Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

5.15 pm

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

Land transportation globally is undergoing a digital revolution. Private hire car services, such as Uber and Grab, have become a popular mode of point-to-point transport. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are fast becoming a reality on our roads.

In land-scarce and manpower-scarce Singapore, these two disruptive developments carry exciting possibilities. They can enhance the efficiency and convenience of our land transportation system.

They will move us closer towards a car-lite environment, where Singaporeans feel less of a need to own and move around in their own private vehicles. Thus, it is important that we do not impede their growth as some cities have done. On the other hand, we cannot take a completely laissez-faire approach. We must have due regard for the safety of passengers and other road users.

We are, therefore, adopting a balanced, light-touch regulatory stance that protects the safety of passengers and other road users, and yet ensures that these technologies can flourish. It is within this context that MOT is amending the Road Traffic Act.

At the same time, we are highly conscious that the advent of these disruptive technologies could have an impact on livelihoods. We cannot and should not stop innovation and progress and I am glad to see that the taxi drivers and companies are rising to the competition. Widespread deployment of AV technology is still some 10, maybe 15 years away and, progressively, the Government will put in place programmes to help Singaporeans who drive for a living to acquire new skills and take on higher value-added jobs in an AV world.

Mdm Speaker, please allow me next to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Land transportation globally is undergoing an unprecedented digital revolution. Private hire car services have become a popular mode of transport. On the other hand, AVs are fast on their way to becoming a reality on the road, providing another transport option for local passengers.

Singapore has limited land and manpower resources. Hence, these two disruptive technologies will enhance the efficiency and convenience of our transport system and they will move us closer towards a car-lite society.

MOT is now amending the Road Traffic Act. We are adopting a balanced, light-touch regulatory stance that protects the interest and safety of passengers and yet ensures that these technologies have enough space to grow.

We are highly conscious that the advent of these disruptive technologies could have an impact on some Singaporeans' livelihoods. I am glad to see that taxi drivers and companies are taking these challenges with a positive attitude. With the widespread deployment of AV technology, the Government will put in place more training programmes to help Singaporeans who drive for a living to acquire new skills and take on higher value-added jobs.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, let me now explain the key amendments in the Bill.

The first set of amendments pertains to AVs in the Bill. They are set out primarily in clauses 3(a) and 6 of the Bill. The current Act assumes a human driver to be in control of the vehicle and, thereby, responsible for monitoring the surroundings and making driving decisions. Where automated vehicle technology is installed in a motor vehicle, computer systems control the vehicle, replacing the driver's role.

AVs thus challenge the very notion of human responsibility which lies at the core of our current road and criminal laws. Developers of the autonomous systems must, therefore, provide enough measures to ensure the safe operation of AVs on our general roads.

Clause 6, read with the amendments in clause 3(a), applies to motor vehicles with conditional high and full automation, as defined in levels 3, 4 and 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International J3016. The SAE levels of automation are commonly used in the motor industry to define and distinguish the various levels of automation. At levels 3, 4 and 5, it is the AV which monitors the driving environment, and the human driver is no longer required to actively monitor the vehicle.

The amendments are not meant and not intended to capture vehicles outfitted with just driver assistance systems like cruise control and assisted parking functions. These systems are regulated through other means.

To encourage the use of AV technologies here, clause 6 will allow the Minister for Transport to create new rules to more effectively regulate AV trials or the use of AVs on public roads. These rules can place time and space limits on these trials, set standards for the design of the AV equipment and impose requirements to share data from the trials.

Clause 6 also allows the Minister, through the rules, to address the anomalies that can arise under existing provisions of the Road Traffic Act or its subsidiary legislation which make a human driver responsible for the safe use of a motor vehicle while on a public road. The rules, therefore, can exempt AVs, operators of AVs and those conducting or participating in trials of AVs from these existing provisions, and also modify the application of specified provisions of the Road Traffic Act or its subsidiary legislation in respect of these vehicles or persons.

As this is an emerging technology, the provisions will provide the flexibility needed to assess the appropriate regulatory response more quickly. We have limited this regulatory sandbox to five years. At the end of five years, the Ministry will consider enacting more permanent legislation or return to Parliament to further extend the period of the sandbox.

The second set of amendments pertains to the regulation of the private hire car (PHC) industry. These can be found primarily in clauses 31 to 35.

PHC services have been warmly welcomed by commuters. They have been finding it easier to get a ride, whether in a taxi or PHC. Last year, I had said that we will take a more balanced and sensible approach in regulating this industry, with the safety of commuters as our priority.

Hence, by the amendments, all PHC drivers providing chauffeured services will be required to obtain vocational licences. This is to ensure that they are equipped with sufficient knowledge and skills to provide his or her ride-sourcing service safely. For identification purposes, all chauffeur-driven PHCs must be affixed with tamper-evident decals issued by LTA, by the middle of the year.

Together with our existing rules that require PHCs to be licensed as public service vehicles and to have adequate insurance, these measures help LTA better enforce against errant drivers and vehicle owners.

PHC booking service operators, such as Uber and Grab, play an important role in the enforcement of these rules. The amendments will thus require them to put in place robust systems to ensure that drivers with an affiliated agreement with Uber or Grab and the PHC vehicles they use meet our requirements and standards.

Clause 34 introduces a new section 110A which empowers the Registrar of Vehicles to issue a general suspension order that bars all PHC drivers affiliated with a particular PHC booking service operator from driving for that operator.

This is, if one of its affiliated drivers has been convicted of or accepted composition for certain offences in the course of being an affiliated driver for that private hire car booking service operator, and there are two or more of such cases in the preceding 12-month period. These are offences which compromise commuter safety, namely, providing PHC services without a vocational licence; using an unlicensed vehicle to provide the services, or using a PHC that is inappropriately insured.

A general suspension order has serious implications not just for the PHC booking service operator but also for their affiliated drivers, and the Registrar of Vehicles will not take such a step lightly. The Bill does set out a due process. But as the safety of passengers is paramount, the Registrar has to be armed with such powers. Our intent is to apply it to instances where the PHC booking service operator repeatedly makes no attempt to ensure that its affiliated drivers adhere to our laws.

Clause 35 complements clause 34 by empowering LTA to make rules prescribing the duties and responsibilities of PHC booking service operators, such as ensuring that their affiliated drivers hold the appropriate vocational licences and providing LTA with trip and other fleet-related data. The data will help LTA in its transport planning functions. Our regulations are not overly onerous and I think both Members and service operators like Uber and Grab will agree that these are necessary for the interests of commuters.

Finally, the Bill makes several amendments to update the penalties for offences under the Road Traffic Act and to ensure that LTA remains effective in enforcement amidst a rapidly evolving operating environment.

Currently, the maximum composition sum that can be offered under the Act is $500, regardless of the severity of the offence or the maximum fine prescribed. The cap has been unchanged since 1996. This low cap restricts the ability of LTA and the Traffic Police to calibrate the composition sums offered according to the severity of offences and to deter repeat offenders. Hence, clause 38 increases the maximum composition sum for all offences in the Road Traffic Act to 50% of the maximum fine prescribed for the offence, or $5,000, whichever is lower.

Clause 20 raises the penalties for the offence of "reckless or dangerous driving" from $3,000 to $5,000 for the first offence, and $5,000 to $10,000 for the second or subsequent offence. Clause 27 allows the Courts to mete out both a fine and a jail sentence if a person is found guilty of failing to stop and report an accident that could have occurred due to his vehicle. This change is to ensure that the law is sufficiently deterrent.

Next, clauses 13 and 18 empower the Minister to make Rules empowering the Registrar of Vehicles to prohibit the entry and exit of foreign-registered vehicles into and out of Singapore if these vehicles have unpaid charges, including ERP charges, fees or taxes owed to the Singapore Government under the Road Traffic Act and Parking Places Act. This will improve the effectiveness of enforcement and strengthen deterrence against such foreign vehicles.

Clause 45 will amend the Motor Vehicles Third-Party Risk and Compensation Act as a related amendment, to enhance LTA's enforcement against motorists who have been found driving without adequate insurance. Today, there is a time bar on the prosecution of insurance-related offences. LTA must prosecute someone found driving vehicles with inadequate insurance within either three or six months, after which no prosecution can be made. However, this time bar prevents the taking of effective action against offenders in complex cases. Clause 45 removes this time-bar restriction.

To prevent circumvention of our vehicle population controls, clause 10 repeals section 12, thus removing the option for Singaporeans and Singapore permanent residents to keep and use foreign-registered vehicles in Singapore simply by paying the requisite Additional Registration Fee (ARF). They will no longer be allowed to keep or use foreign-registered vehicles in Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, the proposed amendments allow new technologies to flourish in Singapore and for us to take advantage of them to further improve our land transport system and benefit all Singaporeans. They strike a balance between such, and safeguarding passengers and other road users' interests and safety. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.29 pm

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mdm Speaker, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill proposes many substantive amendments to its principal, the Road Traffic Act. A key reason why these amendments are needed is because of the fast-changing landscape of transportation in Singapore.

Breakthrough technology has now made autonomous, or driverless, motor vehicles possible in the not-too-distant future. This House had just last month debated and passed the Active Mobility Bill as we begin to make provisions for the proliferated use of power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices (PMDs) on our roads and pathways. We also have to contend with new private hire car services, such as Grab and Uber, who have entered the point-to-point transportation industry in Singapore.

This changing transportation landscape requires the Government to review and reconsider our laws and regulations to ensure that they remain relevant. The aim of this Bill is to do exactly that.

Madam, while the proposed amendments cover a wide range of issues, I shall take this opportunity to speak on two main ones. They are: (a) the amendments relating to the trial and use of AVs; and (b) those that relate to power-assisted bicycles and PMDs.

The possibility of autonomous or driverless vehicles plying Singapore's roads was raised as early as 2014 when the Committee on Autonomous Road Transport for Singapore (CARTS) was formed. But it was when LTA announced in August last year that it was launching autonomous mobility-on-demand trials that really caught the imagination of many Singaporeans. I recall that this was followed by an announcement by nuTonomy, one of the companies that LTA was in collaboration with under the Singapore Autonomous Vehicle Initiative, that it was launching the world's first-ever public trial of a "robo-taxi" service. This was followed a month later by another announcement of nuTonomy's partnership with Grab, one of Southeast Asia's leading ride-hailing app, to expand its public trial.

I remember following the news with great excitement and anticipation. I felt that this was one of those moments when technology was on the cusp of changing the entire face of transportation, as we knew it. I still do.

This, however, was quickly followed by the first accident involving one of nuTonomy's driverless cars that was on trial. Thankfully, it was a minor accident where no one was injured. Separately, a driver of a Tesla car, in the US, driving with its autopilot feature was more unfortunate as he died as a result of an accident with a truck. Accidents, such as these, will inevitably raise the following questions.

Can we trust technology to make the best decision to protect the safety of passengers in AVs? How will our infrastructure, roads and transportation networks, which rely primarily on human judgement and decision, assimilate the entrance of such AVs? What are the legal implications and liability issues when such AVs are involved in road traffic accidents?

We do have time to answer most of these questions. The technology for AVs remains far from finished. It will require a significant period of time before AVs become part and parcel of Singapore's transportation landscape. However, as we allow companies, such as nuTonomy, to begin conducting trials on our roads, it is imperative that we take all precautions to ensure that the safety and well-being of all other road users are adequately provided for and protected.

I do, however, fully agree and appreciate Second Minister for Transport Mr Ng Chee Meng's position in his Second Reading of the Bill that the Government will be adopting "a balanced, light-touch, regulatory stance that protects the safety of Singaporeans and yet ensures that these technologies can flourish." It is important that Singapore remain in the forefront of cutting-edge technology and not shy away from taking the lead. AVs, when realised, will bring much efficiency and convenience to Singaporeans. The potential benefits are clear for all to see.

Be that as it may, however, I hope that any eventual implementation of ground-breaking technology, such as AVs, could be done gradually in phases. This is not only to allow for answers to questions, such as those I have raised, but also to manage how such disruptive technologies can affect Singaporeans currently working in transportation industries, such as our taxi drivers and others who drive for a living.

Mdm Speaker, the second issue I wish to raise is one I also spoke about during the Active Mobility Bill debate last month. I had raised several concerns I had about power-assisted bicycles and PMDs and I shall not repeat them here.

I am in full support of the amendments proposed in this Bill to regulate power-assisted bicycles and PMDs. Harsh penalties and strict rules are important to deter irresponsible and reckless users of power-assisted bicycles and PMDs from causing danger not only to themselves, but their fellow road users.

I decided to raise this issue again, this time solely on power-assisted bicycles, primarily because of a recent Straits Times article on certain astute observations that our learned State Coroner made while presiding over fatal accidents involving power-assisted bicycles. In the article, it was reported that the learned State Coroner expressed his concern that riders of power-assisted bicycles do not receive any formal training. He was also noted to have observed that "users of motorised bicycles are subject to particular risks, as these vehicles are capable of attaining high speeds and present a low profile."

The Coroner's Court had dealt with a few cases of fatalities resulting from accidents involving power-assisted bicycles and the learned State Coroner would have made his observations based on the facts presented in those cases he presided over.

His observations and views on this issue are in line with mine. Unlike motorcycles, riders of power-assisted bicycles are not required to receive any formal training prior to operating the bicycles on our roads. Any person above the age of 16 is allowed to do so. I am of the respectful and humble view that more can and should be done to rectify this.

While I agree that power-assisted bicycles are not as powerful in engine capacity as motorcycles, they are, in all reality, low-powered motorcycles. When allowed to operate on roads, they carry the same risk profile as other motorcycle riders. If these power-assisted bicycle riders do not have formal training on road traffic rules and other common road traffic etiquette, the risk and likelihood of accident involving power-assisted bicycles on our roads increase.

I applaud the move taken by the Government to register and license all power-assisted bicycles. But, having done so, why not take the next step in ensuring that all riders of such bicycles be adequately trained, not only in using them, but also on the basic road traffic rules that all other road users, such as drivers and motorcyclists are made to do? Doing so will also allow the Traffic Police to monitor irresponsible, reckless and sometimes recalcitrant riders of power-assisted bicycles and take the appropriate action against them, when necessary.

Mdm Speaker, accidents involving power-assisted bicycles appear to be on the rise. As we encourage more Singaporeans to make use of such modes of transport in our vision for a car-lite Singapore, we can expect such numbers to increase further. I, therefore, urge the Government to take any further steps as reasonably practical to ensure that we minimise the risks of unfortunate road traffic accidents involving power-assisted bicycles from occurring and to enhance the safety and well-being of all other road users. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.

5.38 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is introducing changes covering different aspects of road traffic regulations. Among other things, the Bill is seeking to establish a regulatory framework for the undertaking of trials and use on Singapore roads for autonomous or driverless vehicles. The Bill is also seeking to regulate holders of vocational licences who are affiliated drivers of private hire car booking service operators providing ride-sourcing services like Uber. The Bill also deals with forfeiture of seized non-compliant power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices. It also seeks to support the move towards paperless vehicle licences. I will be touching on three issues.

The first issue − regulations involving autonomous and driverless vehicles.

Mdm Speaker, on the issue of autonomous or driverless vehicles, this Bill seems to have come a little late. On 19 October last year, it was reported in The Straits Times that a self-driving car and a lorry collided, in what is believed to be the first accident in Singapore involving an AV. The car was operated by two test engineers. It was reported that "the car knocked into the lorry while changing lanes in Biopolis Drive at one-north". It was also reported that the car belonged to nuTonomy, a start-up software company that is conducting trials of its self-driving vehicles in the one-north business district.

So, it seems that driverless cars are already being tested without the proposed new regulations in place. Nevertheless, I support the intention of this Bill to provide for a regulatory framework for the undertaking of trials and use on Singapore roads for driverless vehicles and AVs. Autonomous or driverless vehicles may well be a sign of things to come. However, the eventual regulatory framework has to be tweaked to adapt to its unique features. In short, the object of regulation and, consequently, the subject of any liability, may, to a significant extent, though possibly not entirely, shift from the driver to the owner of the vehicle.

On the issue of liability, will owners of driverless cars continue to be defendants in all accidents when it is clear that an accident has been caused by some manufacturing defects? I hope this is still the case as it would be troublesome for other parties in an accident. If there is any such defect, the present legal regime in law of tort should still apply. That is to say, for the owner of the driverless car to seek indemnity from the manufacturer and the other parties involved in the accident should not be expected to take action directly against the manufacturer who may not be based in Singapore.

I can also foresee that in cases of accidents caused by or which involve driverless cars, owners may be blaming the vehicle manufacturers and possibly even the suppliers of certain components for the vehicles, including software.

There may be issues beyond a simple vehicle performance failure, such as failing to do what it is supposed to do, for example, failure to stop when the traffic light turns red. There may be more difficult issues of liability which are more subjective or less "black and white", such as reacting to an unexpected course of action by another road user or pedestrian, and avoiding collision or minimising impact. For example, how will it react to a car driving against the traffic? Will the machine react in the same way as we can expect a reasonable driver under our present law?

As SIM senior lecturer in urban transport management, Dr Park Byung Joon, told The Straits Times in a 19 October 2016 article, "humans don't always behave the way they should on the roads. And technology is not advanced enough to pre-empt how humans would behave". If technology is not able to pre-empt human behaviour in all situations, the law needs to take cognisance of that fact and the regulatory and liability regime must be structured accordingly, so that there is fairness and certainty for everyone.

There may also be different reactions or reacting time to a similar incident for cars of different manufacturers. What is an acceptable reaction that frees its owner from liability or minimise its liability vis-Ã-vis other parties? How do we set the standard?

How will a driverless car be adjudged as failing to keep a proper lookout, a present feature of our law? Will it be subject to the same standard required by our Courts for contributory negligence?

Will driverless cars be required to be operated only when a licensed driver is around? Given that we may be looking at driverless vehicles performing tasks, such as road cleaning, the answer may be a "no, we don't need a licensed driver or anyone on-board the vehicle at all".

In the present situation, any licensed driver is deemed to know the obligations he has to fulfil when an accident takes place while he is behind the wheel, for example, exchange driver's and insurance details. If driverless vehicles can be operated without the owner or licensed driver, how will the authorities ensure that drivers can obtain access to owner's information of the driverless vehicle?

In fact, if a driverless vehicle can be operated without any person on board or around, how will the owner be informed at the time of an accident so that he can be present to exchange particulars with the driver of the other car or to arrange for his vehicle to proceed with the journey or be sent to a workshop for repairs?

Another issue involves insurance liability. How would the start of driverless driving in Singapore affect the insurance regime and how would it affect insurance claims between driverless cars and normal vehicles?

Though the proposed amendments in the Bill today pertain to a regulatory framework for trial purposes and we do not yet have a draft subsidiary legislation for us to study and, hence, we do not know the full details of the proposed regulations, I wonder how the proposed regime will be and how the Government intends to address the issues I have raised which will impact on the regulatory regime. I believe we will encounter at least some of these issues even during the trial phase. In fact, some of these issues may have been encountered by parties in the accident of 18 October 2016 at Biopolis Drive. I, therefore, look forward to the Minister's assurance that these issues that I have raised will be considered in the proposed regulations.

I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Government has decided on the requirements for ownership and operation of AVs. Would the new licensing for AVs fall into a separate category requiring additional licensing requirements for existing drivers holding, say, conventional Class 3 licences?

Will the current Class 3 licence holders be required to attend a further course for AV licensing?

I next move to the issue of private hire car companies providing ride-sourcing services. On the proposed amendments involving private hire cars providing ride-sourcing services like Uber, I am particularly curious about the proposed penalty under clause 34 of the Bill which provides for a general suspension order that can bar every driver of a ride-sourcing company like Uber for a period of time as a result of another driver in the same company being convicted for an offence under the Act. The proposed penalty is not only unnecessarily harsh, it is also a penalty that only applies to ride-sourcing companies.

On the other hand, the corresponding provision in the Third Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act 2015 – and this is in section 20 – is not exactly on par with the proposed clause 34 in this Bill in that, under the 2015 Act, it seems that only the taxi booking service providers will be penalised but not all individual drivers under the same service providers.

I am concerned that clause 34 may go beyond penalising the ride-sourcing companies to unfairly penalise and prejudice other drivers working for the same companies when compared to taxi drivers under the 2015 Act and, in the process, affecting the livelihood of these drivers. Why is the Government allowing this particular penalty and the different treatment for drivers of ride-sourcing companies? I would also like to know whether this proposed regulation is a result of some serious persistent breaches by any current ride-sourcing company and, if so, what were these breaches.

Finally, I move on to the third issue which is related to clause 30 of the Bill. This relates to the forfeiture of seized non-compliant power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices.

Madam, I am still in support of this Bill and I look forward to the Minister's clarifications.

5.48 pm

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

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, MOT has set out to amend the Bill to encourage innovation as well as to regulate industry players. I agree wholeheartedly.

In recent years, the transport industry has changed drastically with technology innovations and new business models. Any new development is bound to bring opportunities and challenges. And the Government's role, while encouraging innovation and promoting industry development, is to protect consumers' interest and safeguard the rights of related industry players.

For instance, Singapore was the first in the world to test-drive driverless taxis within the city area, and was thus a market leader. The innovative company picked Singapore for its test drive because of our well-established infrastructure and because drivers and pedestrians observe traffic rules. Last October, during its test drive, a driverless taxi collided with a lorry. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Moving forward, similar accidents may continue to occur. Hence, it is essential for the Government to amend the Road Traffic Act to ensure the safety of the people involved in the test drives and the road users, as well as reduce the accident rate.

These amendments will also provide a good example on how to monitor disruptive and innovative technologies in the future. The emergence and the popularity of new technologies will no doubt disrupt original industry practices; be it innovative technologies or new business models, they will upset the social equilibrium. Transport services affect millions of users. Hence, the Government must protect the public interest first when monitoring the industry.

In terms of innovative business models, there has been a great breakthrough in the transport industry. Traditional taxi services are now facing very intense competition. Private hire car booking services are flexible and convenient. From being disgruntled in the beginning, taxi drivers are gradually getting used to this new model. In order to get more business, many of them have joined the online taxi booking platforms.

In Singapore, Uber and Grab have done exceedingly well. Many users commend on the convenience of their services; but some have reacted negatively. Convenience lies in people now having a choice between private hire cars and taxis and a higher chance of getting a ride. Grouses come from the fact that the drivers come from various backgrounds and they may be unfamiliar with the roads and lack relevant experience. Passengers, hence, may face a higher risk. Some drivers, in fact, are using their regular working hours to earn a quick buck! Moreover, plying the same route and using the same booking app, the fares charged by private hire cars are much higher than taxis during peak periods. Taxi drivers find this grossly unfair, as too many people are vying for their business and affecting their livelihood.

This is a microcosm of times of change. New technologies and business models pose a challenge to traditional industries, forcing everyone to change. But in the process of change, social divisions of labour are also changing. Some positions will gradually vanish and the affected workers will have to look for new occupations. Amending the Road Traffic Act will enable emerging transport services to be safer and more reliable. At the same time, I would also like to urge the relevant agencies to safeguard the interest of the current industry players during this transformation period. Driverless car technologies may solve the problem of manpower shortage in the future and private car booking services may provide more choices to consumers. However, we also need to consider the livelihood of taxi drivers. They rely on driving taxis to support their families. Many older people may find it difficult to make a career switch. These are all practical issues.

The market is ever-changing. I hope that Government agencies can engage in close communication with the related industry players, especially innovative companies, so as to understand the unique nature of the industry, adopt the right approach, respect the market and exercise appropriate control. Recently, Uber in Taiwan has announced suspending their services after being heavily fined by Taiwan's Transport Ministry. In Taiwan, Uber was registered as an IT service provider but the authorities thought it belonged to the transport industry. The two sides were not able to arrive at a common understanding in terms of oversight. In this real-life scenario, Uber lost out, the government also did not win, but most unfortunate of all is that commuters have lost a convenient mode of transport.

Mdm Speaker, when facing innovation, the Government has to monitor it effectively. On one hand, it should take care of consumers' interest and, on the other hand, give space for innovation to grow. Only then can the policy be considered an ideal one.

5.55 pm

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, let me first declare my interest as an Executive Adviser of the National Taxi Association. I concur with what the Minister has shared; the proposed amendments serve to further enhance the safety for private hire car (PHC) users and, to a certain extent, level the playing field for taxis.

Suspension rules have been in place for commuter safety for a long time. This is not an onerous requirement as compared to what other public service vehicles like taxi operators are subjected to. So, I was a bit perturbed when, earlier, hon Member Mr Dennis Tan shared that suspension sounds onerous. But my point is, is not revocation even more onerous?

In 2013, taxi operator Smart had to exit from a lucrative taxi market. Why? Because the company did not have its operator licence renewed by LTA. This was due to the fact that the operator had consistently failed to meet quality standards, such as call booking catering rate, accident rate and first inspection passing rate and so on.

Consequently, its fleet of about 270 taxi drivers was unable to ply the roads. Fortunately, the drivers were able to join other taxi operators as there were no anti-competition rules binding them, a point that I will come back to discuss at a later stage.

The suspension order of up to a month serves as a deterrent to errant drivers and the PHC booking service providers.

Steps in the right direction include increasing the safety and reliability of these new commuting options, such as requiring all drivers to be vocationally licensed, go through proper background checks and medical checks as well, be subjected to regulations on insurance adequacy checks and ensuring that their vehicles are approved and licensed to operate as public service vehicles.

For now, the onus is not only on the drivers to be properly certified, but also on the service providers who will need to up their game, put in place a robust and rigorous system to ensure that their drivers and vehicles are in compliance.

In this amendment, I hope to seek two clarifications from the Ministry.

First, will LTA be setting up a feedback channel to update and inform commuters, when a particular PHC booking service provider has been suspended? It will be useful for commuters and tourists to get timely information on the different commuting options and their availability.

Secondly, what if a PHC booking service provider "re-offends" repeatedly and receives a suspension order a few times? Will LTA also consider "revoking" their eligibility to operate and not allow them to offer their services to PHC drivers and commuters?

Let me come back to my earlier point about anti-competition. I hope the Ministry can also ensure that PHC drivers are not bounded by anti-competition practices. We should have a free market situation whereby a driver can switch company or choose to use whichever platforms he deems suitable or useful to him. When he leases a car to use for reward and hire purposes, it should not confine him to only using a specific PHC booking service platform. Such an environment will be essential, for example, when a particular booking platform has been suspended and the driver can choose to use other platforms to ensure that his business or livelihood is not affected.

In the amendment, I also support empowering LTA to come up with rules and regulations to prescribe the duties and responsibilities of PHC booking service operators. I would like to, however, suggest one new inclusion, that is, to impose a licensing fee of perhaps 0.02% of the total revenue collected by the private hire car operators. The purpose is to align the fees that LTA currently collects from taxi operators for the purposes of transport planning, enforcement, monitoring and related needs.

Similarly, I believe that LTA will need to hire more staff, deploy enforcement officers and lay the necessary groundwork needed to incorporate PHC into its work. These costs, Madam, I feel, should also be recovered from the PHC operators as well. Madam, I support the Bill.

6.00 pm

Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, good afternoon. It is timely that the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276), which is now being proposed to be updated to keep up with the changing automotive landscape not only in Singapore but also with other progressive global cities. Having been involved in the automotive industry for more than 30 years, I can safely say that the changes in the automotive industry are only the beginning, if not more has yet to come.

In supporting the Bill, I would like to highlight two points, which I believe we need to give further attention to, namely: AVs and also in relation to the automated vehicle technology; and classification of vehicles as stipulated by the amendment in clause 4.

Before I elaborate further, please allow me to share my personal experience which happened many years ago. It was somewhere in the year 2009/2010 when I was scouting for a new vehicle. I decided to try something new, which was to switch to an environmentally-friendly vehicle, with the aim to play my part as a responsible world citizen by considering either an electric vehicle or a hybrid. Almost all went well, until the last minute of the discussion, when I learned that the road tax for the hybrid vehicle which I was about to purchase was much more than the petrol-driven version − being reasoned as having a dual-motor system as a basis of the road tax computation.

I was shocked and taken aback. How could this be? Cutting the story short, in consequence, I did not proceed with the purchase. I felt the rule at that time was not somehow in sync with the expectation and the changing automotive landscape.

Glad to say, today, this rule has meanwhile been updated. However, not substantial enough, in my view, to motivate the general mass who have decided to own a vehicle to switch to an environmentally-friendly one. Thus, I urge the authorities to continue and rigorously review our Traffic Road Act so as to keep up with the changing times and serve what it is meant to be, that is, to protect and serve the interest of all.

Let me now turn to AVs. A decade ago, AVs were something which we never thought could be a reality in our daily lives. At that time, it was more like a science fiction. However, today, AVs are already running on the road in the USA and generally accepted as the new and "in-thing" innovation within the automotive industry. It is also expected to spread into countries and cities within the next decade, where the infrastructure is ready and available. Being and wanting to be a global city, Singapore has not much choice but to embrace this new development.

While I am for the change and moving ahead together with this new development, I also have concerns. I am unsure if our current Road Traffic Act is geared to meet the challenges which this new automotive innovation brings along with it. Let me share those concerns as follows.

First, can an AV be allowed to be operated on our public road without a driver, meaning driverless? Perhaps, not today, but it will be sometime in the future, I presume.

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

The third question, how do we ensure that the concerned AV is being certified fit for use on our roads where we have constraints in terms of infrastructure, which is not the same as compared to the other global cities? Do we have the expertise and the capability to do this?

The fourth question, how do we ensure that the related laws, rules and regulations are put in place so as to ensure that operators, users as well as the public's interests are protected and served, when the unwanted happens?

The last question, in any unwanted situation, like an accident, immediate human attention is always needed. Should we not make a point that every AV must always have an operator, that is, a person inside, even though if the vehicle is deemed and declared as AV-certified?

I am not at all suggesting at all that we avoid moving into this new area of development. On the contrary, I believe we should engage and prepare ourselves to embrace and manage it. Autonomous driving and AVs will come sooner or later, with its related technological advancement. We should take steps and work faster than ever to make our laws, rules and regulations to accommodate this new automotive innovation.

Referring to our Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, I wish to see more proposed changes in future, so that we keep abreast with the new development in the automotive industry and technologies. I would even suggest that a panel of experts be assembled to engage this new area of development. As such, I support the Bill.

The second part of my concern, Mdm Speaker, is that the classification of our motor vehicles has been in force since I can remember. I believe there has been good intention in doing this. The categorisation which has been formulated has served us well. However, motor vehicle technologies have changed and improved, for the better.

Citing an example, a 1,000 cc capacity engine motor vehicle designed and manufactured in the 1980s is no longer comparable with the ones today. Current motor vehicles with the same capacity class are now packed with an array of new technologies, like turbo and electronic injection engine and more sophisticated software-controlled powertrain, which render "similar" class motor vehicles a completely different machine and performance.

A diesel-powered motor vehicle used to be regarded as environmentally-unfriendly. However, with the advancement and introduction of new technologies, new diesel engines which meet the Euro-V requirements can even be "cleaner" and environmentally-friendlier than some petrol-powered motor vehicles. Thus, this advancement in the automobile industry should motivate us to make a regular self-check on our classification of motor vehicles. I believe it would be wise if the classification of motor vehicles is to include and consider other aspects, such as impact on our environment.

As such, I support the need to relook and review our motor vehicle classification. It is even heartening to know that in trying to address the need to be quick and nimble in adapting to the fast changes in automotive technologies, the classification of motor vehicles will be managed by LTA through published gazette. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

6.09 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, the rise of Uber and Grab is welcomed by many. It provides alternatives for those who want to have a chauffeured car and it also provides additional income to many who are willing to work hard. However, for the safety of all commuters and other road users, it is good that we put in place some form of regulations on the operators of private hire cabs and their drivers. The private hire car drivers should go through proper training, adhere to certain rules while carrying passengers and, most of all, be screened to ensure that only those with good character are given a licence.

What I hope is that the service quality will improve, now that there is more competition. The improvements in service will also go some way in contributing to the Government's car-lite policy as, hopefully, more people will opt for public transport.

Having said that, I would like to raise the following questions.

First, is there any change in the minimum age of the driver because, currently, for drivers of Uber or Grab cars, those as young as 21 years old are allowed to drive? Based on the feedback from my residents, they feel that these drivers are too young, whereas, for taxi drivers, they must be, at the minimum, 30 years old. So, is there a revision in this minimum age?

Secondly, many taxi drivers have fed back that their livelihood is adversely affected and they need more help from taxi companies. The taxi companies should re-examine their business models. I would like to applaud "Trans-Cab slashes taxi rebates/SMRT launches new scheme allowing drivers to rent taxi by hours". Perhaps, more can be done.

To the passengers, what they normally consider are speed and fare. The one who can come the fastest, the better; and the one the cheaper, the better.

To the taxi drivers, there are also two variables to their income ‒ the rental and the taxi fares ‒ and both are fixed by taxi companies. I would like to urge the taxi companies to see what more they can do and see whether they can further reduce the rentals and the fares, like what has been done in Tokyo where they had just recently revised their base fare from ¥730 to ¥430, a 40% reduction. Another thing is to get rid of all forms of surcharges and, hopefully, by doing all these, it can bring more income or make taxis more competitive so that the taxi drivers' income will not be affected so much.

Next is infrastructure. What is the Ministry doing to improve certain infrastructure to cope with the higher number of such private hire cars on the road? For example, will these private hire cars be allowed to use the taxi stands to alight and pick up passengers? If so, many of our taxi stands are often choked with a long line of cabs. Sometimes, the queue tails back to a turning traffic-light junction. Thus, even other motorists are unable to turn and this results in a traffic snarl. For example, it is an almost daily occurrence at the taxi stand at Bugis Junction where taxis queueing to go into the taxi bay cause a tailback and it gets worse with buses and delivery vans all in the line. Most of our taxi stands cater to just three to four taxis and we may need to review future taxi stands when we build them, depending on their location.

We now also know that there are private car operators who are ferrying school children to and from school, in direct competition with school bus operators. I am all for competition so that there is no monopoly for one group of people. But because school children need to be with trustworthy people and safe drivers at all times, we should look into the safety and security of such arrangements. How is the Ministry to regulate this group of car hire operators?

Next, I would like to ask the Minister: is there any restriction on the nationality of the drivers of these private hire cars? There was talk that Malaysians are coming here to drive these cars while on social visit passes. Is this allowed? If it is not allowed, is there enforcement taken and how many such illegal drivers have been prosecuted?

Another point I want to raise is the question of illegal modifications of motor vehicles. I hope the Ministry will be very strict with cars which are being used for private hire, to ensure that passengers are not exposed to any danger arising from such modifications. Some of these modifications would allow drivers to drive at very dangerous speeds, putting passengers at risk. Most important is that the insurance for liability may be void arising from modifications. Please allow me to summarise in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] MOT is amending the law to regulate the private hire car industry, so that consumers can enjoy higher levels of service and safety. There are a few areas that I hope the Government can pay attention to.

First, with more private hire cars on the road, will they be allowed to use taxi stands in the future? Considering that most taxi stands can only cater to a few taxis, will this affect the traffic condition on the street? Does the Government plan to increase facilities in this area?

Second, there was talk that Malaysians holding social visit passes are now coming to Singapore to drive private hire cars. Can the Minister clarify whether there are restrictions on the kind of permit that private hire car drivers must have and how the Government is going to enforce these restrictions?

Third, the Government should have strict controls to ensure that private hire cars are not illegally modified because this could affect passengers' safety and insurance coverage.

Obviously, we cannot ignore the impact on taxi drivers. I hope taxi companies can reduce the rentals and the fares to help their drivers.

6.16 pm

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, part of this Bill seeks to add enforcement powers to regulate private hire car services. Since Uber and Grab entered the Singapore market in 2013, we have witnessed a shift in commuter behaviour, as well as a great number of people becoming freelance drivers driving private hire cars. Many tech-savvy commuters have used these mobile apps and, coupled with sweeteners, such as promotional discounts and the absence of midnight surcharge, this development has been good news for commuters.

However, there are other aspects of the transport ecosystem we have to consider. Many taxi drivers I have spoken to have indicated that their monthly income has taken a hit due to competition from Uber and Grab. Some of them are not so tech-savvy and are not able to switch to driving Uber or Grab, which requires the use of smart phone features. As commuters increasingly shift their preference to these private hire car services, the traditional taxi drivers have picked up fewer passengers. Many have thrown in the towel and, worse, some are unable to find other jobs as replacement. In fact, several countries and cities have applied certain restrictions or banned Uber and other similar services due to the severe market disruptions they have caused. Car rental companies have also lamented that Uber's affiliate, Lion City Rental, is charging lower than traditional market rate. Backed by large funds, Uber is focusing on growing its market presence with no consideration as to whether its operations are profitable or not.

Madam, allow me to share some of Uber's financials. Uber's losses in the first six months of 2016 was roughly US$1.4 billion and it is projected that its full year loss would hit a record US$3 billion. In 2016 alone, Uber raised close to US$5 billion in equity and debt to fund its expansion. Despite our preferred stand of adopting a balanced, light-touch regulatory stance that Second Minister Ng Chee Meng has pointed out, our local players, with less financial clout and operating in a much smaller market, have definitely been affected.

Mdm Speaker, I accept that disruption in this new age of technology may be inevitable but regulators need to plan ahead. I believe there are good policy reasons to limit the growth of operators, such as Uber and Grab. What if they collapse under the weight of their huge losses only after wiping out our local players? If that happens, commuters will be the ones who suffer.

We should allow more flexibility in our market to adapt to these market disruptions. Hence, I am very happy that LTA has removed the requirement for taxi drivers to clock a minimum daily mileage of 250 km as there is no such requirement for private hire cars.

Another anomaly is that taxi companies have to meet the Taxi Availability standards introduced in 2013 in order to grow their fleet size, which is capped at 2% per annum, but Uber and other private hire car services have increased their fleet size at an aggressive rate without any restriction during this period. The number of rental cars has increased from about 19,000 at end-2014 to more than 51,000 by the end of last year, far surpassing our taxi population of 27,500. Even if we remove the 2% cap on taxi population growth, I am afraid it has become a moot point as, in a Straits Times article on 15 January this year, it was reported that there are signs that the market has hit saturation point with more than 2,000 unhired private hire vehicles and taxis. As such, I would like to explore if it is possible to allow taxi companies to convert part of their taxi fleet into private hire rental vehicles. This will allow for better utilisation of their fleet.

Madam, this Bill gives additional enforcement powers to regulate private hire car services. I believe we have to think about what happens next. Hopefully, we can minimise the impact on taxi companies and their drivers. With the implementation of the requirement for drivers to have vocational licence starting from July this year, I am concerned that the number of private hire drivers may fall. Will this cause Uber and other operators to offer even more incentives to their drivers and commuters? How will this affect our traditional taxi companies and their drivers?

Madam, while I know it will be difficult to have some form of regulation which limits the losses which operators, such as Uber or Grab, may incur in their bid to grow their market share, a parallel can be drawn with European soccer where its governing body, UEFA, has introduced financial fair play rules in 2011. I am not against competition, but I am sure everyone agrees that competition should be fair. We have seen how competition can help drive innovation and prevent complacency by the incumbents. Ultimately, we hope that sustained competition can help to improve service standards. However, we need to be aware of the entire business ecosystem and its effects on all stakeholders. Notwithstanding my comments, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

6.23 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill ensures that Singapore's road traffic laws continue to keep up with the changing times and continue to adapt alongside ongoing changes in the industry and I stand in support of it.

I commend the harsher penalties for altering vehicles and reckless driving, raising the maximum fines from $5,000 to $10,000 in both cases. This is only appropriate. As Singapore continues to experience economic growth and rising levels of affluence, penalties should also rise concurrently. Only then will penalties bring about the right "pain level", have the appropriate punitive effect and continue to be an effective deterrent. But, as always, I do hope we do not just focus solely on penalties to shape our behaviours and morals. I hope all of us can realise that innocent lives may be lost as a result of our reckless actions.

I also note that obstruction of driverless vehicles will, for the first time, incur a penalty. As driverless vehicles are the inevitable future for the industry and the world is moving steadily ahead with its development, it is only prudent for Singapore laws to facilitate the testing and use of this innovation. As such, this inclusion is timely and necessary for Singapore to remain at the forefront of innovation for driverless vehicles. However, I would like to raise the point that the maximum penalty of $5,000 for first-time offenders who obstruct driverless vehicles during trials is the same as the current penalty for first-time offenders of reckless driving. This seems to be rather harsh and I would like to ask the Second Minister for the rationale behind this.

I also commend the timely and much-anticipated move to further regulate the private hire car industry. In 2016, LTA's statistics showed that around 27,000 regular taxis plied our roads. In comparison, the number of Grab and Uber drivers is estimated to be around 25,000. This is a sizeable number. Adding another 25,000 cars on the road presents real competition for existing taxi drivers. However, we have understood that the private hire car disruption is here to stay and that it, in fact, does provide a valuable service to the Singapore public.

I have personally experienced being a Grab driver about a year ago and can see how they are a benefit to consumers. At the same time, I have met with taxi drivers and understand their concerns and know that their rice bowls are now affected by this increased competition.

Ultimately, consumers benefit from the additional options. This is a public good for Singapore. As such, the only thing we should do in terms of Government intervention is to ensure fair competition. We must level the playing field as much as possible for both groups.

The changes presented by this Bill are a good start by requiring Grab and Uber drivers to register with LTA, complete a vocational licensing course and undergo background screening and medical checks. However, I believe that even after these changes, the playing field is still not level. For example, taxi drivers are required by their Code of Conduct to be properly-attired ‒ shirt, dark-coloured pants, covered shoes and so on. Such requirements do not seem to be explicit for Grab or Uber drivers. A driver I met just three Sundays ago brought up this point and wanted to make sure we implement the same rules for both taxis and Uber and Grab drivers.

Another example was highlighted in the media recently when a GrabHitch driver brought his dog to pick up a passenger and the passenger was bitten. GrabHitch responded to the media that Grab does not restrict its drivers from bringing their certified pets on board their vehicles, only encouraging them to inform their passengers beforehand. This would not happen in a taxi because rules prohibit drivers to bring their dogs into their taxis.

Lastly, we have also heard in the news recently that it is illegal for Uber and Grab private hire cars to ferry passengers under 135 cm without a child seat. This, however, does not apply to taxis. The issue here is not whether the child is in a taxi, a Grab or Uber car. At times, it may even be the same exact car model. The issue here is safety and the same rules should apply to all. Can the Minister clarify why this is not the case for the issue of the child seat?

And would the Ministry consider imposing exactly the same rules and requirements for taxi drivers to drivers of private car hires so as to achieve our intended objective of fair competition?

Madam, these comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.

6.27 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, the proposed amendments on private hire car users strike an effective balance. The proposed regulatory sandbox to promote safe trials for AVs is an excellent move. As such, I stand in support of the Bill.

Automated vehicles will radically alter the face of Singapore and, as Second Minister Ng Chee Meng has shared earlier, offer exciting possibilities for us.

Today, I would like to talk about three issues pertaining to AVs. One, bringing insurers on board for AVs. Two, actively managing the ethical dilemmas that AVs bring forth. Three, readying our transportation workers for the road ahead.

First, let me talk about insurance. Self-driving vehicles have captured the imagination of many. Naturally, as more trials and adoption have taken place, more accidents have also happened. My colleagues have talked about them earlier in the House.

Following the Tesla accident, the US government ordered a detailed safety review. The finding was clear that, even with the increased number of accidents, Tesla's current implementation is considered safer than conventional vehicles. But regardless of how good the technology gets, accidents will continue to happen. Therefore, insurance is a necessity. In fact, industry experts whom I spoke to indicated that the lack of insurance is emerging as a key bottleneck for the full and widespread commercialisation of AVs.

The rest of the world has started moving on this. In June last year, a UK company launched the world's first insurance for self-driving cars. In August last year, Tesla started collaborating with AXA in Hong Kong and QBE in Australia to offer insurance.

To accelerate the adoption of AVs in Singapore, I hope that MOT and MOF can quickly bring on board our insurance companies, even within the confines of the regulatory sandbox. Because this is an evolving field, we might not get the approach right the first time, but it is far better for us to try something quick and then adjust along the way so that insurance is not a bottleneck for their commercialisation.

Second, let me talk about managing the ethical dilemmas. One major dilemma is: how should an automated vehicle decide on whom or what to protect, when an accident is imminent?

This dilemma is commonly expressed in the field of ethics as the "Trolley Problem", where a driver of a broken trolley has to decide between injuring five people right in front of him, or to make a conscious decision to divert the trolley, thereby injuring a bystander, who is innocent.

But for AVs, the issue is even more complex. Which must the vehicle prioritise to protect and why? Should it be the passengers of the vehicle? Or passengers of another autonomous vehicle? Or the passengers in a conventional vehicle which can potentially react less swiftly? Or a nearby vulnerable pedestrian, such as an elderly, an expectant mother or a child? Or the largest group of pedestrians? Or an important nearby building, such as a nursery, or a hospital? There is currently no consensus on this issue.

Now, as we accelerate the use of AVs in Singapore, it will be wise if we do not abdicate our responsibilities to technologists or the vehicle manufacturers or the insurance companies. I hope MOT can keep a close tab on international developments on this front and perhaps even convene an ethics panel to deliberate on this important matter.

Some might argue that even as an early adopter city-state, it is unlikely that Singapore can influence the global direction on this front. I think otherwise, because I believe it is reasonable and feasible for us to ask manufacturers to adapt their programming logic to our society's sensibility.

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

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

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

I am glad to hear that Minister Ng believes that it will take 10 to 15 years before AVs are fully commercialised, as this will give our people time to adjust. However, disruptive technologies have a way of surprising others with the pace of adoption. As such, I think it would be wise for us to identify a few key trigger points along the adoption path when we know that we have to step in in a systematic and deliberate way to help our transportation workers adjust to this brave new world.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, AVs will bring tremendous benefits, but also some challenges to Singapore. I am glad that MOT is taking a major step in pushing for the regulatory sandbox for AVs. It may take some time for us to find the right formula, but I am confident that we will succeed. I stand in full support of the Motion.

6.33 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I support the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. As Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union, I am heartened to hear the Minister's assurance that the Government will put in place programmes to help Singaporeans who drive for a living, to help them acquire new skills and take on new jobs, should and when AVs are deployed extensively. The Union stands ready to work with the Ministry and the LTA to support our transport workers in the transition to a future AVs world.

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

First, let me speak on AVs. It is timely that we develop a framework to regulate the proper use of such vehicles.

Since last year, LTA has embarked on various trials for autonomous cars and buses in one-north and NTU respectively. It is imperative that more R&D be done in the coming years to ensure that these vehicles are safe before we start using such AVs in the public transport and logistics sectors. While the widespread use of AVs may still be a decade or two away, as indicated by the Minister, it is crucial that we focus on ensuring the safety of our public during the initial trials.

One of the proposed amendments in the Bill mandates that the company or individual who wishes to carry out AV trials purchases liability insurance or places a corresponding deposit amount with LTA during the trial. Can the Minister share with us the penalties that would be imposed on those who fail to buy the appropriate insurance or place the stipulated deposit with LTA?

In the event of an accident involving an AV, will the Ministry be developing and issuing guidelines for other road users on how they should respond and act? Who would be liable should an AV hit a pedestrian or another vehicle? Would the person or persons in the AV at the time of the accident be liable? What happens if there is no one in the AV when the accident occurs?

Another proposed amendment requires the entity carrying out the autonomous vehicle trials to keep records of the sensor data and video footage gathered during the trials and to submit them to LTA when these are requested. Such records may be lost if there are gaps in the process of safekeeping. Would LTA consider mandating that these trial data be transmitted real-time to LTA's Intelligent Transport System Centre?

Not only would this minimise the possibility of lost data, it could also help LTA to get a head start in developing subsidiary innovations that leverage self-driving technology. When AV technology becomes more reliable and trials expand beyond the current defined locations, we can feasibly expect to see AVs being trialled on major thoroughfares, expressways and even possibly during peak hours. With the potential increase in AVs on our roads, would AVs be subject to Certificates of Entitlement (COEs)?

Next, let me touch on private hire car and ride-sharing services. I applaud the proposed changes that serve to level the playing field between the traditional taxi industry and the private hire car industry. However, there seems to be one category of private hire car drivers that has been left out of this Bill, and these are drivers of ride-sharing services, such as GrabHitch and RYDE.

Currently, LTA allows private car owners to carpool and offer ride-sharing services, with the stipulations that drivers cannot charge for profit and are limited to providing a maximum of two rides per day. Would the Ministry consider expanding the Act to regulate this group of ride-share drivers? We heard earlier from Member Mr Louis Ng of the viral story where a GrabHitch driver had a Chihuahua in the front seat of his car and the dog bit a commuter who was alighting. A similar vocational licence for ride-share drivers, with mandatory background checks, would serve to enhance the safety of our commuters.

Mdm Speaker, I agree with the direction of the proposed amendments which penalise the private hire car operators for the conduct of their errant drivers, such as those who engage in street hail or operate without a vocational licence. This mirrors the approach taken towards the taxi industry currently, where taxi operators are taken to task for the collective actions of their taxi drivers, such as meeting the peak-hour taxi availability standards and Quality of Service standards.

Taxi operators in Singapore have to adhere to LTA's Quality of Service standards, which take into account the conduct of their taxi drivers, the ease of booking a taxi and the overall safety of taxi drivers. For example, taxi operators are penalised when too many of their drivers get into accidents and are deemed to have failed the safety component under the Quality of Service framework. Will the Ministry consider mirroring the Quality of Service standards placed upon taxi operators to the private hire car operators as well?

While Singapore adopts a light-touch regulatory framework for our private hire car industry, we must protect the safety of our commuters. Placing the onus on the private hire car operators to ensure that they recruit and retain safe and responsible drivers will go a long way in achieving this. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Debate resumed.

6.40 pm

Mr Ng Chee Meng: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members for their queries and suggestions. Let me try to address the many queries in turn, grouped into: AVs, private hire cars and, finally, enforcement.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Azmoon Ahmad raised pertinent issues about AVs. As we all noted, AV technology is not yet mature. During trials, accidents are to be expected. The LTA has put in place a robust regulatory framework for AV trials to minimise the possibility of accidents.

First, AVs must demonstrate basic roadworthiness and capabilities by passing a safety assessment, before they can even be trialled on the roads.

Second, AVs developers must have robust accident mitigation plans for the trials, including having a safety driver who is trained to swiftly take control of the AV, whenever necessary. In answer to Mr Dennis Tan, these drivers have a Class 3 licence and they have no demerit points. This need for a safety driver can be waived after the AV developers have proven the competency of their AVs to LTA's full satisfaction of navigating our infrastructure and roads.

Third, trials are allowed to start only on lightly used roads like the one we have at one-north. When the AVs are able to demonstrate higher competencies, they will be allowed to trial in more complex environments, including some of our public roads. The proposed RTA provisions will give LTA the flexibility to impose additional requirements or amend requirements, as the need arises, because, in many of these trials, there may be unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, giving LTA the flexibility is the sensible thing to do.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Azmoon Ahmad and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the legal implications and many potential liability issues when AVs are involved in road accidents. Mr Henry Kwek also asked if the insurance industry is being consulted.

LTA is studying these complex issues, together with representatives from the AV, motor, legal and insurance industries, and this is part of the work set up under MOT's Committee on Autonomous Road Transport for Singapore. This is an 18-member strong Committee comprising senior members in Singapore public agencies, public sector and some global organisations. So, it is quite an experienced Committee. In the meantime, LTA has been discussing these issues with foreign counterparts that have also similar test-beds.

On liability, the traditional basis of claims for negligence may not work so well − as Mr Dennis Tan has said − where there is no driver in control of a vehicle. When presented with novel technologies, Courts often try to draw analogies to legal constructs for other existing technologies.

In the case of AVs, the Courts have autopilot systems for airplanes and autopilot navigational systems for maritime vessels, and product liability law to draw references from. As with accidents involving human-driven vehicles, it is likely that issues of liability for AVs will be resolved through proof of fault and existing common law. We will require all test AVs to log travel data to facilitate accident investigations and liability claims.

But having said this, these are early days yet. A lot of detailed studies will have to be done, including the point raised by Mr Dennis Tan on the future framework, whether this class of vehicles requires licensing. I think this will be an area to be studied.

Mr Azmoon Ahmad and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the issue of certification. Indeed, this is the reason LTA, together with JTC Corp, in partnership with NTU, have started a Centre for Excellence for Testing and Research of Autonomous Vehicles. This organisation called CETRAN will spearhead the development of AV testing requirements.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked if our road and public transport network can accommodate AVs. A key requirement of the trials initiated by LTA is that the AVs can operate on our existing roads with minimal supporting structure. Globally, the industry is also gearing towards such infrastructure-light AVs. So, the short answer is yes, the trials will guide the AVs towards infrastructure-light modifications.

Mr Melvin Yong asked what the penalties are for AV trial participants who do not buy the appropriate insurance or fail to place the stipulated security deposit with LTA. Companies or individuals which do not or fail to do so will not be issued a test licence to conduct AV trials.

Mr Melvin Yong asked if LTA would consider mandating that trial data be transmitted real-time to LTA's Intelligent Transport System Centre. Currently, the answer is that trial participants are not required to do so, but I take that point and we are already requiring LTA to get this system set up for real-time transmission in the longer term for all the AV trials.

Mr Melvin Yong also asked if AVs would be subjected to COE should there be an increase in AVs being trialled on our roads. In the longer term, when AV technology is mature and deployed widely in public, there does not seem to be any reason why we should exempt them from our COE system. But again, these are early days. We will review the policy at an appropriate point in time.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the rationale for the maximum penalty of $5,000 for first-time offenders who obstruct AVs during trials. We have set a relatively high bar to deter acts of interference, some of which could cause the AV to behave in a way that endangers the safety of other road users. Five thousand dollars is the maximum penalty for the offence and the Courts will be able to calibrate the actual fine to the severity of the circumstances and consequences of any offence or accident.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Thomas Chua, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Henry Kwek raised concerns that the advent of new technologies like AVs and private hire cars may disrupt the livelihood of Singaporeans. This is something that we are equally concerned about. But as we have all said, rather than impeding the adoption of these technologies, which are beneficial to all Singaporeans, we should focus our efforts on helping our transport workforce adapt to these inevitable disruptions over a 10- to 15-year timeframe. Together with our unions and companies, we can help our drivers upgrade their skills and perhaps take on higher value and better paying jobs. And I am equally happy, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, that companies are coming out with novel rental schemes, including dual shifts and hourly rates, so that taxi drivers can be helped with their earnings.

Next, let me address Members' questions on private hire cars. Several Members spoke about levelling the playing field between taxis and private hire cars.

Mr Melvin Yong asked if we will impose Quality of Service standards on private hire car operators. Mr Louis Ng would like a Code of Conduct to be imposed on private hire car drivers. Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested that we impose a licensing fee on private hire car booking service operators.

We take issues related to the safety of commuters very seriously. This is why we will be requiring private hire car drivers to obtain a vocational licence. And when we do so, this vocational licence framework will impose on private hire car drivers the same demerit point system that is currently applied across the taxi drivers today. Private hire car drivers will also have to abide, under this framework, to similar Conduct Rules as taxi drivers − cleanliness, dressing and all those. As we are not planning to license private hire car booking service operators for now, there will be no licencing fees. This light-touch approach allows the industry, which is still evolving, to continue to innovate and benefit commuters, but also, at the same time, ensures commuter safety. I believe this is an appropriate approach for now, but we will continue to monitor closely and adjust as needed.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked whether we can allow taxi companies to convert part of their taxi fleets to private hire cars and if we will limit the losses which operators, such as Uber and Grab, can incur. The role of Government is to put in place an appropriate regulatory framework for businesses to operate. I do not believe and we should not be taking on the responsibility for their profits or losses as a Government. Operators must make their own business decisions and the market will impose the necessary discipline over a period of time.

As for the conversion of taxis to private hire cars, taxi companies today enjoy some concessions which are not applicable to private hire cars. For example, taxi companies today pay the Prevailing Quota Premium (PQP) for Category A vehicles for all their taxis, despite the fact that many of the taxis belong to Category B of the COE system. Therefore, it would not be right to allow taxi companies to enjoy these concessions on the one hand and then, later, re-registering the vehicle as a private hire car.

Mr Louis Ng asked why private hire cars must adhere to the child seat rule but taxis need not. The child seat rule is imposed on all vehicles for safety reasons. But the Government has allowed a concession for taxis for practicality reasons, as taxis can be street hailed, and it would be quite unreasonable to expect all taxi drivers to ensure that their taxis come equipped with booster seats and child restraints at all times, or to turn away street hail passengers with children.

Private hire cars (PHCs), on the other hand, are pre-booked and passengers can indicate if they require booster seats or child restraints when making the booking. The Government's exemption of taxis from the child seat rule is the outcome of trying to balance between practicality on the one hand and safety on the other. Having said this, I do take your point that an argument can, indeed, be made to similarly exempt private hire cars from the child seat rule. But for now, we have decided to err on the side of ensuring the safety of child passengers on PHCs.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah expressed concern over congestion at taxi stands. Our intent is for taxi stands to remain solely for the use of taxis. This is also in line with our intent to keep the street hail market solely for taxis.

Mdm Speaker, these discussions on various aspects of taxi and PHC services also illustrate that while the two serve similar markets, there are key differences not only in how we regulate them, but the concessions available to them. Hence, in discussing a level playing field, we need to recognise that it would have to be in the total context of not just regulations, but also concessions.

Mr Ang Kin Kee raised two questions on the general suspension order. First, whether LTA will permanently disallow a PHC booking service provider who has received multiple suspension orders from operating its services.

The suspension order, including the possibility of multiple orders, is a significant regulatory threat which we believe will be sufficient to make service providers take the rules seriously. We will consider stronger regulation if and when necessary.

Second, Mr Ang asked if LTA will set up a feedback channel to update and inform commuters when a particular PHC booking service operator has been suspended. LTA will ensure that sufficient notice and publicity to both drivers and commuters are given before a suspension order commences. LTA will study the best channels to do so.

Mr Dennis Tan asked if such a suspension order may be too harsh given that PHC booking service providers are operating somewhat differently from the taxi industry. But I would like to assure him that this actually commensurates with the powers that LTA has over other transport service providers today.

To put this in context, as I think Mr Ang also mentioned just now, LTA has the power today to revoke or suspend the licences of taxi operators which do not comply with LTA's licensing conditions or directives. A general suspension order has the same effect as a licence suspension. Like a licence suspension or revocation, the general suspension order is also a power of last resort to be applied only if they are serious and repeated breaches on our rules. The affected PHC booking service provider will also be given ample opportunity to present its case to LTA.

Mr Dennis Tan also expressed concerns that it would not be fair for LTA to penalise all drivers affiliated to any particular PHC booking service because of the irresponsible action of a few. I would like to clarify that drivers affiliated with a PHC booking service provider who has been imposed with a general suspension order do not lose their vocation licences and they can continue to drive for other PHC booking service providers, just like taxi drivers.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the criteria for PHC Driver's Vocational Licence holders, such as nationality and minimum age.

There are no changes to the criteria announced last year. Non-Singapore citizens will be granted a PHC Drivers' Vocational Licence only if they are employees of chauffeured services companies. And as for a minimum age criterion, our view is that requiring PHC drivers to have a minimum driving experience of two years should be adequate to reasonably ensure passenger safety. And, the number of years of driving experience may, in fact, be more important than age. When the age was set at 30 for taxi drivers, it was meant to persuade drivers not to take this on early in their life as a permanent vocation.

Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested that the Government ensure that PHC drivers are free to switch platforms whenever they deem necessary.

Agreements between drivers and PHC booking service operators, including the possibility of switching to driving for other operators, should be left as a commercial decision, as per my answer to Mr Yee Chia Hsing. Let the market decide. Drivers are advised to carefully read the terms and conditions and ensure that they are fully aware of their rights and obligations, before signing up with an operator. Perhaps we could suugest that the National Private Hire Vehicles Association may wish to take this up with the various operators.

Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Louis Ng asked how we would regulate ride-sharing services, such as GrabHitch. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked how we would regulate what seems to be PHC services that ferry school children to and from school. I believe Er Dr Lee Bee Wah was referring to was Schoolber, which helps parents roster themselves to carpool to send their children to school using their own private cars.

I would like to clarify that GrabHitch and Schoolber are carpooling services, not to be confused with PHC services. Our regulations allow a driver to use private vehicles to give rides to others travelling to the same destination or in the same direction as himself and for the driver to collect a small fee on a cost-recovery basis, not for profit. This is different from PHC services, where the intent is for the drivers to provide rides as a source of income. Hence, we do not intend to regulate carpooling services. Commuters who are thinking of using such services should assess for themselves their own comfort with the services, in particular, service, including the Chihuahua case. Over-regulation of this budding initiative will most likely curtail the growth between private arrangements. If they are not comfortable with such safety issues or have reservations, they may want to use licensed taxis or PHC services or licensed school bus services, if they are really not comfortable with this pooling service.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin commented that Power-assisted Bicycles (PABs) are similar to lower-powered motorcycles and called for compulsory road safety training for PAB users.

The new technical requirements for PABs, introduced last year, limit PABs to a maximum device speed of 25 km/h, which is roughly my cycling speed. The motor must also be cut off when the user is not pedalling. So, if there is no pedalling power, he really cannot get the vehicle to go faster. In our view, this is more akin to being a bicycle with power assistance. Thus, we have assessed that we do not need to mandate road safety training for PAB users. We will continue, of course, to work with the Traffic Police to educate PAB users on safe behaviour and practices, regardless of whether it is more like a motorcycle or more like a bicycle. Nevertheless, safety for them is important.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about seizure procedures and requirements. I did not quite get the full query, but I would try and answer to take in all the questions.

LTA has the power to seize PMDs and PABs as long as there are any behavioural offences, such as speeding and reckless driving. These are offences for seizure, including illegal modifications that do not meet what has been stipulated in terms of the width of the vehicle, the weight of the vehicle and the speed limits structurally placed on the vehicle. Any of these is a seizable offence.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah expressed concerns that illegally modified private hire cars could pose a danger to the safety of commuters. I fully agree with the Member. We take a very serious view of illegal modifications, whether it is of private hire cars or private cars. We will continue to ensure that motorists who illegally modify their vehicles are taken to task.

Before I conclude, Mdm Speaker, I just want to address Mr Azmoon's story about him going green. I applaud that. but the incentives to get more people like the Member to go green would be taken under other initiatives.

Mdm Speaker, in summary, this Bill seeks to update our regulations to cater to various innovations in the land transport sector, most notably the AV technology and private hire car services, while continuing to ensure the safety of the public. It is a balanced stance to ensure commuters' interest, drivers' welfare and business, as many of the Members have raised points about. With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

7.02 pm

Mr Azmoon Ahmad: I would like to have a clarification from the Minister. Does the Ministry make a difference between a driverless car and an AV?

Mr Ng Chee Meng: Thank you. I do apologise I did not get to that point. It is taken into account under the SAE International J3016, where there are different categories of automation. Under our laws, it will be under levels 3, 4 and 5 from high automation to full automation which is driverless. So, it is a range that we put these vehicles under this framework law.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Minister for the answers to my questions. Just a clarification on the last point that the Minister was trying to answer. My question relates to non-compliant power-assisted bicycles as well as the other non-compliant mobility devices. For the non-compliant bikes, for example, e-bikes which are supposed to be registered but are not registered. My question is when these are seen in public, when LTA officers see these devices being used in public, will they be seized or do they have to be committing a separate offence, for example, going at high speed or further illegal modification, in the case of a mobility device?

Mr Ng Chee Meng: For such non-compliant PAB and PMD devices, once you are non-compliant, you are liable to be seized. But as most things operational on the ground, much of the executive judgement is left to the enforcement officers and we will leave it as that. Sometimes, a person may really not know that he has contravened something and it was done before this law was passed and, for all the different complexities, I will trust the officers on the ground to make the judgement call. The key point is all these offences are seizable offences.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Madam, on the conversion of a taxi fleet to PHC, I believe that if we can allow the taxi companies to convert the taxi fleet, it lowers their cost and it allows them to lower the rental that they charge to taxi drivers. Can we then offer the taxi companies an option where we will let them pay a conversion fee to cover the difference in the COE, as well as any administrative expenses that LTA has incurred to do the conversion?

Mr Ng Chee Meng: Madam, for the conversion, I have two points. One is that taxi companies have already started their own version of PHC, so there is enough market space for them to do the necessary calculations for a viable business model. To give them a double benefit, it is premature and probably not the right thing to do either. So, for that, we will just leave the space for the businesses to consider their own business models and viability.

Mr Ang Hin Kee: A question for the Minister. Recently, LTA doubled the licensing fees for taxi operators from 0.01% to 0.02%. Earlier, the Minister mentioned that there is no plan to currently impose licensing fees on private hire operators. It basically has some irony to that because taxi operators have a lot more rules to comply with and there is doubling of their fees. Whereas now we got to supervise and monitor this group, but there is no fee charged to them and, therefore, other groups have to incur the fees that have to be paid. Perhaps the Ministry should consider and review this process of not charging the fee on the private hire operators.

Mr Ng Chee Meng: Madam, I take the Member's point. We can take a look at it. I do understand that a licensing fee of 0.01% does not constitute a large proportion. Like I have said, I take the Member's point. We can take a look at it and see how a level field can be achieved over time as what we had done last year.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi. Keep it short, please.

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Madam. I would like to seek two clarifications on autonomous motor vehicles. Are regular motor vehicles with auto-pilot function considered a subset of autonomous motor vehicles? If yes, will the eventual insurance that is applicable for autonomous motor vehicles be applicable to this?

The second clarification is on PHC booking service. When issued with the suspension order on a PHC booking service operator, for example Operator A, can the affiliated driver of Operator A join Operator B to provide PHC services during the suspension period?

Mr Ng Chee Meng: Mdm Speaker, the answer to the first question is likely to be yes and yes, in its early days. And whether a driver can drive for another service operator, the answer is also yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Ng Chee Meng.]

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