standards set forth by MOM is a better option.

Today, many operators continue to unilaterally suspend drivers or offer contracts that say more about the obligations of drivers than what the obligations of the operators are. Indeed, fair and reasonable terms should be the norm of contracts moving forward.

Fortunately, our operators have also supported good schemes. There is the Enhanced Drive and Save Medisave co-contribution scheme offered by taxi operators together with the National Taxi Association for taxi drivers. There is also the free insurance offered by Grab and Gojek with the National Private Hire Vehicle Association to help drivers manage loss of income due to prolonged illness. These are good measures and show that our operators are indeed responsible ones.

Notwithstanding these initiatives, we recommend that all operators comply with the Tripartite Standards as part of the licensing requirements. This will not create new burden on the existing operators because they are already currently doing many of these good things. But we also want to ensure that new operators coming to Singapore in future comply with the same type of good practices.

Who can be a driver? Currently, to qualify as a private hire driver you only need to have two years of driving experience. So, technically, at age 20, you can be a private hire driver. In comparison, to drive a taxi you need to be at least 30 years old and above.

The argument that ride hailing caters to part-timers and those who avail their vehicles in a share-economy do not quite reflect reality. Instead, we have seen a surge in bidding of new cars by leasing companies and many drivers becoming full-time vocational drivers. Do we really want to see more young drivers doing this on a full-time basis, forgoing the opportunity to delve into a career, enlarging their skillset and going professional in the work they do or to take a low-entry barrier job like vocational drivers.

Currently, we have 20,000 taxis, 45,000 private hire cars plus 140,000 vocational drivers. The demand for such rides have slowed down since the exit of Uber. I recommend that all new applicants for private hire driver vocational licence to be similar as taxis and that they all be at least 30 years old and above and for Singaporeans only. We are not short local drivers, Mr Speaker.

What more can LTA do? They have done quite a fair bit but I am glad to hear today that they will be reviewing the Taxi Availability framework and the Quality of Service standards for taxi operators. With the current fleet of private hire vehicles exceeding more than twice the number of taxis, I am glad that the new standards will be reviewed and rationalised. I am also very happy to hear that the new regulatory framework will seek to prohibit driver exclusivity arrangements by all parties. This will disallow operators to prevent their drivers from taking jobs from others and reduce the risks of market domination by the operators. I am glad that LTA has supported our call for this change.

One last point with regards to operator is the car pool platform. LTA also needs to pay particular attention to possible abuse on the private hire carpool platforms. These are subjected to two trips a day where the driver is either on the way to work, to the market or somewhere else; and he gives somebody a ride in exchange for a small fee to cover fuel or ERP costs. These drivers need not possess a vocational licence. But because of no regulatory control in this market space, a driver could possibly join several platforms and take on multiple trips beyond the stipulated daily limits. This is the feedback we have heard from the taxi drivers as well as the private hire drivers that there is this potential loophole. If left unchecked, it would offer a back-door to those who not want to comply with the operator or driver licensing requirements.

With appropriate regulatory oversight, Mr Speaker, I hope we will be able to attract more new point-to-point operators to our local scene, drive new innovations to bring about better commuting experience for commuters and offers a sustainable career for drivers. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

3.38 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, point-to-point passenger transport acts as a key complement to our public rail and bus infrastructure. In times where speed, comfort, convenience or connectivity is desired, such point-to-point transportation helps to fill in the gaps that our rail and bus infrastructure may not be able to. However, the industry was not always able to bridge that gap and has led to ride-hailing, working on the principles of the sharing economy, to disrupt the market.

Yet, all disruptions to the market, given time, will become part of the new normal. Ride-hail, while bringing much-needed competition and innovation to the P2P transport space, has been regulated initially as a technology disruption, rather than a transportation alternative. The Bill before us today is not the first time MOT and LTA have sought to regulate such services, but this Bill is finally a proper recognition of the fact that ride-hail providers do play a big role in our transport eco-system and deserves to be regulated as such. I support the Bill, but I do have concerns surrounding the P2P transport landscape that I wish the Senior Minister of State can give clarity to.

Mr Speaker, currently, Grab is the dominant operator in the ride-hail transport industry, with upward to 80% of the market share at the time of the Infringement Decision by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) in 2018. Since then, it has had to operate under the terms set forth by the CCCS judgement. However, the CCCS judgement hinged on defining the provision of ride-hailing platforms, and crucially excluded street-hail providers.

Should this Bill pass, would the CCCS directions continue to be in force? Noting that the regulatory framework set forth is one of harmonising regulations between street-hail and ride-hail operators, will the Bill loosen the current restraints via redefining the market that Grab operates in as a P2P transport operator, rather than just a ride-hail platform? MOT and LTA should ensure that the constraints currently on Grab do not just loosen overnight as the potential for abusing its market position is still there. What measures will the Government be taking to prevent this?

On a related note, clauses 58, 59 and 60 of the Bill will allow PTC to regulate ride-hail service providers, notably on the issue of fares as well. However, it is not clear in the Bill whether the regulation of such fares and its related standards will be determined. Will it be one aimed to make transparent the algorithms that power the fare structures, or will it be one that will institute hard rules such as surge pricing caps or standardising the fare per kilometre travelled? Ultimately, any fare regime must balance the needs of allowing drivers to earn a meaningful living, while the commuters themselves do not need to pay exorbitant prices especially during peak hours and times of stress in our public transport infrastructure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill also seeks to address various safety, welfare and privacy concerns by allowing LTA to issue Codes of Practices that will contain various requirements. This potentially includes, among others, the matters on the condition of vehicles, conduct of drivers, and measures to deal with customer complaints. While it may be reasonable to expect street-hail operators to follow existing taxi regulations, it is not clear how such Codes of Practices will look like for ride-hail operators. I hope the Senior Minister of State will provide some clarity to the House on this issue.

In the meantime, I would like to touch on three topics related to P2P transport that I hope the Senior Minister of State can clarify on how they will tackle in the industry moving forward.

First, safety on the roads. Research by researchers from University of Chicago and Rice University on US transport cases has shown that the arrival of ride-hailing services have led to an increase in motor vehicle and fatal accidents. Preliminary data in Singapore from motor insurers indicate an increase in road accident rates since the debut of ride-hailing firms. I would like to ask some questions relating to safety.

One, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government is satisfied with the overall quality of private hire car drivers in respect of safe driving, knowledge competency, driving skills and considerateness while driving. Does the Senior Minister of State think that more can be done to improve the standards in these respects?

Two, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what measures will be taken to mitigate against the continuing risk of more accidents arising from private hire cars?

Next, a related issue or concern is that of child seats. Even as taxis do not need to carry child seats currently, private hire cars do need to have child seats for use when they have young children as passengers. In the consultation phase of these regulations, more than half support having child seats in all P2P vehicles including taxis. While I can appreciate that there may not be easy answers for the Government, there has to be some consistency in its policy-making. If child seats are deemed to be a safety necessity for children travelling in private hire cars, young children travelling in taxis without child seats are surely subject to the same hazardous risks.

Secondly, driver welfare. In other parts of the world, Uber drivers have gone on strike demanding better pay at the same time Uber went public. Even as companies here seem to be able to give drivers meaningful income, only the ride-hailing operators are clear whether their drivers are able to earn a liveable income while driving reasonable hours so as not to result in tired drivers endangering the lives of commuters and the public.

Crucially, drivers should also be able to earn a liveable and meaningful wage driving for ride-hail operators but with reasonable working hours. Does the Government have any comparative statistics of the average working hours and average income of our private hire car drivers vis-à-vis their counterparts in other first world cities?

In other words, are both the average hours they work each day as well as their daily income comparable with those of their counterparts in other first world cities? Are the incentives set by the operators causing drivers to work an unhealthy number of hours, for example, more than eight or 10 hours? And if so, should we be concerned with the impact on the drivers’ health and families? Would this issue be regulated in the Code of Practices or other regulations?

Finally, privacy concerns for passengers. Negative behaviour by passengers and drivers alike have made for regular headlines in recent times, spurred by the proliferation of smart devices, both handheld and in-car. However, as LTA allows for in-car video recording in 2018 and audio recording just last month, privacy concerns still remain. PDPA guidelines are still vague on the retention of such data, only noting that the data be no longer retained when it is no longer necessary for business or legal purposes. Would the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the proposed code of practices will be specifying a time limit for video and audio recordings to be deleted so that the privacy of individuals can be safeguarded and what will such time limits be?

Next, there may also be a need to assess whether too many young adults may be lured by the promise of flexibility and wages they can gain from private car hire-driving as opposed to finding other employment. Does the Senior Minister of State have the data for private hire car drivers broken down by age? The concern here is that, career training wise, such young adult drivers, particularly those who do private-hire driving as a full-time occupation, may risk becoming obsolete with the possible advent of autonomous vehicles in perhaps the not too distant future.

If so, younger private-hire car drivers may find themselves unemployable earlier in their working life and would need to retrain. The Government may really need to encourage more pathways to skill up private hire car drivers as well.

I also want to speak on the impact that the operator-owned or -run private hire cars has on the value of COE premiums. Mr Speaker, COE prices saw an upsurge a few years ago when private hire cars were first introduced with Uber and Grab. With the departure of Uber, we saw the sharp drop in COE prices. With Gojek entering the market, the COE prices have picked up again earlier this year.

To be fair, such big players buying or leasing a big fleet of cars having a distortionary effect on the value of COE premiums is not new to private hire cars. Taxi operators were once bidding for COEs and they, too, had an undesirable impact on the COE prices.

When Uber departed, the end result was not pretty as well, as industry experts place the number of unused cars in the private-hire fleet at over 2,000. For our stated zero-car growth policy, having idle cars is a market failure.

This is also all rather unfair to individual car owners.

There has also been media reports of news or speculation that taxi companies may be allowed to bid for COEs again. I seriously hope that the Government is not entertaining this thought. It will certainly lead to an unwelcome spike in COE prices.

With such big players having the uneven power to distort COE prices, vehicles owned by or leased to all P2P passenger transport operators should be subject to a new category of COE so that these vehicles will not affect or drive COE pricing for current categories, to the detriment of private car owners. Alternatively, LTA should limit the fleet size of taxi and private-hire cars and ensure that all P2P passenger transport operators are not able to bid for COEs with other passenger cars.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I speak briefly in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, although I support this Bill, I do have a few reservations.

First of all, in respect of our full-time Private Hire Car (PHC) drivers, I would like to ask the Minister whether the average working hours each day as well as their daily income are comparable with those of their counterparts in other first world cities. Are the incentives set by the operators causing drivers to work an unhealthy number of hours e.g. more than 8 hours? And if so, should we be concerned with the impact on the driver's health and families?

Apart from this, can the drivers' income be guaranteed? Will it be reasonable and meaningful? I would also like to know whether these concerns that I have mentioned above would be regulated in the Code of Practices or other regulations.

Secondly, will ride-hailing operators affect COE prices? A few years ago, when the ride-hailing service was introduced in Singapore, Uber and Grab entered the market and COE prices saw an upsurge. In the subsequent few years, COE prices continued to rise significantly. With the departure of Uber, COE prices fell sharply. When Gojek entered the ride-hailing market this year, COE prices rose once again. Such price fluctuations are not welcomed by private-car owners. I would like the Government to consider the following suggestions.

First of all, we should set up a different COE category for the ride-hailing companies. Second, we should limit the number of cars that can be owned by them. Third, we can consider not allowing the ride-hailing operators to directly bid for COEs with owners of other private cars.

(In English): I look forward to the Senior Minister of State’s clarifications. Notwithstanding my concerns, I support the Bill.

3.51 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as I am the CEO of the ComfortDelGro taxi business.

Six years after the first ride-hailing company entered Singapore, MOT has finally decided to regulate the ride-hailing sector more comprehensively. It is late but it is better to be late than never. One taxi company, SMART Taxi, exited the market in 2013, the same year Grab entered Singapore to grab a share of the P2P market.

China started to regulate the private hire car sector comprehensively in 2016, almost three years earlier than us. In the same year, 2016, OECD also published a paper on the regulation pertaining to the for-hire passenger transport. China’s regulations have stipulated clearly that they would like to have the co-existence of taxis and private hire cars (or PHCs). In London, licensed taxis decreased by a mere 1,000 from 2013 to 2017, while PHCs increased from 50,000 to 87,000 or a 74% increase.

In Singapore, the total taxi fleet has decreased from the height of 28,000 to 19,000 as of last month while the PHC fleet has increased from almost zero to 50,000, so maybe 50,000 times. When we compare Singapore’s situation with that of China and London, the contrast is significant. Thus, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if MOT has a view of the right mix of the number of registered taxis and PHCs. Or is MOT happy to allow market forces to determine the equilibrium mix of taxis and PHCs?

In determining the policy intention and direction, I would like to point out that there is a severe market imperfection in the Point-to-Point (P2P) passenger transportation industry. This is one of the reasons why the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) is still not removing the restrictions on the large ride-hail company.

On the regulation of fare. Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier this year, Indonesia announced that it would regulate ride-hail fare, with a maximum and minimum fare. Interestingly, clause 59 of the current Bill, Part 5 of the Public Transport Council Act, is amended to allow PTC to impose a ride-hail fare pricing policy that, amongst other things, fixes the components of ride-hail fares, specifying the factor or factors to be applied, which is more commonly referred to as surge pricing; and fixes a maximum or minimum price or price range.

Very often, ride-hail passengers are irritated by surge pricing where the fare can surge by 100%, 200% or more whenever there is a shortage of vehicles or there is a sudden surge of demand. Thus, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the P2P Bill that proposes to impose a ride-hail fare pricing policy is a signal that the authority is ready to regulate ride-hail fare or is it a mere provision to regulate the ride-hail fare in the future that is far, far away.

On the qualification of drivers. Both taxi and PHC drivers send passengers from point A to point B and, yet, it is easier to be a PHC driver than a taxi driver. Why? Does MOT have the intention to enlarge the supply of PHC drivers and shrink the supply of taxi drivers?

Let me illustrate why it is easier to become a PHC driver. First, PHC drivers can be as young as 21 years old while the minimum age to qualify as a taxi driver is 30 years old. PHC drivers only need to pass a one-day course but taxi drivers need to pass a two-day course. PHC drivers can be either a Singaporean or Permanent Resident, although PR needs to work as a chauffeured-service driver. On the other hand, a taxi driver must be a Singaporean and no PR is allowed. There is a historical reason why taxi drivers need to be 30 years old and above. I suppose the same logic applies to PHC drivers unless MOT thinks that the PHC drivers are a totally different category as compared to taxi drivers.

The collection of data. We note that under clause 30, LTA is empowered to issue one or more codes of practice to street-hail and ride-hail operators. Currently, taxi companies – or in the future, renamed as street-hail operators – have to provide trip data to LTA in real time. I would like to ask if LTA intends to require ride-hail companies to also provide real-time trip data to LTA? If so, the real-time trip data would enable LTA to better analyse the overall travel pattern of all passengers using P2P transport providers. Such real-time data can also assist LTA and users of P2P services in the following ways.

One, when a passenger loses an item in a bookable vehicle, as defined in clause 4 of the Bill, LTA can help to locate the lost item in the PHC or taxi in real time. This piece of work is best undertaken by LTA as a bookable vehicle is able to take booking jobs from different ride-hailing platforms and different operators within a single day or even within a single hour.

Two, LTA can better identify the appropriate ride-hail operator when the driver has committed an offence or met with an accident.

On the sandbox regulation. Under clause 5b, it is stated that one of the purposes of the Bill is to enable development and operation of innovative and accessible point-to-point passenger transport services which contribute to the mobility and safety of people in Singapore. Thus, it is understandable that clauses 24 to 26 under Part 4 of the Bill allow LTA to exempt a ride-hail operator from applying for a licence, especially if it is an aggregator of a few ride-hail services like what Google is doing. I understand these clauses are meant to encourage innovation and thus the provision of a sandbox regulation. However, I notice that a similar provision for sandbox regulation is not provided under Part 3 of the Bill for street-hail services. Does MOT think that street-hail services cannot innovate?

I have a case in hand whereby a start-up named "Vouch" would like to refer taxi services provided by existing taxi operators to hotel concierge through a chatbot. Such service is similar to that provided by Google where it aggregates ride-hail services from a few ride-hail operators and Google is exempted from applying for a ride-hail licence under sandbox regulation. Apparently, the said start-up Vouch is required to apply for a third-party taxi licence but not Google. Why the discrepancy?

On fare evasion. Clause 59 of the Bill seeks to amend the Public Transport Council (PTC) Act, which spells out an offence of non-payment of ride-hail or street-hail fare under section 24D of the PTC Act. This is timely. Many passengers choose to pay the ride-hail fare by cashless mode, especially by way of credit or debit card. Unfortunately, many debit card users attempt to pay the ride-hail fare even though there is insufficient fund in their bank accounts. They get away with non-payment of the ride-hail fares as banks can only verify their bank balances after they have left the vehicles. Attempts by the ride-hail operators to recover the fare often drew a blank. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether MOT could consider refusal by debit card users to pay the ride-hail fare because they have insufficient funds in their bank accounts to be considered a form of fare evasion? If so, it will serve as a strong deterrent for those who want to cheat the fare.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, taxi drivers have been troubled by the private hire cars (PHCs) for many years. The private hire cars, are essentially pirate taxis in disguise when they first entered the market. They are unrestrained and not regulated by LTA. With the growing number of PHCs, LTA is finally introducing this Bill to regulate ride-hailing service operators. It is unwise and risky not to regulate PHCs. This Bill comes late but it is better late than never.

I have been a Member of Parliament for more than eight years. Many residents, including taxi drivers, approach me to appeal for waiver of their traffic offences. Residents typically see me to appeal to waive one or two traffic offences. However, it is not uncommon for PHC drivers to see me to appeal for more than 10 traffic offences, a reflection of PHCs' traits in their early days.

At the same time, many residents have also told me that private hire car drivers often use their fingers to fiddle with GPS on their phones while driving. In addition, they often make sudden turns in order to follow GPS instructions, endangering themselves, passengers and other road users. I hope that this Bill will allow LTA to have better oversight over PHC's safety and safety of passenger and other road users. It is also essential for LTA to treat taxi drivers and PHC drivers equally.

When I read Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, I discover that MOT seems to be imposing the current regulations governing taxi operators on ride-hail service operators. On the surface, LTA appears to level the playing field. Unfortunately, it is not the case. For example, Clause 30(2)(i) stipulates the Quality of Service that taxi operators have to meet. Likewise, clause 30 2(i) also requires ride-hail service operator to meet a set of service standards. When pressed by the operators, LTA appears to have no intention to require the ride-hail service (PHC) operators to meet the same service standards as the street-hail service (taxi) operators.

Meanwhile, I would like to know whether MOT has the intention of asking PTC to set a maximum and minimum fares for the ride-hail service operators? PHC passengers are often annoyed by the surge pricing. I hope that LTA can do something about this.

In addition, I will like to appeal to MOT to spell out clearly what are the regulations that will be implemented in the near future, and what are the clauses in the bill that are mere provisions to be implemented much later or during an emergency. Otherwise, the bill may give an impression that it is more form than substance.

Taxi drivers have been serving Singaporeans and Singapore for the past 54 years since our independence. They are unsung heroes. When this bill becomes an act, I hope that taxi drivers will continue to survive; continue to serve our nation, and will not be diminished to a mere historical figure.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill is an important step to regulate the ride-hail industry which has grown very big. While I support the Bill, I hope MOT can help to address the above irregularities.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.03 pm until 4.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mr Ang Hin Kee: Mr Speaker, earlier, I forgot to declare my interest as the Adviser to the National Taxi Association and the Adviser to the National Private Hire Vehicles Association. And I have a clarification I would like to seek from Mr Dennis Tan on his comment in Mandarin, if I may.

Mr Speaker: Please do.

Mr Ang Hin Kee: In Mandarin, please, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Earlier on, Mr Tan mentioned that in terms of the working hours and the salary of the drivers. That is his concern. So, I am just wondering whether he is equally concerned about the working hours and the income of our taxi drivers. And, is he proposing to limit the working hours of the drivers or to increase the fare, in other words, is he looking at increasing the taxi fares so that the taxi drivers will enjoy higher income or is he proposing to our operators to cut down the fuel charge or to cut down the ERP fares in order to allow our taxi drivers to enjoy higher income without reducing their working hours?

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: My concern would be the same for whether it is the taxi drivers or the private hire car drivers. It is a concern that I have for the industry.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang.

Mr Ang Hin Kee: Okay. Sorry. I shall, therefore, revert to English since the reply is in English. The point I was trying to make was, yes, we are all concerned about the hours you put on the road and the pressure you face on the road. The issue then is: do you, therefore, seek to ask that we reduce the hours and, therefore, you want to balance the cost by reducing the car rental or by increasing the fees that the commuters pay for each ride they take so that the drivers need not work such long hours on the road?

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I am raising the issue for the Senior Minister of State to discuss with the industry. So, I am not making a proposal as such.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio)(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I welcome this new Bill. I have been waiting for the Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill for a long time. I think it is necessary to harmonise the regulations of taxi and private-hire car operators in order to create a more level playing field and provide safer and more satisfactory passenger services. We should review and harmonise the market as existing taxi operators are exempted from COE bidding while ride-hail operators need to bid for COE.

We should welcome more industry players to the industry and offer incentives to both drivers and customers. We should take note that the operators have provided incentives to encourage drivers to attend to commuters' need during non-peak hours. Has any customer satisfaction survey been done for different age groups and different types of customers, such as those who are IT-savvy and those who are not?

Henceforth, under LTA's new licensing framework, two types of licences will be issued, which will be according to street-hail service or ride-hail service, and the fees for both services will be regulated by the Public Transport Council (PTC). I am sure passengers welcome these new regulations. With the PTC regulating the fares, the way fares are calculated and the range of charges, particularly the dynamic billing introduced during peak periods, will be more transparent and give passengers greater peace of mind. Bear in mind that we need to balance the conflicting needs between drivers who hope for higher income and customers who hope for lower fares.

I propose that a new definition of the private chauffeur services be provided within the new framework in order to clearly distinguish it from the ride-hail services.

I would like to ask the Minister how many drivers have Taxi Driver Vocational Licences, how many have Private Hire Car Driver Vocational Licences, and how many have both?

Does the Government also have the number of drivers working for each operator and the number of drivers who work in each band, for example, 24 to 30 hours, 31 to 40 hours, 41 to 50 hours and so forth? What employment benefits and security do these drivers enjoy such MediSave and MediShield Life?

I suggest that only Singaporeans are allowed to be licensed drivers. I hope that the Ministry will consider my suggestions I have just made. I support this Bill.

4.32 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, the Point-to-Point Transport sector Bill regulates both taxi and ride-hailing industry operators, treating them as a single point-to-point transport sector. Notable provisions include the requirement for all providers to be licensed and the prohibition of driver exclusivity arrangements. On the whole, the provisions of this Bill are a step in the right direction and I do not oppose it.

I have a few clarifications to seek and suggestions to make.

Firstly, my colleague Mr Dennis Tan spoke about competition policy in relation to the P2P sector and, in particular, whether the CCCS infringement decision in 2018 would still apply after this Bill is passed.

I note that within the PHC sector Grab currently has a market share that has been estimated at approximately 80% last year. This kind of market concentration is unhealthy and would allow the vendor to have an unusually high degree of bargaining power vis-à-vis both commuters and drivers. I understand other players are present and ramping up such as Gojek, for example.

Can the Government provide an update on two questions?

Firstly, what is being done to interest more players, or to support local start-ups, to enter the PHC space to increase competition?

Secondly, in relation to the sale of Uber's Southeast Asian business to Grab in 2018 which was a subject to the Competition Commission's infringement decision, what steps will be taken to minimise the possibility of a large concentration of market share arising in future as a result of M&A deals and against sound competition policy setting considerations?

The CCCS infringement decision about the Grab-Uber case from 2018 stated "CCCS has examined internal documents of the parties and found that Uber would not have left the Singapore market by simply terminating its business if the transaction had not taken place. Instead, Uber would have continued its operations in Singapore while exploring other strategic commercial options, such as collaboration with another market player or a sale to an alternative buyer. The transaction has removed Grab's closest competitor and ride-hailing platform services, namely, Uber. CCCS has received numerous complaints from both riders and drivers on the increase in effective fares and commissions by Grab post-Transactions."

In 2018, I filed a Parliamentary Question on the matter of relative merits of a mandatory notification regime for m&a deals which is practised in the EU, USA, Vietnam and the Philippines for deals above certain specified thresholds, versus Singapore's current voluntary notification regime where some variant is practised in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. As part of his reply, at that time, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Tan Wu Meng said, "On the other hand, under a mandatory notification regime, all merging parties that cross pre-determined notification thresholds have to notify the Competition authority regardless if there are competition issues or not. This imposes compliance costs in businesses and may impede common place market activities. It also requires larger commitment on the Competition authority's resources to ensure that all mergers that cross the notification thresholds are duly notified, and to review these mergers."

I acknowledge that this discussion touches on general competition policy rather than the P2P per se, but in the context of this Bill and in the light of what happened when Uber sold its assets to Grab in 2018, I would nonetheless like to ask if there will be consideration of measures to prevent a recurrence of a similar outcome.

Major market changing M&A deals do not occur all the time and huge changes in market share are not necessarily extremely difficult to measure. Compliance costs related to pre-approving major M&A deals may not be unduly high on the part of either the business sector or the regulator. A mandatory approval regime does not appear to have deterred M&A transactions in the USA and the EU.

Next, the Bill gives the PTC the power to regulate and set pricing policies for ride-hail services for the first time. In this context, I would like to ask if the regulatory regime for all P2P services will continue to require there to be fixed pricing options available to commuters, within the P2P eco-system, in addition to dynamic pricing. Dynamic pricing efficiently matches demand and supply, going by classical economic considerations. However, notwithstanding the means-tested Persons with Disabilities (PWD) taxi subsidy scheme, a fixed pricing option on offer within the P2P industry eco-system is still of value to lower income persons who may have ambulatory problems, for example, PWDs. One could argue that dynamic pricing can address all needs, as those with greater price sensitivity can wait for the dynamic prices to fall. However, a fixed price option provides greater assurance and peace of mind to those who really need it, even if it is associated with longer wait times.

Lastly, my colleague Mr Dennis Tan spoke about the future advent of autonomous vehicles and how this might lead to the obsolescence of the skills acquired by P2P transport drivers. Has the Government given some thought to this? Will the Government consider working closely with the driver community such that when autonomous vehicles are about to be phased in, drivers are notified ahead of time and given some runway and facilitation to reskill and move to a different industry if they choose to do so?

4.38 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I wish to declare my interest as a Director of the Singapore Taxi Academy.

Sir, taxis, like housing and education, are an evergreen topic in this House. Taxis were debated on 750 separate occasions since the Legislative Assembly first sat in 1955. A basic question – which we are debating today – is whether and to what extent taxi services should be subject to regulation. In the early years after Independence, the poor quality of our public bus services, combined with restrictions on the number of taxis, led to huge demand for pirate taxis. When the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Motor Transport Service of Singapore was tabled in 1970, there were only 3,800 licensed taxi cabs, but an estimated 7,000 or more pirate taxis in service. The question then: what to do with them?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin, then Minister for Communications, stated in Parliament on 9 April 1969, and I quote: “I agree that pirate taxis, though running illegally, are performing a form of social function in providing an element of public transport service. But they are performing this function at the expense of the law-abiding licensed taxis and the bus companies. They are able to operate at a much lower cost because they pay less tax, incur very little maintenance expenditure and pay no insurance cover for passenger liability. Thus, they offer an unhealthy type of competition to the licensed operators which is harmful to our long-term planning for an improved public transport service in Singapore.”

Sir, the basic regulatory questions are the same then as now. The 1970 White Paper put an end to pirate taxis, added thousands of licensed taxi cabs and helped create the Worker’s Transport Co-Operative, the forerunner of Comfort Taxi.

The recent changes to our taxi industry have been just as dramatic. In 2014, before the private hire platforms started offering transport services, the taxi population stood at 28,736 vehicles. Private hire chauffeured cars stood at 1,609. By 2018, the taxi population fell to 20,581 vehicles but the number of private hire chauffeured cars rose to 45,342. We have had a two-fold increase in point-to-point hire vehicles in just a few years.

Sir, we know the reasons for this rapid growth. Commuters complained in the early 2010s about the quality and availability of taxi services, especially during peak hours. There was pent-up demand for point-to-point transport that was not being met by the incumbent taxi industry. Private hire platforms such as Grab and Uber stepped in. First they provided third-party booking services for taxis. Then, they introduced private hire rides, which were quickly embraced by Singaporeans. In the recently released Household Expenditure Survey 2017/2018, private hire services now account for 38 cents out of every dollar spent on point-to-point transport services.

What led to such disruptive change in our point-to-point transport systems? We should acknowledge that these private hire platforms used investor financing to operate at a loss to grow rapidly, subsidising cars, drivers and commuters alike. Some growth was unsustainable. But the problem of unmet demand for P2P transport was caused at least in part by regulation. For decades, our taxi services have been subject to strict regulation. This is not a bad thing by itself. Visitors to Singapore are impressed by our high quality, clean and safe taxi cabs who strictly charge by the meter. We should not take this for granted. Singaporeans who travel know that in some other cities, you are putting your life and wallet at risk when taking taxis.

But a long era under regulation often leads to excessive caution and perhaps even complacency, by both the regulator and the regulated industry. Under regulation, our taxi services were not able to meet demand because they did not increase fleet size rapidly enough, did not address difficulties in booking taxis and did not innovate in fares and service offerings.

It is not fair for me to speculate on whether responsibility lies at the feet of regulators, versus the regulated. But it is clear that point-to-point transport regulation must have a holistic objective. I commend this Bill for specifying in the primary legislation that regulation should achieve not just the traditional goals of quality, safety and reliability, but also efficiency, innovation, social impact and sustainability, as part of the broader urban transport system.

I think reasonable people will agree with these broad objectives. The question lies in what these objectives mean in practice and what regulators will do with the considerable powers afforded by this Bill. Regulators will have the power to control fares, vehicle and driver quantity, driver contracting, quality of service and licence ownership – in short, nearly all substantive aspects of the P2P system. It mandates that P2P firms provide Government with unprecedented access to data on key competitive aspects including ride data, prices charged, and potentially, the algorithms that determine fares and matching.

So, I hope the Ministry will discuss in detail the objectives of regulatory policy and how they shall be measured. Clarity is especially important because these regulations, when enforced, will affect not only all commuters, but the livelihoods of tens of thousands of drivers, and billions of dollars of investments. The teeth of these regulations are in section 35 which authorises LTA to revoke a licence, or levy a penalty that could be up to 10% of annual turnover or $100,000, for specified lapses. Consider that section 35(1)(d) allows LTA to take action if the licensee fails to provide, and I quote, “adequate and satisfactory street-hail or ride-hail service”. This seems to be difficult to enforce without a policy statement setting out what is in fact adequate and satisfactory and what are the specific benchmarks.

Let me state what I think is the central question of point-to-point regulation policy. It is how to trade off efficiency and equity. A completely efficient system may not be fair, and a completely fair system may be slow, unreliable and costly. The network economies of point-to-point ride-hailing platforms, and the use of advanced pricing algorithms based on big data, inherently generate this trade-off, or at least, they create substantial risks that efficiency gains will be exploited by platforms at the expense of other stakeholders.

Before I touch on efficiency, let me first touch on equity. I think most commuters in Singapore will wonder what is so unfair about taxi and ride-hailing services, grumbles about surge pricing aside. But that is because we enforce certain basic principles of service.

For example, we enforce the cab-rank rule: commuters and taxis, must be served in the order they start queuing. We enforce universal service: for-hire drivers cannot refuse to take a passenger to their destination. We enforce metered fares: drivers cannot overcharge. These are not principles unique to Singapore, but I daresay we are better than most in enforcing them for the benefit of all.

Let me point out a different transport market where many of these principles are thrown to the wind – the market for air travel. Airlines are generally free to price services. Freedom in pricing is efficient. Those who want to fly and who can pay more, get their seats. Airlines respond to profit by scheduling more or fewer flights. But airline tickets are often priced and sold in ways that can seem unfair. The same flight from A to B costs a different amount depending on when you bought it, which connection you are taking, whether you are a frequent flyer or not. Some price differences are justified by differences in costs. Others are price discrimination. Airlines do their best to charge different customers the most they can, for exactly the same service.

These pricing principles can be readily applied to P2P markets. A ride-hailing provider can prioritise favoured commuters and give them shorter wait times. A commuter who is price sensitive could be given larger discounts, which means that less price sensitive commuters pay higher fares. Fares today treat each trip in isolation, but trips are part of a network. An efficient fare might mean that you should pay more if your driver has to reposition after completing your trip.

Sir, I think we must decide as a society what types of innovations in pricing we are prepared to accept and which we consider inequitable.

Now, let me touch on efficiency, which is less straightforward than it seems. Efficiency in a narrow sense means satisfying transport demand using as few real resources – cars, drivers, time and money – as possible. In the broader sense, efficiency means integrating P2P travel into the public transport network so that our overall demand for urban travel is satisfied at the least cost.

What is often mistaken for efficiency, but is in fact not efficiency? Low prices, unfortunately, are not a direct gauge of efficiency. A P2P trip can be very cheap but inefficient if it discourages commuters from taking the MRT which parallels the route. A low price is not efficient if it is subsidised, or if it is because regulations on public safety are being evaded. Nor is quantity or availability a measure of efficiency. Commuters enjoy having a full taxi rank, or short booking times, but this is hardly efficient if taxis are sitting idle at the taxi stand, or if many drivers are cruising empty looking for fares.

One central reason why there is a trade-off between efficiency and equity, is that ride-hailing platforms have network economies. The larger they get, the more commuters and drivers they have, the more efficient they become, because the chance of finding a good match goes up. But of course, when they are large, they also have more market power over both commuters and drivers.

In a paper "Disruptive Change in the Taxi Business: The Case of Uber" published in the American Economic Review in 2016, Cramer and Krueger find that in the US, private-hire cars are 38% more utilised than traditional taxis. This gain is because ride-hailing software makes matching faster and more efficient; traditional taxis in the US have to cruise for commuters or be dispatched by phone call. This increase in productivity means that fares could be 28% less and driver hourly earnings would be the same.

So, the matching system is important. In a paper "Frictions in a Competitive, Regulated Market: Evidence from Taxis" published in the American Economic Review in 2019, Frechette et al model the New York City taxi market, which is entirely street-hail. They show that a perfect ride-hailing matching system would increase trips and reduce wait times, by about 13%. But they also show that if the market is segmented between street-hail and ride-hail, then outcomes are negative – wait times go up, trips go down.

These studies show that network size, which is achieved through market concentration, leads to efficiency. The problem is that a large ride-hailing platform is efficient but has inherent market power. While commuters may grumble about high prices, they are willing to pay if they can get fast and reliable P2P services. In "Using Big Data to Estimate Consumer Surplus: The Case of Uber", published as an NBER working paper in 2016, Cohen et al find that commuters on Uber are very price inelastic – they still book rides even when surge prices rise. An 8% increase in fares, for example, only leads to a 3% reduction in bookings. That is important because it suggests ride-hailing platforms have considerable room to raise prices.

The ability of a large platform to raise prices has already been demonstrated at home. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore fined Grab and Uber $13 million because their merger in 2018 led to a substantial lessening of competition. Effective fares went up between 10% to 15% after the merger, largely through the withdrawal of discounts.

Taken together, the evidence is clear. To harness the efficiency gains of technology and network economies, ride-hailing platforms need the largest possible reach. But when they have such reach, they have great market power and they can abuse this in ways that can be hard to detect. As more of our P2P network gets converted to ride-hailing, our street-hailing network becomes less dense and hence less efficient.

I think our regulatory policy cannot ignore these economic principles. A policy should be developed that aims to maximise the efficiency benefits of P2P transport services, while protecting commuters and drivers against the market power of these platforms. I have a few suggestions for policy principles.

The first principle I suggest is harmonisation of the Codes of Practice and other aspects of regulation, to ensure that street-hail and ride-hail licensees are treated as evenly as possible, to ensure that competition across licensees for drivers and commuters is as active and innovative as possible. The standards of service and quality across street-hail and ride-hail licensees should be harmonised. Segmentation of these markets along any dimension is likely to lessen the intensity of competition. One issue concerns child seats, which are required in private-hire vehicles but not in taxis. Harmonisation that aims for a common high standard of safety will ensure that the relevant market and the intensity of competition, will be as high as possible.

The same harmonisation process should apply to how prices and quantity are regulated, with the aim of allowing both street hail and ride-hailing licensees to enjoy maximum flexibility subject only to restrictions to protect the public interest. Under this Bill, taxis will continue to face restrictions on fleet size that private hire vehicles are not subject to. When combined with the fact that taxis cannot be readily converted to non-taxi use, this means that taxi fleets are inherently less adaptable. This handicaps street-hail licensees.

However, ride-hailing licensees are also subject to regulation on the quantity of drivers.

The problem is, having a driver on your platform does not equal having a driver available for service – some drivers are committed to driving for a given platform, but many more are casual drivers who switch platforms rapidly. I urge the Government to engage the industry with a view to ensuring that price and quantity regulation is used only as a last resort, to protect the public against abuses of market power, and not as a means of creating unnecessary differentiation between licensees.

The second principle I suggest is to develop a stated policy for guiding the industry to maximise the efficiency benefits of network size, while minimising the potential for abuse of market power. Every major platform aims to maximise the size of their driver and commuter network while creating barriers to entry for competitors. To counteract this, drivers and commuters must face minimal or no barriers to switching between platforms. While the Government already aims to eliminate driver exclusivity contracts, we should consider if it is possible to go further, by facilitating multi-homing – that is, having drivers and commuters match through many platforms at once, rather than one platform at a time.

It is possible that the efficiency benefits of network size are so large, that we will end up with a monopoly or dominant platform facing little competition. The taxi industry was characterised by a dominant player for many years. It is important for the Ministry to clarify how competition issues will be regulated, given that both the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore and the Ministry of Transport have responsibility over the sector.

Finally, on emerging issues. The presumption is that the dominant ride-hailing platforms will continue to be well-organised and identifiable, allowing for regulatory levers to shape behaviour. But there are innovations that blur the line. There are decentralised booking systems, such as those based on blockchain, or those which run through social networks or messaging apps, that do not fall neatly within the ambit of this Bill. There are services which claim not to operate for profit, such as social car pooling, and which thus appear to fall outside the ambit. And there are third parties linked to the industry, such as private-hire car rental companies, which appear to fall outside the ambit if they are nominally independent of the platforms.

I do not expect that we will be able to answer all these questions today. But these are issues that our regulators will have to grapple with in the years ahead.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is a bold piece of legislation that will be closely watched by cities worldwide, struggling to regulate the rapid growth of ride-hailing. But while this legislation is comprehensive, the real test lies in how LTA will use these powers to wisely regulate the industry. This Bill gives regulators a broad set of tools. It is up to the Government to decide if the industry will be shaped by a hammer or a chisel. I support this Bill.

4.56 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I would like to declare at the outset that I sit on the Public Transport Council. However, my views expressed today are my own, based on interaction with some residents and feedback I received.

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

This Bill is intended to regulate the provision of point-to-point passenger transport services in Singapore. The point-to-point passenger transport services, including the street-hail and ride-hail services, form an important part of the transport services in Singapore. I am not sure about other families, but I recall that when I was younger, taking a taxi was a luxury and you would only do so when you really needed to get somewhere fast or had a lot of things to carry. Private hire vehicles were not always accessible to the masses. Now, it is more commonplace to see people using point-to-point transport services, especially with the entry and proliferation of the private hire vehicles in the sector. It therefore becomes imperative to have proper rules regulating the sector.

I would like to take this opportunity to convey some of the views that I have received from some drivers, especially from private hire vehicles. There is some anxiety from among the drivers about what this new Bill and further regulations would bring. I believe in this respect, there may be concerns with regards to what sections 30 and 31 of this draft Bill would mean to the drivers. Some of my residents are private hire drivers and have shared some challenges they face dealing with competition and with customers. In a conversation with one resident, he shared his concerns about the impact of further rules especially on penalties that may affect the income he eventually brings home. I have also received feedback calling for parity and fairness to the drivers, in making rules regulating this sector.

In this regard, there are some specific anecdotes that I would like to share. I am told that currently, private hire drivers enter additional fares, such as ERP, manually into the eventual charge to the passenger. Someone shared that some drivers include extra additional fares to the actual fare without the passenger knowing. This is especially the case, when the passenger make the driver wait quite long and the driver arbitrarily charges the passenger for "waiting time". This does not seem right but some drivers feel that the "waiting penalty" is fair because they say that very often, passengers will book way in advance and have the drivers wait for them at the passengers' convenience. Sometimes, the wait can be up to 15 minutes. Besides lowering their potential income, they may also incur fines if they are waiting in a no parking area in the Central Business District.

There was also a feedback on the fare start and stop for private-hire drivers or the ride-hail services. For taxis, the fare starts when drivers hit the start button on the meter and stop when drivers stop the meter. However, the point at which the fare starts is not clear for private hire drivers. An example given by a private hire driver is that a passenger made the driver drive all the way up seven storeys in an industrial park building to reach the exact unit. Because of the large size of the building, it may take close to 10 minutes to reach the top of the building. This is even as the destination was supposed to be arrival foyer of the building itself.

Drivers also said that surge-pricing is a good mechanism as it does encourage drivers to come out and drive when the supply of drivers on the road is low. This really does improve service levels. Drivers are notified of higher prices and are "activated" and motivated to drive. However, some drivers wish to get more clarity on how much of the fare actually goes to the drivers and how much just goes to the companies or operators.

These are some examples but the point is that drivers are asking for some fairness as authorities set rules to regulate conduct with passengers and the business operations.

Other points relating to regulations include whether we want to regulate cancellation policies as well. I am informed that some operators may not charge cancellation charges. Further, even though passengers are charged a certain penalty fee for cancelling on the drivers, what are the rules for drivers cancelling on passengers? Are we looking at specific rules to regulate these issues?

On passenger safety, I would like to ask if there a need to regulate and enforce a certain standard for reporting of emergency situations during rides. Currently, ride-hailing apps have emergency buttons. However, are there standard operating procedures that the companies adhere to upon receiving the report and whether there is also a need to regulate such SOPs?

In conclusion, I believe we can all agree that, over the years, there have been some improvements in the point-to-point passenger transport service sector especially with the ride hailing apps. The improvements have indeed raised convenience and service levels of such transport services in Singapore. We should encourage continued innovation on this front. I appreciate that we do need to strike the balance between regulation and allowing for some space for the sector to grow. I believe it is important to continue to share and engage drivers and operators to improve this sector.

Notwithstanding the inputs I gave above, I stand in support of this Bill.

5.01 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I welcome the proposed initiatives to level the playing field and make the industry more contestable. Both consumers and drivers stand to benefit from more clarity and uniformity in how the rules are applied for street-hail and ride-hail services.

I would like to raise some clarifications and also some recommendations.

I welcome the introduction of code of practices across the industry. Standardisation is welcomed as it levels the playing field. I would like to query about LTA’s process of drafting these codes of practices and to stress the importance of having an inclusive and consultative process.

Can the Ministry shed light on the process of developing the codes of practice? While sections 30(2), 30(3), and 30(4) suggest some possible areas that the codes of practice might cover, we do not know how specific or prescriptive the codes will be.

I hope that LTA will conduct thorough stakeholder consultation when drafting these codes. It is important to engage key stakeholders, such as industry partners, in the consultation process to ensure that the codes of practice do not hinder innovation and market forces.

Next, in line with the aim of the Bill to safeguard consumer interest, I hope we can adopt international best practices of having an emergency alarm service button in the vehicle and tracking real-time locations. This is a feature that is already available for some ride-hail services through the mobile application. For instance, Grab riders are able to request assistance or notify up to three emergency contacts with an in-app Emergency button. Riders who tap on the button will receive a call from a security company and unanswered calls may be escalated to the Police. Leading ride-hailing platforms such as Uber also have them.

We can make 24/7 emergency alarm service buttons, which are linked to local authorities mandatory for all point-to-point passenger services. This could be a feature available to both drivers and passengers in the event they face a security threat. Will the Ministry consider piloting this feature for some street-hail and ride-hail services?

I also recommend that we require both street-hail and ride-hail services to have child safety seats, as many Members have previously stated as well. It is currently illegal for private cars, including ride-hail services, to ferry children under 1.35 metres without a child restraint appropriate for the child’s height and weight, a booster seat to supplement the seat belt, or an approved adjustable seat belt. Oddly, the street-hail services are exempt from this requirement.

Sir, a Toyota Vios is a Toyota Vios, regardless of whether it is registered as a street-hail service or ride-hail service. This inconsistency in application of the law is not in the interest of the child. Why should there be a compromise on child safety for street-hail? From a safety perspective, there should be equal treatment across the board. Will the Ministry consider harmonising this requirement for both street-hail and ride-hail services?

Lastly, while I agree that it is necessary for the PTC to have oversight of prices, it is important not to overreach. The Bill gives the PTC the discretion to set a pricing policy for fares charged by ride-hailing operators. I would like to clarify when and under what conditions PTC will step in to regulate. What are their considerations and guiding principles of how they will regulate ride-hail services? What are the limits to the powers of the PTC in relation to ride-hail services?

Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

5.05 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill proposes a new regulatory framework based on how passengers access the vehicles – by hailing on the street or booking via a call centre or online app. This is a move in the right direction. By issuing two operating licences, one for street-hail and one for ride-hail, the Ministry will be able to ensure more consistent application of regulations covering all point-to-point services in Singapore.

This is an improvement from our current framework that regulates taxi operators, which provide both street-hail and ride-hail services, but handles the ride-hail service sector with a very light touch. As a result, service delivery standards are largely left to the ride-hail companies. Since both taxis and private-hire cars serve members of the public, I am glad to note that this inconsistency will be rectified with the new legislation.

An article titled "Disruption" in this year's 28 January issue of Bloomberg Businessweek described an accident involving a Grab vehicle in Singapore. The writer asked, "Was it possible, for all the convenience ride-hailing services offered, they were making cities less safe?" This is a pertinent question. Most private-hire drivers work part-time and many are more dependent on GPS assistance compared to taxi drivers. Even their vehicles may be unfamiliar if they are rented, unlike taxi drivers who also lease, but usually operate the same or a similar vehicle. This combination of factors makes them more vulnerable to traffic accidents.

Passengers want certain standards, especially for safety, driving competence and route knowledge. The new rules are intended to provide greater regulatory oversight for the protection and safety of commuters and drivers. I urge the Ministry to empower LTA to obtain all the necessary data from all service providers to inform and update its regulations for greater protection of passengers.

As for private hire drivers, we must ensure that they are in good health and mental condition to drive safely and competently, just as we expect from taxi drivers. I would like to ask the Minister about measures to require private hire drivers to go for regular health screening and driver training.

Next, I would like to express my support for the proposal to empower the Public Transport Council to regulate fares set by ride-hailing operators. This will provide greater assurance to passengers, many of whom have expressed concerns over dynamic pricing. While I agree that there should be leeway to allow fares to fluctuate based on demand, I feel that there should be upper limits set to protect the interests of commuters. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I would like to express my support for the proposal to empower the Public Transport Council (PTC) to regulate fares set by ride-hailing operators. This will provide greater assurance to passengers, many of whom have expressed concerns over dynamic pricing. While I agree that there should be leeway to allow fares to fluctuate based on demand, I feel there should also be upper limits set to protect the interests of commuters.

(In English): Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill. Thank you.

5.08 pm

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the objectives of this Bill is to ensure that we have sufficient regulatory oversight to protect the safety and interests of commuters and drivers. Back in February 2017, I spoke in this House on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. I highlighted how the entry of private hire car operators such as Grab and Uber have led to a seismic shift in commuter behaviour, as well as many people opting to become freelance private hire car drivers.

Previously, while the taxi industry comes under much regulations, there is limited regulations for the private hire car point-to-point passenger transport sector. Only the drivers and the vehicles come under some form of regulations but the main service providers, such as Grab, which provides the platform, is not regulated.

In a sense, this Bill seeks to level the playing field between taxis and private hire cars.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, one area which I noticed the rules are still very unevenly applied is the required age and driving experience of the drivers. To apply for a Taxi Driver’s Vocational Licence, one must be at least 30 years old at point of application. Assuming a person passed his driving test soon after turning 18, a taxi driver would have at least 10 years of driving experience.

On the other hand, someone applying for a private hire car driver’s vocational licence only need to have held his driving licence for two years. Assuming the driver takes his driving test soon after turning 18, a private hire car driver may not even be 21 years old. Moreover, having obtained a driving licence for more than two years is not the same as having two years of driving experience.

So, now, we have a situation where we would not trust a 20-year-old to act wisely when voting, but he is trusted to ferry our children and loved ones from point to point in a private hire car.

Sir, it is of paramount importance that we try to keep our roads as safe as possible. I would like to ask the Minister for Transport what are the accident rates between taxis and private hire cars as a percentage of fleet size as well as distance covered.

Anecdotally, I see a lot of private hire car drivers that drive at excessive speeds and not following basic road manners. I suppose this might be related to the relatively young age of the drivers as well as lack of maturity. Older and more experienced drivers who have experienced one or two minor accidents would have learnt to be more patient on the roads.

Sir, I would like to propose a few suggestions for the Minister to consider.

First, to introduce an age requirement of 25 years for private hire car drivers. Existing private hire car drivers who are below the age of 25 may continue to drive.

My second suggestion is that someone applying for a private hire car driver’s vocational licence must demonstrate that he has owned or rented a car or be a named driver in the car insurance of a family car for at least two years. This will level the playing field to bring the rules for private hire cars closer to those applicable for taxi drivers.

Sir, I am not against young drivers, but inevitably we have to acknowledge that age, maturity and actual driving experience matters and are key factors affecting accident rates.

Notwithstanding my comments and suggestions, I support the Bill.

5.12 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Regulating private hire vehicle ride fares will benefit the population at large. Stipulating the Codes of Practice gives a common framework of standards for the different players in the ride-hail and street-hail services to provide a consistent experience for passengers while ensuring their safety and comfort. I am decidedly pleased that sections 2f and 3f of clause 30 of the Codes of Practice explicitly specify measures to facilitate access to, and use of, the ride-hail and street-hail services by individuals with disabilities.

Indeed, I would like to ride​ on this Bill and the recent announcement of the SG Cares-GoJek Medical Transport Subsidy Scheme in Kembangan-Chai Chee by none other than our dear Speaker himself to discuss how we can push the envelope further for a 3P partnership to support the point-to-point transportation needs of vulnerable groups in our community as part of our Smart Nation vision. To support this accessibility, we must also look at how we can train current and potential drivers. And finally, I would like to discuss how the fair pricing policy is a way for us to account for carbon emissions as we continue to be a good steward for the environment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while writing this speech and gathering ground feedback from community practitioners who work with our vulnerable seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income communities, I went from feeling informed to confused to determined. Please let me elaborate.

Where I was informed is the spread of point-to-point transport schemes that are currently available for our vulnerable groups.

First, we have the Medical Escort and Transport or MET services, funded by MOH for community providers to provide transportation and/or someone to accompany their vulnerable clients to travel to and from their homes for medical appointments and treatments, for example, at hospitals, specialist outpatient clinics, or polyclinics. It is for those who need help to move around and have no care-giver or whose care-giver is unable to provide support because of their own health and physical conditions. There are currently nine community providers, including Handicapped Welfare Association, HWA, Red Cross and others who provide the service via specialised vans. They now make about 2,000 such trips monthly.

Second, we have the Taxi Subsidy or TSS Scheme funded by the MSF which specifically targets people with disabilities. The scheme only covers school, work or training supported by SG Enable. The scheme reimbursed qualified beneficiaries 35% to 80% of their monthly taxi fares including from private hire cars registered with LTA like Grab. MSF expects the number of beneficiaries on TSS to grow to 300 by 2021.

Lastly, we have the VWO Transport Subsidy Scheme also funded by MSF which I guess, should be now called SSA Transport Subsidy Scheme since we have now officially dropped the VWO for Social Service Agency (SSA). This scheme supports persons with disabilities who are attending Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), Day Activity Centres, Sheltered Workshops or Special Education (SPED) schools.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I then got confused because I can clearly see it is entirely plausible that an individual may need to tap on multiple transport services, but how would this individual, already dealing with challenging circumstances, manage that with the way the schemes are now organised? It looks like he would need to apply to one organisation for help to his medical appointment under MET service and another to bring him to day rehab under VWO transport subsidy scheme. From what I understand, only a handful of organisations like HWA and Red Cross can provide a one-stop shop for all these services.

In addition to the perplexing fragmentation, there is also the unnecessary exclusion of debilitating conditions from the above schemes. Simon – not his real name – was in his late 50s, was diagnosed with terminal stage cancer. He needed to go for chemotherapy and subsequently palliative radiotherapy plus several other medical appointments regularly. Apparently, the MET scheme does not cover trips for chemotherapy so he was rejected. Thankfully, the Singapore Cancer Society stepped in to support him.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this was a dying man who was not literate, had little family support and yet had to face all these accessibility challenges in his last days. Thankfully, a group of volunteers were there to hold his hand and help him navigate through all this. He passed on earlier this year.

I also know of people with severe mental health conditions who clearly cannot manage taking the public transport being rejected by these schemes too. In addition to the fragmentation and accessiblity issues, there is also the issue of availability. In his late 70s and living with dementia, Steven – not his real name – was referred to the MET service after his discharge from the hospital because he had lost his mobility. The service provider took some time to admit him into the service and even after being accepted as a client, they could not serve him for his post-discharge appointments because they were all fully booked. The same happened to Simon too – the service could not support on short notice but as his condition deteriorated, there were many appointments that he needed to go for urgently.

If you think that the numbers accessing these point-to-point transport schemes are negligible, I am here to disappoint you with just these two sets of numbers that I managed to find.

MOH is on track to meet targets with 6,200 daycare places, 10,000 home care places and 17,000 nursing home beds by 2020. The Agency for Integrated Care or AIC reported that a projected 60% of these clients will need some form of transport.

HWA provided more than 77,000 trips in FY2017 for rides catered to medical consultations, rehabilitation sessions, recreational activities, ferrying children with disabilities to and from schools. They do this through Handicare Cab Scheme, a collaboration with ComfortDelGro to provide wheelchair-bound persons a guaranteed cab during rush hour driven by a specially-trained cabby, MET services, they also provide Taxi Subsidy Scheme, amongst others.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am determined that we have and must take this opportunity with this Bill to call for a whole-of-Government action and out-of-the-box approach to address the above challenges. We all know how our lives have changed with the ability to just tap for a Grab or GoJek on our phones and knowing that a driver with a car will be at our doorstep in no time. Would not this point-to-point convenience mean even more for vulnerable persons in our midst who are already struggling with the challenges of money, illness and disabilities?

Given the growing accessibility needs and existing challenges with availability and responsiveness, I would like to urge the Government to consider partnering the private sector with their existing technology and drivers to address this challenge at a national level as part of our Smart Nation vision. Even for a lay person like me – although I did invent a technology product in a past life – it seems completely conceivable that there could be a special button on the booking apps visible only to those who are eligible for the subsidy schemes to access the very same underlying booking platform that will ping to hundreds of drivers out there who are trained and available to come to them within minutes or on advanced booking.

Some may even be trained to be medical escorts. The financial process is automated and electronic, relieving the community service providers to provide more high value add services to their clients. On a side note, there is no reason why Meals on Wheels cannot do the same too with the food delivery apps. It is not so simple as I have described, I understand of course, but it is definitely not impossible. This can truly be the kind of socially innovative 3P partnership that we want to see more of for a Smart Nation and as a caring and inclusive society.

I would like to also ask the Government to: (a) look at streamlining these support schemes to make them more accessible to the very people who will be using them, as well as the care workers supporting them – be it social workers and/or community volunteers. The MET scheme is clearly one that will see an increase in demand with our ageing population and therefore needs an urgent review; and (b) to consider broadening the qualifying criteria for these schemes to include those with severe mental illness or low cognitive functioning given their challenges with taking public transport as well as expand the Taxi Subsidy Scheme to include trips to and from medical appointments.

Improving accessibility will require drivers to be sensitive to the needs of passengers with access needs. Currently, there are some schemes in place. I mentioned ComfortDelGro's collaboration with HWA earlier. Grab has a Grab Assist option where drivers are trained by AIC to offer additional assistance to seniors and persons with disabilities. I ask that the Government looks into broadening these schemes to include more ride-hail and street hail drivers and providers, so that we can meet the access needs of our society with more frequency and consistency. A possibility could be requiring ride-hail and street hail providers to have all or at least a certain substantial percentage of drivers trained in providing for passengers with disabilities through a Code of Practice, under clause 30 of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me switch now to our climate change responsibility as a nation and the opportunity this Bill affords us to do so. Singapore has pledged to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 16% below business-as-usual (BAU) levels in 2020, and made a further commitment to reduce our emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and stabilise our greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030.

We could consider tier-pricing according to the carbon emission of the vehicles. This way, passengers could be nudged to consider the ecological footprint of one's transportation choices in their daily commute. A framework to follow could be the Vehicular Emissions Scheme that takes into consideration a vehicle's emissions of four pollutants and the vehicle's carbon dioxide emissions. Another pricing structure for private-hire cars could be based on electric, petrol-electric hybrid, compressed natural gas, bi-fuel (CNG/petrol) vehicles.

This will not only push passengers and drivers to opt for more environmentally-conscious options, but will also increase the environmental consciousness of our population. Singapore's pledge to reduce greenhouse gases will require the population's recognition of the severity of the climate crisis, in order for various corporate and civil society stakeholders to resolve the issue in unison.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Land Transport Master Plan 2040, which brings Singapore together clearly ensures that Singapore's transport system is inclusive through priority cabins, Hearts Zone initiative, making public sector infrastructure barrier-free. Making our taxis and private-hire vehicles more accessible will allow the burden to be shared between the private sector and our Social Service Agencies. Those with access needs can choose among different travel options, thereby affording them more convenience and bringing their options closer to the rest of the population. Because we must change the focus from mobility to accessibility.

Last but not least, we simply must use every opportunity we have to shape green habits in our people. Almost everything we do emits carbon. Instituting carbon emission-based pricing for our point-to-point passenger transport services further reinforces our commitment to integrate climate change measures into national strategies and policies. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.

5.26 pm

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Before I go into addressing the specific issues raised by the Members, I would just like to make a few general points.

The P2P sector is very innovative and rapidly-evolving. There are already a wide range of services available. The operators themselves continue to evolve their service provisions and business models on an on-going basis. This has resulted in benefits to commuters, who have many more options, as Members have highlighted repeatedly. We have today, PHCs with child seats, wheelchair-friendly services and we have the availability to book taxis with flat fares.

Members have raised a wide range of issues. For some, like safety, LTA does need to and will step in to regulate and ensure basic standards. When we intend to do so, LTA has consulted widely, and where there was consensus or where we could engineer a compromise amongst the various tripartite partners and stakeholders, we did. There are some issues which we could not move on for now, and which we will continue to work on. I will elaborate a little bit on that.

But it is not necessarily desirable to regulate all aspects of the Point-to-Point sector.

For some of the issues, like fare caps and the extent to which we have to push environmentally-friendly vehicles, there needs to be a role for the market to play as well. We need to get the right balance between what we regulate and what we leave to the industry; ensuring that our regulations are fit for purpose, but commuters benefit and businesses continue to have space to innovate and grow.

Our priorities are to make sure that commuters have good, high quality and safe services; that the interests of drivers are protected in seeking economic opportunities in the space; and thirdly, that the operators are encouraged to innovate and new operators are encouraged to come in.

How will we do this? We have to look at some of the controls that we have and some of the levers that we have over ensuring that the market encourages new entrants and innovation, that there are protections for the drivers and the commuters, and especially that the structure protects, ultimately, consumers from excessively high charges as well.

What are the things that we can do? We can make sure that the barriers to entry for new operators are low. In particular, the way in which they engage with the main resource, which is the drivers. The removal of driver exclusivity would be the main lever to ensure the barrier to entry for new operators in the space is low.

The next thing that we should do is help commuters to make choices. Some of the regulations that we are putting in place to make sure that the way in which fares are communicated to commuters is transparent and upfront, will effectively allow multi-homing for commuters – that the commuters themselves are deciding amongst the variety of offers and which to choose. If this is insufficient to achieve the right kind of outcome, we may then have to intervene further. But we hope that by allowing drivers the choice of who to drive for and commuters the choice of which ride to take, this would effectively give us a multi-homing market and achieve some of the outcomes that we want. There may be more to be done but we will watch and see.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also brought up a general point about harmonisation across the street-hail and the ride-hail services. We cannot have an entirely harmonised market; otherwise, you would not have differentiation between street-hail and ride-hail services. Today, the fundamental point is that we still believe that there is a role for street-hail services. There are differences in the kind of vehicles that are needed, the training of that drivers for street-hail and safety, and also the operations associated with a fleet of vehicles under one livery, supporting one brand. Which is really very different from the operations for ride-hail services which is about the matching of resources and the appropriate algorithms for that supply and demand.

So, there is a fundamental difference between what we see as a street-hail operator today and ride-hail operator today. We are trying to harmonise some of the regulations. When we look at the regulations for drivers and vehicles, there is already quite a lot of harmony and we will continue with that. But for the operators, there needs to be a little bit of differentiation.

To the point about the responsibility between CCCS and MOT, well, very clearly, CCCS will have oversight over the competition issues and continue to do so. And to address a similar point made by Mr Leon Perera, after the Bill is implemented, CCCS will examine the matter and they will have to come to a decision about how the Bill applies to the previous stance that they had taken with respect to Uber and Grab.

Let me now address then some of the specific issues Members have raised about the scope of the licensing regime.

On Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question on private chauffeured services such as those provided by limousine companies versus electronic applications, both are considered ride-hail services because the key differentiating factor is that there is a matching between a ride and a commuter, and that ride is pre-booked for the commuter. So, they will fall under the ambit of the ride-hail services and be subject to similar regulations.

Mr Ang Hin Kee asked about carpooling activities. Carpool operators are also considered ride-hail service operators. However, they are not operating at the same scale and they are operating for a different outcome: ostensibly, an informal way for drivers to give rides to friends and neighbours. We therefore have different regulations for carpool operators and we would not be subjecting them to a full licensing regime, provided they continue to operate as car-pool operators as opposed to a full ride-hail operator. So, if a car-pool operator has more than 800 vehicles on its platform, we will license them as a sub-class of ride-hail service operators and they will be required to ensure that the drivers comply with car-pooling regulations so that their car-pooling is carried out on a restricted non-commercial basis. As we collect data and as we examine the market, if those conditions are breached, we will not hesitate to take firm action against the drivers or the operators that have contravened those regulations.

I agree with Mr Ang Wei Neng that innovation is indeed important and both street-hail and ride-hail service operators have been innovating and we assume will continue to innovate. We are certainly open to the sandboxes for both street-hail and ride-hail services, and the proposed regulatory regime clearly allows for both. In looking at such sandbox proposals, LTA will study the specific product, and use the full scope of legislative instruments and varying regulatory requirements as appropriate.

The Codes of Practice were brought up and, indeed, we will consult heavily with industry – we have actually already begun. We have a number of fora to do that and I will explain a little bit about that later on. We encourage the operators to participate in the drawing up of the Codes of Practice. Without spending too much time, clause 30, sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Bill expand on the different areas that the Codes of Practice could potentially cover.

Several Members spoke about the importance of ensuring safety. We agree this is really very important. Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked about normalised accident rates. This is in contrast, I think, to the data that Mr Dennis Tan had said, suggested an increase, which is "un-normalised". Actually, when we normalise the data, in other words, we take into account the number of kilometres travelled and the number of taxis that are available, there has not been an increase.

In 2013, for taxis, there were five accidents for every 10 million km travelled. Five years later, in 2018, this has not changed. The number for PHCs is only slightly higher at six accidents per 10 million km travelled. So, when examining the data, we do have to normalise and once we normalise it, we see that there has not been a significant change. But we do have to ensure that safety remains at top of mind for the drivers and also for the operators. So, we have to have measures for safety at the driver-level, at the vehicle-level and at the operator-level.

At the driver-level, we have the vocational licence requirements and we have had that in place since 2017. Drivers are required to have held a driving licence for two years before they can obtain a Private Hire Car Driver' Vocational Licence (PDVL), or for one year before they can obtain a Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL).

Mr Yee Chia Hsing suggested that owning a car or renting a car may be necessary to ensure that drivers are safe. However, just owning or renting a car actually does not necessarily make you any safer. And so, we have, therefore, not imposed this and we do not have any plans to do so.

Ms Joan Pereira asked about health screening, which is another way of ensuring driver safety. We have regular medical check-ups and driving fitness tests for taxi and PHC drivers aged 50 years and older. This is more than what is required for private drivers and this is in addition to the mandatory health screening and training requirements at the point at which they obtain their vocational licences. So, we will continue to monitor this and review our regulations, if necessary.

The other thing I will point out is that there were some suggestions that younger PHC drivers are more dangerous. In fact, the data does not support that at all. There is no data to suggest specifically that younger private hire car drivers are over-represented in the accidents.

At the vehicle-level for safety, we are also making some changes. Today, the private hire car inspection regime is the same as that for private cars, ranging from once every three years to annually based on the vehicle age. However, in future, all private hire cars will be required to go for annual inspections. Taxis will continue to be required to go for six-monthly inspections. The reason for this differentiation is that the annual mileage for the private hire cars is almost three times that for private cars at about 48,000 km a year. So, they need to go for more frequent inspections than the private cars. Taxis then have an even higher average annual mileage of about 130,000 km and so we will retain the requirement that they be inspected every six months.

And thirdly, for safety, at the operator-level, I have explained in my opening speech some of the measures. We do want to ensure that the responsibility for safety is taken up by the operators. This cannot be the responsibility of the driver only. And so, part of the operators' responsibilities is to provide data to LTA, to update the safety measures and to encourage their drivers to drive safely. These are some suggestions to Members have made, including Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Ang Wei Neng.

To answer Mr Ang Wei Neng's question, we are still reviewing the data requirements for licensed operators. We will work with industry to make sure that those are reasonable and useful.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam made some suggestions about emergency buttons on point-to-point apps and how operators should respond to emergency reports. Actually operators are already starting to take the initiative and offer these types of services. It is a space in which they can compete against each other for the provision of services to commuters. We encourage other operators to step up.

On child seats, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan suggested requiring taxis and PHCs to be fitted with child seats when ferrying children below 1.35 metres in height. I must say that when we started consultations for this Bill, there was the sense that this was perhaps something that we could move on and was something we wanted to move on. So, we consulted the public and the stakeholders quite extensively. The opinions were very divided; and it was not that the opinions were divided for one group of people against the other. Amongst the general commuting public, the opinion was divided; amongst the operators, the opinion was divided and amongst the drivers, the opinion was divided.

We were trying to but we have not been able to engineer a compromise in time for this Bill and we thought we would move ahead with these provisions in the Bill today. The matter is live, we continue the conversation, we will study the matter further. One of the reasons why we thought we could move forward with the Bill prior to settling this matter is that there are already the opportunities today for parents to ensure that their children are in child seats. When they book a private hire car, they can indicate that they need child seats. Secondly, they have the ability to bring their own seats with them when they take a taxi. So, one of the considerations was that child seats today are already available and accessible to parents. The argument can be made that it needs to be more widely available, and that has been made by some Members. I actually personally agree. The question is, how to make sure that that is something that the industry can carry and the market can support. We will continue to work on this and I hope Members would be able to support us going forward in trying to achieve that.

On fares, there were questions on fare-related regulations by Mr Louis Ng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Joan Pereira, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Mr Ang Wei Neng. We are amending the PTC Act to extend its purview over PHC fares.

We have to be very clear what our regulatory approach is. Some have asked us not to overreach, whereas other people have asked us to impose an upper limit on fares. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also suggested that we should prevent operators from offering the same service to different customers for different prices.

Mr Leon Perera also asked about flat fares. I wish to point out that today flat fares are already offered by a number of operators and, again, like some of the other suggestions, we would encourage that this becomes a differentiating factor, a potential competitive advantage of one operator against the other.

Building on what Mr Gan Thiam Poh has suggested, our fare regulations will ensure that there is transparency at the point that the commuter chooses the ride. This must be made clear to them: what the fare is or that there is going to be a metered fare in the case of a taxi. The intention is not for PTC to start regulating fare levels nor setting caps nor providing algorithms. The fare levels are an important part of the process to influence the supply and demand for P2P services. Many of the advantages and benefits that we have seen over the last few years, and that Members have spoken about, have come about precisely because the fares have been allowed to work as an efficient resource matching mechanism, ensuring that rides can be found during peak hours. There are many forms of services, each requiring different fare levels. Given the breadth of service offerings and the dynamic nature of these offerings, we think we best leave it to market forces; and that means that, ultimately, potentially, the most important controls would be the choices made by consumers, by commuters. The operators are indeed very alive to this, very sensitised. If you have any doubt abut this, one of the operators, Members would know, offers a durian delivery service. They have not taken maximum advantage of surge pricing for this because, I suppose, they assume that if they do, there will be a public outcry about the price of durians at peak season. The role of the commuter and the consumer in moderating the behaviour of our various operators here, would be very, very important.

For fare evasion and overcharging, we will step in to deter and prevent fare evasion and overcharging. Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Ang Wei Neng raised some examples. There are some of areas they raised where it would be more appropriate for the operators to take action, including being clear to drivers about commissions charged, handling cancellations by commuters or drivers or even lost-and-found services.

Mr Dennis Tan also raised a question about video recordings. This is already regulated today. LTA has stringent regulations in place around the installation of these devices and the access to the recordings and none of this is dependent on the Bill before the House today. There is already a seven-day limit on the retention of footage today.

There were a few other issues that do not lie directly under the provisions of this Bill but let me just address some of them in terms of how we are thinking.

Driver income and welfare: we do not have comparable data for other cities. I think Mr Ang Hin Kee made an important point that if we were to intervene in this space there will be consequences and trade-offs in respect of some of the other factors such as the cost of rental, the fares that are available. I would just point out that the average time worked for full-time drivers is about eight hours. It is not unreasonable. But unfortunately, that is an average and it does not give us the full picture of a very wide range of working hours. And that includes the very occasional work that some of the private hire car drivers do.

We do need to allow that space. Someone might choose to do one or the other. If we try to constrain and constrict either the operator or the driver too much, firstly, it may reduce the attractiveness of this job and people might it difficult to enter the job, and it may constrain the supply of drivers and may, ultimately, affect prices. So, we do have to look at that quite carefully. But I think in general, eight hours, on average, full-time drivers.

There were some suggestions about driving age. Mr Ang Hin Kee, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Yee Chia Hsing and Mr Ang Wei Neng made several suggestions about who should be eligible to be a private hire car driver.

We agree that this is not an area where we need either foreign manpower or any significant excess of manpower. Since April 2019, we have stopped issuing PDVLs to Work Pass holders.

But, the other issue of raising the minimum age is not quite an easy decision. There is no common consensus on what this age should be. Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested 30 years old; Mr Yee Chia Hsing suggested 25 years old.

On one hand, raising the minimum age will affect the number of drivers in the P2P market and, in turn, reduce the taxis and rides available to commuters. On the other hand, there are not that many drivers who are in this age bracket – only 4% of PHC drivers are between the ages of 20 and 24; another 12% between 25 and 29. Many of them are part-time drivers. It is not very clear that we necessarily need to raise the minimum age. But in general, I think the concerns brought up are valid. We are going to review the size of the driver pool against the needs of the P2P sector, and will study the issue of the driver age carefully. We will certainly consult all the stakeholders before making a considered decision.

On the COE regimes for taxis and private hire cars, we will make no change. Private hire cars will continue to be bidded in the COE market like private vehicles. This will allow us to maintain some flexibility in our private hire car pool, so that private cars can continue to be converted to private hire cars, and vice versa. So, they should be drawn from the same COE pool. We will continue to monitor the situation.

Ms Anthea Ong spoke passionately on the transport needs of Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) and vulnerable persons. We agree that our transport sector as a whole does indeed have to cater to the needs of all Singaporeans. It is not entirely clear that the taxi and PHC sector alone can meet those needs, especially those with specialised needs. So, for dedicated transport by VWOs and transport subsidy schemes, we will continue to work closely with our colleagues in MSF and MOH to ensure that all commuters are taken care of.

We agree with Ms Ong about the importance of making sure that we address the environmental concerns in this sector as well. Under the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) 2040, all taxi companies have committed to 100% cleaner vehicles by 2040, and this is an industry-led target under the LTMP. It is a commendable first industry-led target. And some of the private hire car booking providers and car rental companies have also done the same and committed to making their entire fleet run on cleaner energy by 2040. Again, another area in which the commuter and the consumer can perhaps assist in asserting some pressure as well. But I think it is important that we continue to work with the industry to address the environmental concerns of the transport industry.

Speaking of working with the industry, the role of the operators, the associations and the drivers in this review has been very important. They have contributed their views extensively; they have provided feedback; we have refined our regulations, hopefully to better meet the needs of the commuter and the industry.

Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Ang Wei Neng, who spoke a little bit about this, will be happy to know that we will be removing the Taxi Availability (TA) standards and we will let the market drive availability of services instead. We are also lowering call booking Quality of Service (QoS) standards. All of these will reduce compliance costs for taxi companies and, ultimately, we hope will also benefit the taxi drivers.

We have institutionalised the way in which we work with the industry. We have established through LTA a tripartite platform to discuss strategic and regulatory issues for the private hire car sector, in addition to the existing one that we have for taxis. This is something that Mr Ang Hin Kee himself has called for and has participated very actively in.

Mr Ang will also be happy to know that we will extend the current dispute management system for taxi drivers to include private hire car drivers. This will take effect in June 2020.

We hope that this tripartite approach of bringing the partners together can continue, so as to address the issues of benefits for the drivers and vocational licence holders, address the issues of driver welfare, driver income, what is the appropriate role for the industry, and how we can make sure that the regulations looking after the drivers as well as looking after the commuters.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been a long ride!

We started with introducing a registration regime for the third-party taxi booking service operators in 2015. We then licensed private hire car drivers in 2017. Each step of the way, we took calibrated decisions based on the circumstances, taking into account stakeholder and public feedback.

The sector must and does continue to innovate and evolve to meet the needs of commuters and drivers. We will continue to monitor the developments in this space and strike a balance between what to regulate and what to leave to the industry. The aim is always to ensure that commuters and drivers benefit, and the businesses continue to have the space to innovate and grow. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

5.52 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang.

Mr Ang Hin Kee: I would like to like get some clarifications from the Senior Minister of State. I hear my colleagues speak about requirements, whether it is for green vehicles, wheelchairs, baby-seats, electric vehicles and the likes of it. In Japan, they tried this innovation called JPN Taxis. They asked everybody what they wanted wanted in a taxi and they designed a taxi for everyone. The cost was three times the existing price of existing taxis. Nobody rented them. No commuters wanted to pay for JPN Taxis.

What I want to urge MOT and LTA to do is: instead of seeking views from everybody and therefore coming up with this wonderful product that nobody wants to pay for, how do we therefore move forward in addressing the needs, ensuring that commuters, drivers and operators are able to calibrate when such innovations and requirements kick in. Otherwise, we are going to have these requirements and just say, "Maybe the drivers can figure out how to pay for it or the operators can reduce their fees for it". It just does not bring us anywhere to what a proper, appropriate commuting experience and needs for the future will be.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Indeed, I thank Mr Ang for that suggestion to not create a taxi that is three times more expensive that nobody wants to pay for.

We do need to address needs. We do need to find a way to make sure that all the needs are met. But not all the needs need to be met in the same way, by the same platform, or by the same service.

The approach that we are taking is to allow both street-hail and ride-hail to co-exist, and for sub-classes, particularly, for ride-hail services, to co-exist. So that the commuter, regardless of whether they are an individual or a family, or a PWD or a person with medical risks, will, in the system and the network, be able to find a service that matches their needs. It does not mean that every single service, every single vehicle has to be exactly the same. That is on the ride-hail side.

On the street-hail side, clearly, it is different because you cannot pre-book your ride and you do need a certain minimum level of acceptable service that is a common denominator across the variety of needs. That is why the regulations specify the minimum boot size for taxis, for example, so that luggage can be carried, or a folded wheelchair can be carried. There is a point where these regulations becomes inappropriate. So, for example, the taxis are not required to be MPVs.

We take that approach, and we do so in partnership with various industry stakeholders. We want to make sure that there is enough fluidity to make sure that a variety of services are available to serve everybody’s needs.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just two points of clarification for the Senior Minister of State.

First, on commuter multi-homing. From time to time, third-party apps do come up and they try to aggregate services across ride-hailing platforms. What is the Senior Minister of State’s view if the platform were to take measures to keep their services off these aggregators? Would he support Codes of Practice that require the platforms to be opened to such third-party aggregators for multi-homing?

The second point is price discrimination where you charge different people, different prices for the same service. Am I correct in understanding that that would be permitted as an innovation?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: For multi-homing, the space is evolving. The different services that multi-homing providers and mobility-as-a-service providers are offering, on the face of it, may look similar, but actually have very different underlying business models.

But if I take the simple example that he had suggested, where it is simply about aggregating information and a platform decided to prevent their information from being provided on that aggregated platform, that in the first instance, would not necessarily compromise our regulatory outcomes that we are trying to achieve, provided it did not then subsequently lead to either the drivers not being able to drive across the platforms, or the commuters not being able to find the information to take rides.

If you have to launch two apps to compare prices, I think that would be okay. But if you cannot fundamentally install the app on your phone because another app is there, it might be a step too far.

So, I think for now, we want to step back and let this market evolve. As I have said, for the multi-homing space, the mobility-as-a-service space, there is probably a fair number of iterations to go through before we get the right industry model. So, we probably do not want to constrain or intervene too much.

On the second point of price discrimination, in truth, it happens already. If you are a regular customer for one of the apps, you can apply a discount code, you can apply points that you already have. The effect, though, what it means is that you will get the same ride as someone next to you who is using the app at the same time, to arrive at a similar destination, for a different price. So, that situation already exists today. And again, our approach will be as long as there is adequate choice, relatively good dynamics within the market, I think we will let it be and see what happens.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply with regard to the child seat. I am a big fan of public consultation and trying to engineer a compromise. But in this case, it really is a safety issue. I am just wondering whether we should try to compromise when it comes to safety. If you are in a private car and your child is not in a car seat, for repeated offence, you could go to jail. We have such a heavy penalty because of safety. I am just wondering how does the safety disappear when that same car becomes a taxi.

I recognise my colleague, Mr Ang Hin Kee's point about the cost. We are on surge pricing now. For me to go home now is $27; for me to have a Grab car with a car seat is actually only $2 more. For a Grab car with a car seat for a child aged one to three is extra $5. So, it is not three times the price. If it is $27, and for a car seat, it becomes $60 or $80, of course, any reasonable person would say no. But in this case, if $2 more could save the life of your child, I am not sure what is holding us back.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Indeed, and as I have made quite clear, I agree with Mr Ng on this, and it is my personal stance. One point is that, it is not that there is no safety. It is possible to assure the safety of that child, and that is currently a choice that parents have to assert. Bring a child seat along into a taxi. It is not that it is not possible. It is whether people choose to do so.

I would like to do more work in this space to see how far and how quickly we can perhaps engage with operators, drivers. The difficulty for taxis though is, truly, that it means they have to carry something with them at all times, and this significantly restricts the options that they have in terms of what they can have as customers.

I would also point out that in our public consultation, a fair amount of the concerns came from the commuting public themselves. If you have three children, as I do, of different ages, and each of them needs a different-sized car seat, potentially, it would be impossible for us to take a taxi unless the taxi had three different child seats in it. If you are a family of five, then you would have to split up into two taxis. But if you are an individual adult looking after three children, it would mean that it would then be impossible for you to get into a taxi which only routinely carries one child seat. And then, what do you do with your other two children?

These are some of the scenarios that were thrown up by the commuting public in our public consultation. And so, we were unable to engineer a compromise. We do feel that there is an opportunity for safety to be secured, as is today. Yes, it could be better and we would like to do more work on it. And I would encourage Mr Louis Ng to participate and help us to get this work done.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.

Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Could I ride on this opportunity and ask if you would, together with the two Senior Minister of States from MOH and MSF, look at starting an inter-agency workgroup or taskforce to look at the issues that I have mentioned in the fragmentation, availability and accessibility issues for our vulnerable groups.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Indeed, we will. I would say, though, that the nature of this problem and the market, the services that are provided out there is not quite as Ms Ong had characterised it. The Member is right; there may be five or six, or potentially a lot more providers. But there are a number of agencies, offices, whose task it is to help you navigate that space. Patients or clients should not have to keep working through the fragmentation, as the Member has described.

The other way of thinking about it is, there is a variety of service providers that are working in different niches to address different client needs, different route needs and different demand needs. It is probably useful that we have an approach like that. This is because, today, one of the fundamental problems we have in this space is an inadequate supply of personnel. We will have to work to make sure that that gap is closed as well. So, there is work on-going and I will work with my colleagues to see what else LTA and MOT could do to help on the transport space.

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.