Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.45 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister of Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2021 is a Bill containing proposals from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Ministry of Transport (MOT).

I will speak first on MHA's proposals, which achieve three objectives: firstly, to raise the penalties for some offences; secondly, to implement a theory test for the use of power-assisted bicycles (PABs) on roads; and thirdly, to enhance Traffic Police's operational efficiency.

Dr Amy Khor, Senior Minister of State, will cover MOT's proposals to strengthen the land transport system, namely in the areas of autonomous vehicle trials, re-imposition of vehicle taxes and security searches of commuters using our public transport system.

Let me start with some background on MHA's proposals.

Our roads have become safer over the years. From 2010 to 2019, the annual number of traffic fatalities has dropped by close to 40% from 193 fatalities in 2010 to 118 fatalities in 2019. The number of fatalities decreased further to 85 in 2020, although this was partly due to the COVID-19 situation when there was less traffic, especially during the circuit breaker period.

Traffic Police (TP) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) have taken steps to improve road safety.

First, TP stepped up public education efforts to get motorists to drive safely. TP also conducts targeted public education for vulnerable road users, such as motorcyclists and elderly pedestrians.

Second, TP also stepped up enforcement and expanded its enforcement camera network to improve detection. In 2020, TP installed 12 more red light cameras. There are now close to 300 traffic enforcement cameras deployed to detect and deter speeding and red light running.

Third, raising penalties to deter irresponsible driving behaviour. In 2019, TP increased the amount of composition sums it offers for all traffic offences. The maximum jail terms and fines for serious traffic offences, such as dangerous driving and driving under influence, were also raised in the 2019 Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

Fourth, LTA has installed infrastructure to make our roads safer. This includes School Zones and Silver Zones with lower speed limits and features to slow traffic.

I would like to emphasise that the improvements in road safety are not only due to TP's or LTA's efforts. Road safety is a shared responsibility between drivers of motor vehicles, users of active mobility devices and pedestrians. I would like to thank everyone for being gracious and responsible road users.

Notwithstanding that our roads have become safer, we have identified a few other areas where road safety can be improved.

Let me start with illegal speed trials. They seriously endanger lives. During these trials, racers far exceed the speed limit. They also exhibit other dangerous behaviours, such as swerving in and out of lanes suddenly and without warning.

In December 2018, Police arrested five drivers for their suspected involvement in a case of dangerous driving and illegal racing along Lim Chu Kang Road. They raced at speeds averaging at least 110 kilometre per hour along a stretch of road which has a speed limit of only 70 kilometre per hour. They were racing while there were other users on the roads. The consequences of an accident between them and these other innocent road users could have been devastating.

Illegal speed trials have become a concern. From 2015 to 2017, 10 persons were convicted of this offence. From 2018 to 2020, TP arrested 31 persons for illegal speed trials. This is a stark increase compared to the previous three years.

To increase deterrence, clause 22 increases the maximum jail terms and fines for taking part in or promoting illegal speed trials. This aligns the penalties for illegal speed trials with those for offences of similar severity, such as dangerous driving endangering life.

That said, we recognise that offenders taking part in speed trials do not necessarily use their own vehicles. For vehicles used in illegal speed trials, the Court is required to order the vehicle to be forfeited under section 117 of the Road Traffic Act or RTA, if the Public Prosecutor makes a written application for forfeiture. Clause 23 amends the forfeiture regime so that forfeiture is not automatic.

Under the amended section 117, the Court need not make an order for the forfeiture of the vehicle if the Court is satisfied that: firstly, the person who committed the illegal speed trial offence was not the owner of the vehicle; and secondly, the person had used the vehicle without the owner's consent. This is fairer and better in line with other egregious RTA offences, such as dangerous driving causing death, where vehicle forfeiture is not mandatory.

Next are offences relating to protective helmets worn by motorcyclists and pillion riders. Helmets are a key safety feature for motorcyclists and pillion riders, just like seatbelts for drivers and passengers in cars.

Currently, it is an offence for pillion riders not to wear an approved helmet. There is no present duty on the motorcyclist to see to this. Clause 19 will now make it an offence for the motorcyclist who fails to ensure that his or her pillion rider wears an approved helmet. This mirrors the duty that we place on drivers of other motor vehicles like cars to ensure that their passengers are wearing seat belts.

Clause 19 further raises the maximum jail terms and fines for the existing offence of importing or selling unapproved helmet models. They will be aligned with the penalties for not wearing approved helmets.

Next, the Bill also deals with individuals who obstruct, prevent or defeat the course of justice in road traffic incidents.

A vehicle owner has an obligation to provide information about the offending motorist when the owner's vehicle has been detected to be involved in an offence under the RTA or any of its rules. TP has encountered cases where the owner and offender-driver collude with another person to falsely declare to TP that another person was instead driving at the time of the commission of the offence.

Individuals involved in such schemes deserve to be more severely punished. Clause 20 creates a new offence aimed at individuals who conspire to mislead the authorities. For the owner or offender-driver who causes or permits to provide false or misleading information; or intentionally alter, suppress or destroy information that identifies the offender-driver. Secondly, for those who pretend to be the offender-driver.

The maximum jail terms and fines for these offences will be higher than the penalties for the existing offence of wilfully or recklessly furnishing false or misleading information. This more appropriately reflects the severity of the offence.

Next, road rage offences. Under existing law, the Courts can disqualify a motorist from driving if the motorist commits certain Penal Code offences in the context of a road rage situation. Examples of such offences include voluntarily causing hurt and causing death by a rash or negligent act.

Clause 13 expands the list of offences in section 42 to include any offence under any written law instead of limiting the provision to a list of prescribed Penal Code offences. This is because there are offences that were previously not in the list, but may be committed in a road rage situation, such as criminal intimidation. This approach gives the Courts greater discretion to impose disqualification in appropriate cases to better punish and deter road rage behaviour.

I will now speak about the introduction of a theory test for the use of power-assisted bicycles, or PABs, on roads.

The Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill was passed by Parliament on 4 February 2020 to require riders of personal mobility devices and PABs to pass a theory test before they can ride on public paths. As PABs are allowed on both public paths and roads, it is only logical that we need to require PAB riders to pass a theory test before they can ride on roads. Clause 15 gives effect to this. I highlight two main aspects of the amendments and how we intend to operationalise them.

PAB riders will only be required to undergo a single theory test before they can ride on either public paths or roads. This theory test will be administered by LTA. The theory test handbook can be found on LTA's website. More details of the test will be released in June. The theory test will comprise modules on both path and road safety. It will educate PAB riders on active mobility rules, road traffic regulations, the code of conduct and safe riding behaviour.

The new section 47G makes it an offence to ride a PAB on any road without having passed the theory test. Under the new section 47K, it will also be an offence to employ or intentionally or negligently allow a rider to ride a PAB on a road if the rider has not passed the theory test. This mirrors existing offences in the Active Mobility Act for the usage of PABs on shared paths.

I will now move on to the third objective of the Bill, which is to enhance TP's operational efficiency.

First, to improve detection of traffic offenders, clause 20 introduces more reporting requirements for companies that own vehicles.

When a company's vehicle is detected to be used in a traffic offence and the motorist is unidentified, TP relies on the company owner to provide information to identify the motorist. However, TP has encountered uncooperative companies. Some companies only get back to TP after being issued with numerous reminders while others do not get back to TP at all. This hampers TP's ability to take to task motorists who commit traffic offences.

To ensure that companies provide TP with information to identify offender-motorists in a timely manner, section 81 is proposed to be amended to require companies to designate a "responsible officer" to see to the timely reporting. For companies, the responsible officer will be someone holding the post of chairperson, managing director or company secretary, or any position that is analogous to these offices.

The responsible officer will have the duty to ensure that the company keeps proper records of motorists who use the company's vehicles. If the company fails to provide information to TP to identify the motorist who had used the company's vehicle, the responsible officer may be held personally liable. This approach will help to ensure that records are properly kept and the company promptly provides the necessary information to TP.

We will increase the period for which companies are required to keep records of the motorists who drive their vehicles from six months to one year. Some cases are highly complex and require extensive investigations, such as those involving multiple parties or where video footage is not readily available.

Next, we will streamline the process of empowering TP officers to cancel notices to attend Court.

Today, to empower a TP officer to cancel an accused's notice to attend Court, Police must first publish the TP officer's name in the Gazette. This is cumbersome and hampers operational efficiency as the list will need to be updated whenever there is staff movement.

Clause 26 removes the requirement to publish in the Gazette the name of each TP officer so empowered. TP officers will continue to be empowered through appointment by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

We will repeal two obsolete provisions.

Clause 12 removes the provision that empowers TP to require vocational drivers to report to them and produce their fingerprints. This provision is obsolete, as TP already has the powers to compel any person, including vocational drivers, to report to TP and identify themselves.

Clause 25 removes the provisions pertaining to the ticketing of traffic offences. This provision is obsolete, as TP no longer issues on-the-spot tickets and compounds all traffic offences that are not prosecuted in Court.

Mr Speaker, while the safety on roads has improved, we cannot be complacent. This Bill is necessary to help make our roads even safer, by enhancing our measures against irresponsible behaviour and enacting the regulations for PAB riders. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

2.02 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, few of us in the House today would have arrived without being at some risk – of having an accident on the road, of being grazed, or bumping someone's fender, or something even more serious.

Over the years, TP has done exemplary work and, with its partners and the cooperation of the public, brought down road traffic fatalities significantly. This is the point that the hon Minister of State made just a few minutes ago. It is clear that there has been a downward trend over the past 10 years, even discounting last year where there was a circuit breaker imposed.

However, elderly pedestrians and motorcyclists continue to be involved in a disproportionate number of traffic accidents resulting in injuries or death. Motorcyclists were involved in more than 63% of fatal accidents in 2020. Half of the fatal accidents involving elderly pedestrians were due to jaywalking.

It is clear that legislation must not be the only policy instrument to protect our most vulnerable on the roads. Instead, there must be greater awareness, education and behavioural change. These informal norms work together with legislation to instil in each road user a culture of safety and mutual respect. It is against this context that I now proceed to review the Bill, which I support.

I start, however, by highlighting an area involving road safety that the Bill does not cover. In August 2018, I spoke in Parliament about the need to hold vehicle owners and operators of vehicles involved in fatal accidents owing to mechanical failure liable – and criminally liable – for these accidents. This liability must be commensurate with the weight of consequences – I had highlighted specific cases where death was caused because of poorly maintained vehicles.

I also articulated the need for legislation to cover the area. The Road Traffic Act focuses on driver conduct. The Workplace Safety and Health Act focuses on vehicular accidents causing injuries to the employer's own workers. Neither applies to accidents that caused injury or death to third parties, owing to mechanical failure.

We might argue, as the hon Senior Minister of State who replied to me then did, that we may rely on the Penal Code which makes it a crime for a person, who, through his rash or negligent act, causes death. The same provisions may make corporations liable too. The problem, however, is that this is a general provision and a blunt instrument when it comes to a vehicle owner or operator in charge of maintenance.

What is needed is a specific provision that makes it clear that a vehicle owner is liable so long as the lack of maintenance played a contributory factor, it is not necessary that it plays an effective factor, which is the Penal Code's requirement. What I am arguing for, therefore, is a lower threshold on which liability can be proven. I also pointed out that it would be easy for a corporation to escape liability because of the absence of a provision in law to impute liability to corporations as a result of a default on the part of its employees for not maintaining the vehicles.

Just earlier this year, I asked the hon Minister for Transport what is the average number of vehicles that caught fire per year in the last five years owing to mechanical failure. The hon Minister informed that there are 200 vehicular fires per year but for the majority of the fire incidents, it would be difficult to pinpoint the cause of the fire. Notwithstanding that, I think it is safe to assume that a significant percentage of these fires are caused by poorly maintained vehicles.

I am not alone. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) thinks so as well. Its officers carry the buck of extinguishing such fires on roads and putting their own lives at risk and I think we should listen to them. In its own advisories, it states as follows: (a) most vehicle fires in Singapore occurred while the vehicles are travelling on the road; (b) the primary cause of these fires is due to ignition sources, such as overheating and electrical faults within the engine compartment. SCDF also highlighted the need to service the vehicles regularly at authorised vehicle workshops to prevent vehicles from catching fire.

It is time to make vehicle owners criminally responsible for fatalities and injuries arising from accidents caused by their poorly maintained vehicles. It is also time for vehicle owners and workshop owners to be criminally liable if they have made illegal modifications to vehicles that are involved in accidents causing fatalities and injuries where these modifications played a contributing factor to the accidents. I believe this is the point that hon Member Mr Derrick Goh would expand on in his own speech.

With that, let me come to the Bill proper. I have three points to make.

First, on the point about ensuring pillion riders wear safety helmets, I obviously support that. The issue I seek clarification on is the age of pillion riders. Under paragraph 36 of Road Traffic Rules, it is stipulated that no person riding a motorcycle or scooter on a road shall carry any child below 10 years of age. In comparison, pillion riders on PABs must be at least 16 years old. Why is there a difference in age? This affects the viability of parents escorting their children with PABs, especially school children in Primary schools. I would have thought that, if anything, it would be the other way around because the motorcyclist is likely to be travelling faster than a PAB rider.

Second, vehicle forfeiture in situations where the motorists engage in speed trials. I support the stiffening of penalties for illegal speed trials. They put other motorists and road users to great danger. My question concerns the proposed section 117(7) of the Road Traffic Act which makes the vehicle forfeiture regime non-mandatory where such vehicles are used for speed trials.

It is stated in the provision that the Court "need not" make an order for forfeiture where the person who committed the offence is not the owner of the vehicle and he used it without the consent of the owner. How about a situation where the owner did not know that his vehicle was being used by the offender but he was wilfully blind? In other words, he suspected, he could have asked but he did not. However, he did not specifically know that his vehicle was used by the offender. I would be grateful for a clarification on the policy reason for the proposed change, as I understand the original reason for imposing mandatory forfeiture is to deprive would-be offenders from easily accessing vehicles for commission of offences.

Third and finally, I come to the definition of a "responsible officer" under the proposed section 81 of the Road Traffic Act that the hon Minister of State outlined. Under the proposed section 81, where the owner of the vehicle is a company, a partnership or an unincorporated body, it is the owner's responsibility to keep a proper record of the vehicle's usage and the persons driving the vehicle. So far so good.

In the proposed amendments, it is also provided that the owner should designate at least one of the responsible officers to ensure that a proper record is kept – it is a personal responsibility. The personal responsibility is reposed on the chairperson, managing director or the company secretary of a company or positions analogous to any of these offices.

As the hon Minister of State mentioned, failure to do so attracts liability, criminal liability. With respect, this seems rather draconian. What is the rationale of making the chairperson, managing director or company secretary personally responsible for maintaining a proper record of a vehicle usage? Would it not be sufficient to require that the board appoint an employee to be a responsible person? Is it possible to write in a provision to state that the responsibilities on these senior officers are discharged, once such an appointment is made?

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, when our movements are curbed because of the COVID-19 safe management measures, we better appreciate the true value of easy mobility. Safety, respect for all users and a thoughtful, fair approach must govern the use of our roads. This Bill gives us the promise of a step in the right direction. It solves some legal issues, but the need for public education, improving the safety culture and deepening the respect amongst road users – all those remain work-in-progress. I support the Bill.

2.11 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in recent months, several of my residents have been killed or maimed as a result of irresponsible driving by others. These tragic accidents could have been easily avoided. I thus agree with the overall rationale underlying this Bill to enhance safety on our roads, as well as to strengthen security on our public transport. That said, I have some queries and concerns about the provisions relating to illegal car racing, giving of false information to Police and the expanded powers of search on bus and train commuters.

First, illegal car racing. Clause 22 of this Bill will increase the penalties for the offence of conducting illegal competitions or trials of speed involving vehicles, in short, racing. Earlier, the Minister of State for Home Affairs highlighted that there has been an increased incidence of such offences.

In recent months, the public focus has been on the fatal crash at Tanjong Pagar that claimed five young lives. Based on questions from other Members of this House, illegal car races may be taking place in our neighbourhoods. Anecdotally, I have also received significant feedback from residents about vehicles racing at high speeds within Aljunied GRC – such as along Tampines Road, the Upper Serangoon Road Viaduct and Lorong Ah Soo – several times a week. I have been liaising with TP and LTA for several months over such threats to public safety.

This Bill proposes to significantly increase the punishment for the offence of illegal racing, by doubling the maximum imprisonment and more than doubling the maximum fines. While such an enhanced punishment will send a stronger deterrent signal to would-be offenders, I believe that those seeking such thrills will still try their luck, unless there is greater certainty of being caught.

Earlier, the Minister of State mentioned that there are currently about 300 cameras nationwide to detect such offences. To this end, could the Ministry confirm if law enforcement is stepping up further its capacity and operations to increase the likelihood of detecting illegal racing on our roads?

Next, giving of false information. Clause 20 of the Bill proposes to change the law regarding the offence of giving false information to Police about the identity of the driver who committed an offence. We are aware of such cases where a vehicle owner falsely tells Police that another person was driving the vehicle in order that the owner escape punishment for a traffic offence.

I agree with the proposed section 81(3A) which will make it an explicit offence for that other person to pretend or falsely represent that he was the driver. He, too, will be liable for possible imprisonment. Hopefully, this will make it more difficult for vehicle owners to find fall guys to take the rap and thereby pervert the course of justice.

Clause 20 also proposes to increase the punishment for this offence, in particular, the maximum fine. It is now proposed to raise the maximum fine to $10,000. I note that just four years ago, the maximum fine had been raised from $1,000 to $5,000, a five-fold increase. Now, it is being doubled. Could the Ministry clarify why there is a need to do so? And, in particular, is there any indication that drivers are not deterred by the current levels of fines?

Finally, searches of bus and train passengers. Clauses 24 and 31 of the Bill provide for security screening of passengers upon entry into buses, bus interchanges, and trains and premises of the MRT and LRT. Although powers of search already exist in the Road Traffic Act and Rapid Transit Systems Act, these powers covered only passengers’ belongings but not searches of the passengers themselves. This Bill will expand these powers to cover frisk searches of passengers.

Given the evolving security situation, including the threat from self-radicalisation, I do appreciate the rationale for this expanded power.

Sir, I do not expect the power to do frisk searches to be widely used and I hope I am not wrong. Nevertheless, I have a particular concern about these provisions.

The term “frisk search” is defined in the Bill as “a search of an individual by quickly running the hands over the individual’s outer clothing”. Frisk searches thus involve physical contact with the person being searched. My main concern revolves around the persons empowered to conduct frisk searches.

To explain the basis of my concern, allow me to briefly describe the various actors in our security landscape. In our security eco-system, we have SPF officers, Auxiliary Police, unarmed security and other lay enforcement personnel. The levels of training of these groups are vastly different. Compulsory training of SPF officers requires six to nine months of residential training, while Auxiliary Police do residential training of eight to nine weeks or less than three months. Unarmed security training can be completed in about a week or two. I assume outsourced enforcement officers also undergo less intensive training.

Sir, the nature of deployments for these different actors has typically been deliberately calibrated with these differences in mind. Those with less training typically handle more routine tasks, such as controlling entry to premises, guarding installations or manning security equipment. On the other hand, the SPF officers are expected to handle trickier situations involving the exercise of judgement and discretion and working with the community.

Of course, over the years, there has been some convergence and overlap, as the training of APOs and unarmed security has been enhanced to enable them to perform more tasks than before. But the need to draw a line is still solid and sound.

The Bill proposes that frisk searches may be conducted by Police officers and those defined as “senior approved persons”. “Senior approved persons” are, in turn, defined to include members of the Auxiliary Police, security officers engaged by the public transport operator, and outsourced enforcement officers. It is not clear to me that there is any requirement of seniority in the categories mentioned, so the term “senior approved persons” may, in fact, be a misnomer.

More importantly, is enabling non-SPF actors to conduct frisk searches by force appropriate? For comparison, let us look at another piece of legislation. In the Public Order Act, Part III on Special Events Security reserves the power to search persons entering a special event area to SPF officers only; others, such as Auxiliary Police and private security are empowered to do less-intrusive forms of security checks, such as checking bags and manning scanners. This sensible demarcation is a recognition that a bodily search is an intimate security check which should only be performed by highly-trained persons. This Bill today marks a departure from that approach.

Concerns, naturally, arise. Are Auxiliary Police, security officers and the outsourced enforcement officers suitable to perform frisk searches? Do they have the requisite training, not only on how to perform the physical act of search, but also how to handle any confrontations that may arise? Another concern would be about searches on female commuters. Where are the precautions on how searches on women should be conducted, in order to have strict regard to decency?

Finally, the Bill provides that it is an offence for commuters not to comply with any request or order of a Police officer or approved person, on pain of punishment of a fine of up to $1,000. Since commuters have to comply, it is only reasonable that officers be easily identifiable. Clauses 24 and 31 provide that a Police officer in plainclothes or an approved person must declare his office to the person before he or she is required to comply. The only category of officers who are required to produce identification cards to the public are outsourced enforcement officers.

May I ask why is it not provided that all Police officers and approved persons must show their warrant cards or identification cards if asked by the public? This Bill seems to be a lowering of the standards set by the Road Traffic Act itself, as section 128 of the Act currently requires Police officers not in uniform to produce their identification card to the public when asked.

In my opinion, requiring plainclothes officers to merely declare their office is not sufficient, and cases of impersonation of Police officers happen all the time. I am concerned about what these mean for safeguards for the commuter.

Sir, in conclusion, as I stated at the start of my speech, I am supportive of the goal of enhancing safety on our roads and strengthening security on our public transport. Nevertheless, it is important that the provisions are coupled with strong capacities to detect offences. It is also critical to ensure that the risk of misuse of search powers on commuters is minimised.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

2.21 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill preserves the safety and security of our roads while allowing for new forms of vehicles to ride alongside our existing systems.

I have three points of clarification on the Bill.

My first point is about the language for the theory tests for riders of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and Power-assisted Bicycles (PABs).

I commend the Ministry’s amendment to improve road safety by ensuring that PMD and PAB riders are well-equipped with a basic knowledge of the roads, just as all other vehicle riders already are.

LTA’s website states that the handbooks for the tests are currently available in English and will, subsequently, be translated into Chinese, Malay and Tamil. Can the Ministry share if the notices to inform existing riders of the need to take these tests will also be delivered in multiple languages, so that non-English speaking riders will be fully aware of this development and not be blindsided because of a language barrier? Can the Minister of State also share if the test itself will be available in Chinese, Malay and Tamil?

My second point is on the cost of theory tests for PMD and PAB riders. As we can see on the roads, a sizeable number of our PMB and PAB riders are food delivery riders who work tirelessly to make ends meet. The test fees may be an additional cost and source of stress for them. Can the Minister share if the test fees will be kept low or whether the Ministry has plans to subsidise test fees for PMD and PAB riders who fall below a certain income bracket, to ensure that this test does not pose an additional burden on them?

My third point is on the authorities’ power to conduct security checks on public transport. The new section 127B provides a uniformed officer and authorised employees the power to conduct frisk searches. Such authorised employees, such as the bus operator, bus interchange operator, a security officer or an outsourced enforcement officer.

The new section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) provides that women who are searched by a Police officer or ICA officer must be searched by a female officer, unless certain exceptions apply.

While maintaining the security of our public transport systems is vital, I believe it is equally important to maintain a sense of dignity for all women undergoing searches, which the new section 83 of the CPC addresses. Can the Minister of State clarify if a similar limitation applies to frisk searches under this Bill?

On this note, can the Ministry also commit to ensuring all relevant persons who may be considered an “approved person” under this amendment undergo the necessary training so that we can prevent instances where frisk searches are conducted erroneously? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

2.24 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is introducing, among other things, the requirement of a competency test certificate for a rider to ride only a road-only power-assisted bicycle (PAB). Sir, I think it is reasonable to require all users of our busy roads to have a basic working knowledge of the rules of the road and the driving or riding etiquette vis-à-vis other road users, including pedestrians, motorists, PAB users and cyclists. This is important for the safety of other road users as well as law and order. After all, for our roads to be safe, the predictability of the behaviour of all road users must be there, at least to a large extent, barring a small number of errant users which should then be subject to the penalties of our laws.

Some people have cited the cost of requiring certification as a cause of concern. I hope that the Government will ensure that the certification course and associated course fees are kept low at all times and that those who cannot afford the fees can receive financial assistance for these fees so that they are still able to use such forms of transport and that there should not be too regular renewals.

The behaviour of many PAB users and, indeed, cyclists on the road seemed to imply that many riders either do not know the law or choose to disregard the law, for example, riders beating red lights or riding against traffic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I also read from recent media reports that the Government has asked the Active Mobility Advisory Panel to study whether to require registration of bicycles or licensing of cyclists, including considering the possibility of requiring cyclists to take a theory test if they wish to ride on the roads.

At first glance, this may not be a bad idea though it will not be popular with some riders. I would urge the Panel and the Government, in considering whether to have such requirements for cyclists or bicycles, to consider the regularity of breaches of Road Traffic and Active Mobility Rules by cyclists. Ask ourselves whether we see such acts on an almost everyday or regular basis: beating red lights, cycling against traffic, cycling without helmets when on roads, not keeping on the left lane. And how many of us cyclists actually know that it is, for example, illegal to cycle on the right side of a motor vehicle when not overtaking or planning to make a turn to the right?

We see frequent social media postings on some of these acts and even a small number of cyclists challenging riders or pedestrians when they were reminded. When there is consistent taking of liberties by cyclists, this factor should be taken into consideration for it reflects prevailing riding culture, the lack of respect for the law and consideration for other road or footpath users, not to mention the occasional road rage, in turn, tarnishes what many other road users think generally of cyclists and will breed a lack of respect for cyclists. It does not help us cyclists in getting more respect and space from motorists on the road and even from pedestrians.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I first brought up the issue of riding culture in my speech at the debate of the Active Mobility Bill in early 2017. I said that despite riding in East Coast Park since I was young, I had in later years avoided cycling there because it has become unsafe. I said that cyclists do not always obey the directional signs or keep a proper lookout for pedestrians or other cyclists. Many pedestrians walk on or across the cycling path without caring for the safety of cyclists. Many cyclists cycle on the footpath. And I said that I have seen accidents in the park over the years, accidents that can be avoided if we had the right cycling culture. And I also said that the cycling culture in East Coast Park reflects the cycling culture nationally. I also said that, to improve our cycling culture, the Government must have the political will to do so.

I then reflected that around 10 years before that, I remember there was at one time a flurry of complaints in the newspapers about non-enforcement against errant cyclists, cyclists cycling on the wrong side of the road or beating red lights were already common occurrences then. I remember once the authorities replied to say that they had inadequate resources to address the problem. I said in my speech then that we missed a great opportunity to solve the problem back then in the mid-2000s. In those days, the only people who seemed to have broken the law were elderly cyclists. But after that, there was a huge influx of foreign workers and this meant a huge increase in the number of people using bicycles and many also followed the cycling culture, ignored the road safety rules because of lax enforcement. And then from the late-2000s, with the increase in white collar foreign labour, we also saw many taking recreational road cycling at the same time as many Singaporeans did. This was before e-bikes and e-scooters became popular.

Mr Speaker, Sir, regrettably, previous Governments had, over the years, failed to invest sufficiently to improve on our riding culture. So, do we now think that we need to improve our riding culture or do we think it is merely only a small number of cyclists who flout the law and that we do not need to improve our riding culture?

May I suggest that we should do more now? The number of recreational cyclists and e-bikes has continued to increase. The Government is building the much talked about extended cycling network. In recent times, the Government has also talked about looking at having more dedicated cycling lanes, which are non-shared footpaths, and are looking at cycling lanes on selected roads. But having more cycling lanes will not remove any existing cultural baggage. Riders, when left alone in such lanes, still need to be considerate, keep left, use the correct lights at night – which, by the way, many cyclists are not doing and there is inadequate enforcement.

Many people are still not happy with sharing the use of footpaths with cyclists; and in my view, this stems from the issues of riding culture too. I have spoken on this previously.

In recent years, the Government has had to deal with usage problems with our e-bikes and e-scooters, primarily stemming from a poor riding culture. It has been told to me in Parliament previously that the extended cycling network will not connect to the HDB blocks directly and there will still be a connection via footpaths. So, how do we ensure that PMD and PAB users will always dismount consistently and take a walk through the HDB block they are heading towards?

This is part of the problem leading to their ban from footpaths eventually. Sir, I am of the view that having a competency certificate or requiring bicycle, PAB or PMD licensing alone will not improve the situation, unless our riding culture improves. This, I think, is probably the most important and, arguably, the hardest objective we need to achieve.

In my speech for the Active Mobility Bill debate in 2017 and on numerous subsequent occasions in Parliament over the past few years, I have harped on the need to work on having consistent enforcement and adequate public education in order to improve our riding culture, whether for e-scooters, e-bikes or bicycles. This remains true till today.

I have cited my speech from more than four years ago just to highlight for today's debate that the issue with riding culture has been a tenuous one for a long time due to years of inadequate action in the past. Perhaps in the last four years, the Government has been too busy dealing with e-scooters after the Active Mobility Bill was passed, but I hope that the Government will address the riding culture once and for all for all groups.

As I have said on numerous occasions previously, consistent enforcement must go beyond occasional or even weekly spot-checks in selected spots and public education must go beyond just safe riding courses or online publicity to educate those who do not solicit the information by themselves. This is the thrust of the written Parliamentary Question I have filed for today. If people are used to riding in a certain way for years and they do not bother to find out about LTA's safe riding courses or go to the LTA's Facebook to watch their videos on these topics, how do you get the message to these people? How do you tell them to stop beating red lights and cycling against the traffic, and to get a helmet or use bicycle lights?

On footpaths, how do you persuade the many pedestrians to keep left and for all users to be considerate to each other?

If this is considered to be too difficult, we should not be surprised, as we did not do it earlier when we had fewer categories of cyclists and with less busy roads, no busy connector or footpath networks used by different types of users. It will boil down to political will. And we should not be half-hearted about this if we have invested huge resources for cycling in our extended cycling network and have nice plans for cycling lanes elsewhere, if we intend to take cycling and other forms of active mobility seriously, and if we still believe in active mobility for last-mile connectivity. If the LTA still harbours any wish for e-scooters to make a return as a choice transport for last-mile connectivity, we had better get our riding culture right, right now.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

2.34 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to enhance the safety of our roads and road users.

As a former Police officer and current unionist looking after the welfare of our transport workers, road safety is a topic very close to my heart. With close to a million road users plying our roads each day, we need to ensure that all of us get to our destinations safely.

My speech today will focus on three key aspects where road safety can and must be improved – the safety of autonomous technologies, the safety of cyclists and power-assisted bicycle (PAB) users and the safety of our migrant workers when travelling to work.

Sir, our Autonomous Vehicle (AV) regulatory sandbox was first established for a period of five years from 2017 to 2022. This is to facilitate the conduct of AV trials in Singapore and to support research and development in the industry. The Bill proposes to extend this regulatory sandbox for another five years, to facilitate even more trials until 2027.

I would like to ask LTA for an update on the various AV trials conducted here in Singapore in the past five years. How are we doing in respect to other key countries racing to develop AVs, which will include the United States, Germany and the Netherlands? Have our plans to trial autonomous public buses in Punggol, Tengah and the Jurong Innovation District been disrupted by the on-going COVID-19 pandemic? If so, can LTA provide the new timeline for these trials to take place?

As we continue to keep a keen eye on the development of AVs, it is also important that we look at the regulation of the Advanced Driver Assistance System, or ADAS. I was deeply concerned to hear about a fatal car accident in the US in April, which involved a Tesla vehicle which was believed to be operating on autonomous mode. While we impose strict safety standards on AV developers, how are we regulating seemingly conventional cars that are increasingly being equipped with new technologies, such as ADAS?

Car manufacturers have marketed such systems as an autopilot feature, which may give some drivers the illusion that they do not need to pay attention to the road when this feature is switched on. I hope that LTA could look seriously into this and review if there is a need for more regulation of such autopilot features and systems in cars.

Mr Speaker, according to a recent article by Lianhe Zaobao, 2020 saw 565 road accident casualties involving cyclists, PAB users and their pillion riders. This is a 23% increase from 2019. The article speculated that the increase could be due to more people taking up cycling as a hobby due to the pandemic and being unfamiliar with safe riding habits on the road.

Today, to allow our public buses to have a safe and smooth journey during peak hours, the Road Traffic Act prohibits almost all vehicle types from plying the bus lanes during operational hours. Cyclists, however, are allowed to cycle in the bus lanes in a single file.

Sir, the Highway Code recommends that motorists give 1.5 metres of space when overtaking cyclists. Let us do some simple math here. The minimum width of our traffic lane is three metres and the average width of our public buses is around 2.5 metres. It is simply impossible for our buses to overtake cyclists safely without infringing into the next lane. During bus lane operational hours, where there is peak hour traffic and where more buses are deployed, overtaking is both difficult and dangerous. Cyclists, in particular amateurs, are especially vulnerable if they do not know how to navigate safely the blind spots of a big bus.

As Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union, my bus captains have told me repeatedly that they are seeing more cyclists on the bus lanes. Many do not keep to the curb side and some ride two, or even three, abreast. Bus captains worry for the safety of cyclists and other road users when attempting to overtake them. It is also common for buses to have to overtake and re-overtake the same peloton of cyclists, as they bypass the bus at bus stops; and the dangerous cycle – pardon the pun – repeats itself.

I urge the Ministry to not allow cyclists and PAB users on bus lanes during operational hours. This is both for their safety and also the safety of other road users.

Sir, I was deeply distressed when I heard the news that the lives of two migrant workers were lost in a traffic accident involving a lorry and a tipper truck on 20 April. Less than a week later, there was another lorry accident which resulted in 10 migrant workers conveyed to the hospital.

The NTUC's Migrant Workers' Centre is assisting the injured workers in their recovery process and raising funds to help the families of the workers whose lives were lost in the tragic accident.

Safety concerns about how our workers are transported are not new. Regulations were amended back in 2011, following a spate of fatal road traffic accidents involving workers then. However, the recent accidents are a grim reminder that trucks and lorries should only be used to transport goods and not people.

The Labour Movement is engaging the Singapore Contractors Association Limited, or SCAL, to push for the implementation of separate transport arrangements for workers as soon as possible. NTUC is also engaging the relevant Government agencies to address implementation issues. We want our workers to get to their workplaces and back home safely every day.

While tripartite negotiations are underway, we should explore interim safety measures that can be adopted immediately.

First, we call on employers to hire a dedicated driver to transport their workers. This is to eliminate the issue of driver fatigue. Many companies, especially those outside of the construction sector, still require their workers to double-hat as a driver after a tiring full work shift. This unsafe practice must stop.

Drivers should also be required to have a vocational driving licence before they can transport passengers. This is a step-up from the current requirements for migrant worker drivers to pass the local Class 3 driving exam, as vocational training will focus on safety when transporting passengers. Mandatory licensing also allows our authorities to screen and track drivers for any adverse driving records.

Second, the co-mingling of goods and passengers should be outlawed. Co-mingling of goods and passengers is unsafe and is potentially fatal. If not properly secured, passengers risk being pinned by these heavy goods and machineries in the event of an accident, or even a sudden braking of the vehicle. Between goods and passengers, there should only be one onboard the vehicle at any one time.

While the number of accidents involving lorries may have gone down over the past 10 years, the risk for major injury and fatality per incident is high. If employers persist to use lorries to transport their workers, we want to reduce the associated risks significantly. We can do so by securing the passengers with proper seat belts and by restricting the lorry's travelling speed when transporting workers.

In her earlier reply to Parliamentary Questions filed on this topic, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor highlighted that a workgroup had studied such issues back in 2008 and found that the cargo beds of lorries were not constructed in a manner for seat belts to be retrofitted safely. That has been more than 10 years ago. I am glad that Senior Minister of State has indicated that the Ministry would review the issue again together with the tripartite partners and factor in new advancement in vehicle manufacturing and seat belt technology.

We also need to review the speed limit when passengers are on board goods vehicles. As Senior Minister of State Amy Khor mentioned, lorries are already subjected to a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour. But is this safe enough?

One research paper suggests that passengers in cargo areas are 7.9 times more likely to lose their lives in the event of an accident. Therefore, I do urge LTA to re-look the issue and limit the permissible travelling speed of lorries when they are used to transport passengers.

Sir, the Labour Movement is keenly aware of the difficult economic situation that many employers are facing today. I hope the Government can help offset the financial burden employers will face when enhancing the transportation safety for our workers.

I have some suggestions. We could exempt buses used to transport our workers from COE, similar to how school buses are already exempted today. We could also provide an early adopter grant to incentivise employers to purchase or lease buses to transport their workers. I believe that this is a necessary price to pay to ensure the safety of the many workers who have left the comfort of their home country to help build our nation.

Sir, in conclusion, we can do more to enhance the safety of our roads for vulnerable groups. Cyclists and PAB riders should not cycle on busy bus lanes during peak hours, and our migrant workers, and all workers, should have safer transport to work. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chee Hong Tat has a clarification.

2.45 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify a couple of points that Mr Dennis Tan made in his earlier remarks.

First, I want to thank Mr Dennis Tan for highlighting the importance of having a good riding culture. He also mentioned that he feels that licensing of bicycles and cyclists alone is not going to be effective because this needs to be accompanied by a safe riding culture. This point, I agree with him.

Mr Dennis Tan also said that there needs to be enforcement going together with education. Again, this is a point which I agree with him.

I just wanted to highlight, Mr Speaker, that I am not sure whether Mr Dennis Tan was in the Chamber earlier when I answered the Parliamentary Questions from Ms Poh Li San and Mr Gan Thiam Poh. They filed questions on road cycling and on safety, and I answered their Parliamentary Questions earlier today.

In my reply, I actually addressed some of these points that Mr Dennis Tan raised. I said, for example, that enforcement and education need to go hand in hand. I also talked about the practices in other countries, of how they promote cycling safety without having to license cyclists or bicycles. I gave some examples in my reply.

Importantly, I also acknowledged Mr Dennis Tan's written Parliamentary Question and I said – and if I may just read from my earlier reply: "In his written Parliamentary Question, Mr Dennis Tan asked if we have a public education campaign on safe practices for cyclists and pedestrians. Since 2018, LTA has offered the Safe Riding Programme (SRP). This is a voluntary education programme that is free-of-charge with both theory and practical components for all active mobility device users, including cyclists. LTA is revamping the SRP and will work with Traffic Police to reach out to road users and encourage public participation. We intend to roll out the new Safe Riding Programme in the next few months."

Sir, I wanted also to clarify what Mr Dennis Tan said earlier about how four years ago he has been raising Parliamentary Questions on riding culture. We formed the Active Mobility Advisory Panel in July 2015, more than five years ago. The panel was set up precisely to bring together different groups of stakeholders to look at how to improve road safety and how to promote a safe riding culture, a point which I think Mr Tan also feels strongly about.

Over the years, I think the Members of Parliament in this House from both the PAP and the Opposition – and I believe also our Nominated Members of Parliament – have raised concerns and given suggestions on how to improve road safety. I think this is something we should acknowledge and not give the wrong impression that suggestions, comments and proposals for enhancing safety have only come from the Workers' Party.

Mr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.

2.49 pm

Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Sir, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill deals with the issue of safety, whether on the roads or on various modes of public transportation. I feel this is timely.

Firstly, because of progress in technology, autonomous vehicles (AVs) no longer seem like something from a faraway future. I am excited and welcome the extension of the regulatory sandbox for a further five years. More synergistic cross-collaborations between the Traffic Police, LTA and AV developers would pave the way for better AVs that are road-safe-by-design.

Secondly, power-assisted bicycles have become a common sight on the roads. This will inevitably lead to more instances of accidents involving cyclists and motorists. According to LTA, there were 417 road accidents involving cyclists and PAB users from January to November 2019. It also means that when accidents happen involving a car and a cyclist, the cyclist will usually be at a greater risk.

In March 2021, a 42-year-old food delivery rider on an e-bike was killed following an accident with a Mini Cooper along Hougang Avenue. On 3 May 2021, a 49-year-old leisure cyclist was killed in an accident involving a shuttle bus at NTU. By all public accounts, she was a new cyclist who had only just bought her bicycle the week prior to the accident.

Therefore, the recommendation to have certifications for PAB users on roads is an important step towards improving the safety of motorists and cyclists on the road and is long overdue.

In addition to these theory tests, may I also ask if there will be concomitant increased enforcement action and penalties on the road for errant cyclists as well? I feel that this step has to go hand in hand with the education of cyclists to ensure that knowledge of good rider habits is put into practice.

Could I also ask if there may be provisions to improve accessibility for seniors to take this certification test? For example, the certifications could be conducted in various languages. For the less digitally savvy seniors, could provisions also be given to allow them to take physical tests instead? The costs of the certification renewal could also be kept low for the seniors or less abled who require use of the PABs for mobility.

The cost should also not be a hindrance to maybe food delivery riders who may need to depend on PABs for their livelihood.

Thirdly, developments in the region have also required us to be more vigilant of possible threats from within or outside of Singapore. It has been deemed that there is a need to legalise security searches on a person on the public transport system.

However, I would like to advise caution. The powers accorded to the officers seem wide-ranging. Therefore, officers authorised to do such work must be well-trained in identifying suspects using objective criteria that must be set out beforehand. This is especially pertinent for the purposes of the revised section 127B, which empowers officers to frisk individuals and to request that one or more garments of the bus passenger or entrant – that may be conveniently removed – be removed and for the garment to be inspected.

In a multi-racial and multi-cultural society, we must always be mindful of actions that may imply racial or ethnic bias and constantly guard against it. Therefore, it cannot be understated that clearly written policies on these details may be more important than ever. There must also be set protocol and adequate infrastructure for the searches carried out by officers to be done in a dignified and respectful manner.

For example, if searches have to be conducted on female commuters, should there also be some sort of initiative where when frisk searches are done, there should be some sort of recording which can protect the rights of the officers and commuters if there are any contentious reports? Only when this is done will citizens be confident that decisions are made fairly and ensure public safety.

Last but not least, in relation to safety on the roads, I would like to talk about the recent accidents that involved migrant workers on the roads.

In a span of two weeks, two accidents claimed the lives of two young men – 28-year-old Mr Sugunan Sudheeshmon from Kerala and 33-year-old Mr Tofazzal Hossain from Bangladesh. Both left behind young families they were supporting. At the same time, more than 20 others were injured in these accidents. Just a few days ago, there was another accident involving a Police van and lorry, which left 17 men injured.

According to the Traffic Police, three people died and 244 people were injured in similar accidents last year and, for us, it is only the first half of the year.

It seems like the measures we have in place may not be enough to protect the lives of these young men and this needs to change. I am cognisant that changes may incur more financial costs to the construction industry. But how do you determine the value of human lives? Therefore, I feel that any change in safety standards has to be legislated for it to be duly enforced.

How can we make it safer for them? The gold standard would be to use buses to transport them. In fact, Bahrain has already outlawed lorries. I am aware this means additional costs which are likely to be borne by all stakeholders. With the rising property prices and delays in BTO flat completions, there will definitely be a further strain on everyone involved. However, I believe that, as a modern, developed country, this is something we do have to work towards in the long term.

But what can we do in the meantime? Minimally, seatbelts should be mandated on lorries. Earlier on, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor had said that the lorries are not built to withstand the forces needed to hold the seatbelts. I feel that this strengthens the finding that lorries are not safe for carrying people. I echo what Member of Parliament Mr Melvin Yong has said previously – that trucks and lorries should only be used to transport goods and not humans.

Additionally, after a long day of work, workers on trucks may also fall asleep and, while being transported in such a state, it will be difficult for them to react to cushion any major movements made by the lorry.

How do we counteract this?

Reinforcements on these lorries should be considered. Similar to what fellow Member of Parliament Mr Alex Yam brought up about SAF having seat belts for their five-tonners yesterday, should we revisit the discussion on how SAF has been transporting their men and how we can adapt such measures to these cases?

I welcome the announcement that there will be a review on this issue with all the relevant stakeholders. There is a saying that safety rules are written in blood. Let us not add to it.

Notwithstanding what I have asked to be considered, on the whole, I feel this Bill protects the lives of everyone on the road and, for that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

2.56 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, while we agree with the Bill before us today, I have a number of concerns and clarifications that I would like to make in relation to three areas of the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act.

First, relating to certification and licensing. A major focus of the Bill is the licensing and certification of riders of “test-needed-to-ride-on-road vehicles”. These are power-assisted bicycles (PABs) that are prescribed by the rules under the Active Mobility Act 2017, and the new rules require that riders of such vehicles be certified to have passed a prescribed test of competence for that class or description of vehicle and the test of competence will cover riding on public paths and roads.

The rationale for introducing such a test of competence is to improve road safety and to make our roads and footpaths safer for pedestrians, riders and motorists. I agree that we must take action to reduce the number of accidents on our roads and public paths, and my Workers’ Party colleagues have spoken about this matter on previous occasions.

I would like to raise a point of concern that I had in relation to the introduction of licensing. I would like to seek some clarifications relating to the requirement for a competency certificate for power-assisted bicycles that are test-needed-to-ride-on-road vehicles.

First, how would the certification process be rolled out and the requirements phased in to ensure that all riders who wish to continue riding their vehicles are not left in a position where they are unable to obtain their certification before the requirements kick in? This is especially important as many riders do rely on their vehicles for work and to move around.

Second, in relation to the requirements to obtain certification, the Minister of State mentioned that there will be some form of safety code knowledge to be tested as part of the certification process. But how would the test be tailored to allow for the specifics of riders, as opposed to more conventional road users, particularly in view that some of these riders will be allowed on public paths and roads? Also, would there be a minimum age and how will minors be regulated?

Lastly, on licensing, I would like to raise some concerns about the requirement for certification in general. All of us in this House have residents who rely on these test-needed-to-ride-on-road vehicles for their livelihoods. Some of these delivery drivers rely on such vehicles as their sole source of income and some are sole breadwinners for their families. Many older Singaporeans, too, rely on these vehicles to get around and they may not be so conversant in English.

Indeed, I have come across such residents who have shared with me their struggles in passing certification requirements in fields as diverse as chefs in the F&B industry to forklift drivers. Many of them have been doing these jobs for decades and excel with carrying out these jobs on a practical level, but struggle to pass the paper examinations. The result is often an impact on their livelihoods as they are unable to be employed in the very jobs they have been carrying on for years.

I hope that we learn from the experiences of our fellow Singaporeans who were affected by previous certification requirements and ensure that the certification process is simple enough so that it remains accessible to all of our residents and that they do not end up being unnecessarily tripped up by red tape. The overriding objective of certification should be to raise awareness of road safety and to educate, not to treat it like an examination to score road users.

Will there be the option to take the test in languages which our older Singaporeans are more conversant in? What provisions will be made for the small minority of riders who may not be so literate and able to sit a test? What assistance will they be given to learn and understand the safety requirements in order to be able to pass the test?

Next, I would like to move on to another large theme of the Bill before us: the theme of enhancing road safety. There are many provisions being introduced through the Bill, from enhancing safety for our road users to ensuring the security or safety of persons who use our public transport networks. Yet, there is one area of safety which does not feature and that is the safety of migrant workers.

Just last month, two migrant workers lost their lives and scores more were injured in a series of accidents involving lorries, and there was one just a few days ago. These workers were riding in the backs of lorries, in an area meant for cargo. Given that there are approximately 300,000 such workers in Singapore, this is a large number of our population who face dangerous commutes on a daily basis.

This issue has been under scrutiny for over a decade, with calls stemming back to 2009 being made – many by colleagues in this House – to ban the transport of workers in the backs of lorries like livestock or goods. We must not forget that these are workers who leave behind their homes and families and slog for long hours under all weather conditions to build our homes and to repair our roads.

Yet, section 126 of the Road Traffic Act still has a provision banning the use of goods vehicles for passengers, unless, I quote, "(a) the person so carried is in the employment of the owner or hirer of the vehicle and is proceeding on his master's business and is carried in accordance with rules prescribed under section 77(6); or (b) the person so carried is a sick or injured person carried in a case of emergency".

Such a practice is dangerous to not only the migrant workers themselves, but it also poses real risks to other road users. As mentioned previously, this topic has been debated as far back as 2009, and yet 12 years, and numerous other deaths and injuries later, we are still arguing about whether this is an appropriate way to treat migrant workers.

While I am glad to hear that NTUC is looking at this matter, I note that the reason always given whenever such calls are being made is that to allow any safer ways of transporting migrant workers would mean increased costs. Leaving aside what this says about us as a country where we can argue that "increased costs" is a good enough reason to turn a blind eye to lower safety standards for "lower tier workers", I believe this argument is flawed.

First, because it ignores a more fundamental problem in our labour system that we are still struggling to address and that is our addiction to cheap labour, often at the expense of productivity increases. Despite many pointing out the danger and unsustainable nature of our approach of importing cheap labour in sectors, such as the construction and marine industries, not much has been done by enterprises to shift away from this model towards a more productive, less labour-intensive model. While this is a topic for another day, it would naturally flow that any increased costs by more stringent transport safety standards would have less of an impact if we are not so reliant on employing a large force of cheap, low-skilled workers in our building sector.

Additionally, as we have been looking at our ITM 2.0 roadmaps, is this not a good time for us to start looking into the entire way the construction industry is structured, to really find long-lasting, sustainable solutions that maximise productivity and minimise labour input?

Second, this argument is also problematic, as we did not shy away from mandating safety measures, such as seat belts on all school buses, when an accident, which killed an 8-year-old boy in 2008, saw a retrofitting of seat belts on all school buses. A sum of $35 million was set aside by the Government to help owners of small buses implement this.

Finally, it was reported last week that the number of people injured or killed while on board lorries has been falling in the last 10 years and, indeed, comparisons are drawn between the lower number of casualties involving accidents on lorries compared to all motor vehicles. This is actually a non-starter, as the statistics quoted include the number of injuries for all road users, and crucially include motorcycles, which have a higher casualty rate. Additionally, as the Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said yesterday, each life lost leaves behind a family that is grieving and each injury has the potential to leave a worker unable to continue working to support his family.

Referring to other countries where such similar practices are allowed should not be our first reaction. Why do we not instead compare ourselves to countries which better respect the safety of such workers by holding ourselves to the same high safety standards of those countries? Why can we not learn from them how these countries address the very same concerns that we have, while at the same time mandating that workers are transported in a safer manner?

We must seriously consider mandating that all migrant workers are transported in buses or mini-buses. The drop in tourism due to COVID-19 has resulted in many buses and mini-buses with spare capacity – perhaps this is a good time as any to start the transition, with some kind of Government support. The re-purposing of such currently idle or under-utilised buses or mini-buses would be welcomed.

In any event, we should also have a proper study of the costs – both as an absolute number across the industry and as a percentage of total construction costs – associated with enhancing safety measures for the transport of our migrant workers, together with a good look at the labour model for our construction industry in order to have a more meaningful conversation on this topic, rather than have vague statements being made about costs each time the topic is brought up. I am glad to hear from Senior Minister of State Amy Khor that this will be one of the matters to be considered.

Last but not least, I turn to the extension of frisking powers to "authorised persons" mentioned in clauses 20, 24 and 31 of this Bill. Subsection 9 of the new section 23A of the Bill defines these "authorised persons" as: one, an officer or an employee of the Authority; two, an employee of an auxiliary police force in uniform; three, an employee of a licensee authorised to operate a rapid transit system using train or railway premises; four, a security officer (within the meaning of the Private Security Industry Act) engaged by a licensee mentioned in paragraph (c); and five, an outsourced enforcement officer.

This is a wide group of persons. While there are good reasons to step up security due to persistent concerns about terrorism and the security of our transport networks, this amendment continues the trend of expanding key Police powers to persons who may not be fully trained in law enforcement. As in previous cases of extending Police powers, the language of the Bill does not discuss the training that these “authorised persons” will receive to exercise their powers with sufficient care and due diligence.

Police powers must be wielded judiciously and carefully, and adequate training must be given to counter the risk of abuse, including but not limited to excessive enforcement, harassment and even sexual assault, particularly in view of the inclusion of frisk searches; this is very important. Because of these concerns, could we not directly build safeguards into the relevant provisions? For example, in view of the expansion of powers to include frisk searching, we could, as earlier suggested, mandate that only female authorised persons are allowed to frisk search other women. Another example would be to use body cams to reduce the likelihood of abuse and overly vigorous use of such powers.

Some further concerns that I have include confusion or lack of awareness by members of the public should they be stopped and searched. This may lead to such incidents accumulating and, ultimately, will prove damaging to social cohesion in Singapore, while undermining trust in actual law enforcement officers. What steps will need to be taken to ensure that this does not happen?

In conclusion, while we support the measures put in place by this Bill to improve safety and security across our transportation networks, I hope that the Ministry can consider my concerns and suggestions to further improve our transport system and to make it a safer and fairer one for all. Despite these concerns, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

3.09 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, section 126(1) of the Road Traffic Act prevents goods vehicles from being used to transport passengers, but subsection (a) allows an exception for workers to be carried on a goods vehicle owned or rented by their employer if they meet the rules prescribed under section 77(6). I propose to add a provision to the Bill to repeal section 126(1)(a) of the Act and to mandate that workers can only be transported in vehicles with passenger seats.

In July 2010, a Parliamentary Question was asked of the Minister for Transport to consider legislating that employers must transport their workers in buses. The Minister replied that we should allow the measures to improve workers’ safety on lorries to take effect and study their effectiveness before concluding that they are insufficient and going for a ban.

These measures – fitting lorries with canopies and side railings, increasing the deck space per seated worker – have been in place for 10 years. Despite these vehicle-related safety measures, driver-related measures, enforcement and penalties and public education, we are continuing to see fatalities and injuries from workers being transported on lorries.

The Workplace Safety and Health Act imposes a duty on employers to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of persons at work. Employers facing environments, such as working at heights, lifting operations and operating heavy machinery, must put in place safety measures, and these have prevented needless injuries.

WSH 2028 vision works towards reducing Singapore’s workplace fatality rate to less than one per 100,000 workers by 2028, and a pervasive adoption of the Vision Zero culture where stakeholders are committed to preventing all forms of injury and ill-health at work.

It is clear that the current measures for transporting workers as passengers on goods vehicles is not enough and must be improved. The Government has taken strong action in the past in reaction to deaths that could have been prevented. After a fatal school bus accident in 2008, seat belts for small school buses were made compulsory in 2009. To cope with the increased cost, the Government gave out $22 million in financial assistance for small buses to be retrofitted with seat belts. We should now similarly prioritise human lives over increased costs. Financial assistance for businesses with difficulties complying can be explored. We can also explore whether there is spare capacity in the form of tour buses now under-utilised that will make this a good time to implement new measures.

The workers affected are primarily migrant workers, who form one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. The neglect of their protection and welfare has long been a bone of contention in our society. Reactive responses only when death occurs in traffic accidents, domestic helper abuse or dormitory infections are not enough. The pandemic has shown us how choosing the easier or cheaper path can come back and bite us eventually.

It was announced yesterday that MOT will review this issue, taking into account all views and suggestions. Can MOT let us know how much time is needed for this review? Lives are at stake here and we hope for speedy action to be taken.

Further to the issue of safe transportation of workers, Progress Singapore Party would like to highlight that this would be a good time for a holistic review of all the areas related to the protection of migrant workers, for example, dormitory conditions, recruitment costs, job mobility and strengthening enforcement of breaches by employers.

Mr Speaker: Mr Abdul Samad.

3.14 pm

Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to share some ground feedback as well as propose some suggestions with regard to the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

Firstly, let me state that as a fellow member of the public, I welcome the move to improve the safety of our road users and pedestrians.

At the same time, as a union leader, I am aware that this amendment would affect the freelance and self-employed delivery riders who ride road-only power-assisted bicycles, or PABs for short. Just less than one and a half years ago, many of these vocational riders transited from Personal Mobility Devices to PABs. They are, therefore, concerned with the increasing regulations and its impact on their source of income and livelihood.

The amendment seeks to require PAB riders to undergo a competency test and to be granted a certificate before riding the vehicle on the road. A proportion of vocational PAB riders, such as food delivery riders, have shared their concerns with us that they will find it challenging to pass the theory test due to language or technology barriers.

To ensure that vocational PAB riders are adequately prepared to meet this new requirement, I would like to call for Government assistance to equip them with the appropriate learning tools and relevant training to cater to the needs of the vocational riders.

The current Safe Riding Programme offered by LTA is more suited for the general population. I would like to seek MOT and LTA's support in funding a training programme for vocational PAB riders to better prepare them for the theory test and instil safe riding behaviour. NTUC will work closely with MOT and LTA to better support them through the training programme and eventually passing the competency test.

NTUC is also working with LTA to ensure that while the questions in the competency test address the appropriate standards of road and public path safety, the questions will also be manageable for PAB riders to comprehend and answer.

The changes arising from the passing of the Bill should be implemented with a reasonable timeline, providing vocational PAB riders an adequate runway to get their certification.

With the passing of the Bill, adequate support should be provided for the riders and the new regulations should not impede the workers' source of income and their livelihood.

I would also like to touch on another aspect that is close to my heart and the heart of the workers.

As we push to enhance the safety of our road users and pedestrians, let us also pay attention to the safety of our freelance and self-employed workers. Amongst the vocational PAB riders, food delivery riders are heavy and frequent road users with long hours of riding and have a higher risk of getting into an accident. I am sure that their families worry for them every day.

Today, we have many freelance and self-employed workers who work for various delivery platforms. I would like MOM to clarify the duty of these delivery platforms towards their freelance and self-employed workers under the Workplace Safety and Health Act.

Unlike a regular or contract employees, freelance and self-employed workers do not enjoy the statutory benefits provided for under the Work Injury and Compensation Act, or WICA, for work-related injuries. More needs to be done to ensure freelance and self-employed workers are compensated for work-related injuries. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Let me now say a few words in Malay. As I have shared in my English speech, I acknowledge that the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill would affect the freelance and self-employed delivery riders who ride road-only power-assisted bicycles. To ensure that vocational riders are adequately prepared to meet this new requirement, I would like to call for Government assistance to equip them with the appropriate learning tools and relevant training. NTUC will be working closely with the relevant agencies to better prepare the affected workers.

As we push to enhance the safety of our road users and pedestrians, let us also pay attention to the safety of our freelance and self-employed workers. Today, these workers are not compensated for work-related injuries – more needs to be done to protect them.

(In English): Mr Speaker, with this, I support the Bill. NTUC looks forward to working closely with the relevant agencies to better prepare the affected workers.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

3.19 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, based on the Land Transport Master Plan 2040, cycling plays a key role towards a car-lite Singapore. However, as more cyclists take to the roads, there has been an increase in hostility between cyclists and motorists, and even pedestrians. The proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act would require power-assisted bicycle riders to pass a theory test. This is before they can ride their power-assisted bicycles on the roads or on the pavements. The amendments are aimed at making the roads and pavements safer for everyone.

Many Members today have spoken on cycling. The conduct of cyclists on the roads has been the topic of frequent, sometimes intense, debates on social media. In the course of policymaking, we need to take into consideration the views of cyclists as well as other road users. Ultimately, we want safety for all road users.

Since we have identified cycling as an important element in our move towards a car-lite nation, we cannot and should not relegate cyclists to the pavements. But cyclists must take on more accountability. Their behaviour, decisions and actions can give rise to accidents. I have four recommendations to promote safe and responsible cycling.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must work on creating more dedicated cycling lanes. Many cities around the world, including Singapore, are experiencing a cycling boom since the COVID-19 pandemic started. This is largely driven by anxiety over shared enclosed spaces on board public transportation and a heightened interest in outdoor exercise.

I am glad to hear last week that LTA is considering converting sections of roads as well as the removal of roadside parking spaces, to make way for cycling tracks. This has been successfully done in Paris. The city saw a massive commuter shift to bicycles during the pandemic. Paris is a bustling metropolis with existing buildings and infrastructure in place – very much like Singapore. Yet, the authorities were able to swiftly create many new cycling lanes within months. They accomplished this by converting about 150 kilometres of roads to cycling lanes.

New cycling infrastructure will take years, even decades, to complete if they are to be built from scratch. I, therefore, urge our Government to consider this initiative seriously. It would be helpful if the cycling community can be involved and assist the LTA in identifying routes where dedicated cycling lanes can be created.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second proposal is to have clearer regulations on cycling. Let me cite an example. From LTA enforcement reports, I understand that it is an offence to cycle against traffic flow. However, this is not immediately obvious to all cyclists. There is no explicit statement about riding against traffic flow in Section III of the Highway Code, which is widely assumed to be the only piece of law that governs conduct on the roads, nor is there anything on LTA's website about cycling on roads.

Unless someone is a lawyer or works at LTA, one might not be aware that there may be multiple sources of the law relating to cycling. Some cyclists, therefore, may break the rules because they are genuinely uninformed. Others may exploit the lack of clear information and do as they please. This creates confusion and dangerous situations on the roads.

A suggestion would be to further enhance the Road Traffic Act, specifically, to ensure that the Act is explicitly clear that it covers cyclists the same way as it does for motorists. Once that is achieved, we can then work on raising awareness that the law applies equally to cyclists as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my third proposal is to implement common traffic education and road safety regulations for cyclists and motorists. For example, motorists should be educated on the hand signals that cyclists use so that the intentions of cyclists are clear to motorists. Another recommendation is for cyclists to take a theory test like a CPR qualification before they can go on the roads.

I note with concern that there is a divergence between recommendations within the cycling community and the guidelines for cyclists on LTA's website. For example, LTA's website states that cycling two abreast is allowed on non-single lane roads and on bus lanes outside their operational hours. However, many people, including cyclists, believe that cycling should always be done in a single file. In fact, the Highway Code requires cyclists to "ride in a single file when possible".

Divergence results in one side assuming that the other is not compliant, thereby resulting in conflicts. We should align guidelines and recommendations for cyclists on the roads. We should avoid referring to road traffic rules as guidelines or as a code. This is to avoid any ambiguity as to their applicability. They should be clearly stated as laws to be adhered to and to be included in common road user education and theory tests. And if these rules are broken, the offenders should be brought to task.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my last proposal is for authorities and the Courts to reconsider how well-established legal concepts, such as the burden of proof, causation and duty of care, should apply to incidents on the road involving cyclists.

On one hand, in cycling-friendly cities like the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany, the concept of presumed liability is practised. This means that in an accident, the burden of proof is shifted from the more vulnerable road user like a pedestrian or cyclist to the driver of motor vehicles, such as cars and lorries, which are capable of causing more impact. This rule does not automatically abolish fault or impose liabilities over any single party. The accused may still disprove claims of fault in Court. Legislating for presumed liability may, indeed, help accelerate the progress of Singapore as a car-lite nation.

With the sheer amount of existing conflict between cyclists and motorists in Singapore, imposing a similar law may now widen the rift. But it is certainly something we should consider as part of improving safety and responsibility among users of shared roads.

On the other hand, the concept of duty of care in common law already requires a driver and, indeed, all road users, to adhere to a reasonable standard of care when using the roads. What this means is that even if it was possible for the motorist to show that it was the cyclist that caused the accident, the motorist would find it a lot more difficult to show that they have not breached their duty of care.

What if this was not the case? What if liability for a traffic accident involving a cyclist can be decided simply by causation? Simplifying how fault is determined in a traffic accident could lead to road users becoming more self-aware of their own conduct on the roads. This can reduce reckless behaviour and make roads safer for everyone.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to seriously consider the above proposals to improve road safety and the accountability of road users. But ultimately, the "motorists versus cyclists" situation will never improve if we do not change our attitudes about each other to be more gracious and accommodating on the roads.

The "me first" culture on our roads must stop. Every single road user – motorists, cyclists or pedestrians – has a personal responsibility to reshape our road safety culture. Be kind, be patient and be considerate to one another. In doing so, we can improve road safety in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

3.27 pm

Ms Raeesah Khan (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, my speech will address two areas: improving infrastructure for cyclists and the expansion of search and seizure powers on public transport.

The Bill seeks to introduce licensing and certification regimes for users of bicycles and power-assisted bicycles. Given the number of accidents involving cyclists, this could help ensure that cyclists are well-acquainted with the relevant regulations, thereby improving road safety for all users.

However, apart from licensing and certification, perhaps we could look into improving road infrastructure as another possible solution.

As the Government seeks to promote active mobility amongst the public, it is crucial to ensure that our infrastructure will be able to keep pace with the expected increase in individuals opting for such modes of transport. LTA has already started looking into converting some stretches of roads into cycling paths to tripling the Cycling Path Network by 2030.

As part of these efforts, could the Ministry also consider studying the possibility of repurposing car lanes into bike lanes? This could potentially improve connectivity for cyclists while also contributing to road safety.

While the Government embarks on projects to improve our infrastructure for cyclists, I hope that the Ministry can also factor in the needs of cyclists who are persons with disabilities to ensure that infrastructure in the pipeline is inclusive.

For persons with disabilities, cycling is often a much easier way to get around than walking and it is estimated that about 40% of disabled cyclists use regular two-wheeled bicycles. Thus, while their disabilities may be invisible to some, research has shown that people with disabilities have a disproportionately higher need for protected cycling infrastructure and direct routes.

Obstacles, uneven surfaces and gradients could potentially cause discomfort to disabled cyclists or inadvertently exclude them from using the cycling paths as they may not be able to lift or push their bicycles. Infrastructure should also be designed to be able to accommodate wider, non-standard cycles, such as tricycles, tandems and recumbents.

On the expansion of search and seizure powers, while I understand the need for such measures to strengthen the preparedness of our public transport system against security threats, I have several queries for the Minister.

My first query relates to the training which will be provided to "approved persons", especially for those who are not Police officers or employees of an Auxiliary Police Force. Could the Minister share more about the training which approved persons will receive before they are authorised to frisk search commuters, if any? More specifically, does the Ministry intend to provide training and introduce guidelines to ensure the appropriateness and proportionality of action taken in relation to the assessed threat level? This could help prevent cases of abuse of authority, which include excessive behaviour, harassment or even sexual assault.

Additionally, how would the Ministry minimise the profiling of minorities and marginalised persons which may inadvertently arise in the process of identifying commuters to undergo additional security screening? Such profiling might amount to over-policing and could potentially be damaging to our social fabric. Perhaps the Ministry may consider publishing statistics pertaining to all frisk searches, including information on searches by gender, ethnicity, time, location and also justification.

The second query I have relates to public awareness and education. Given that security checks can be conducted by Police officers who are not in uniform, as well as approved persons authorised by LTA in writing, how would commuters be assured that officers who are conducting these security checks are legitimate? How would commuters know if officers are behaving in an appropriate manner? Does the Ministry intend to provide avenues for commuters to seek recourse and remedies should they encounter inappropriate actions taken by these officers?

On top of introducing safeguards to minimise the occurrence of such incidents, I hope that the Ministry will also consider conducting public education campaigns so that commuters can be aware of their rights with regard to security screening and frisk searches proposed by this Bill.

Mr Speaker, as we seek to expand the search and seizure powers beyond law enforcement officers, we should also ensure that proper and comprehensive training is provided to authorised personnel while ensuring that commuters are aware of the extent of these measures that they can be reasonably subjected to. This would help maintain trust in law enforcement while allowing us to remain vigilant against potential threats to our public transport system.

3.33 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the implementation of a theory test for riders of power-assisted bicycles (PABs). This will help boost safety for the riders and other users on the roads. PABs are commonly used by delivery staff and it is not easy for them to make ends meet in this difficult economic climate. I am thus very concerned about the affordability of the tests and would propose that it be set at an affordable level. I would also urge companies who engage these essential workers to pay for the costs of the tests on their behalf.

Next, it will be a new offence for motorcyclists to carry pillion riders who are not wearing helmets. In addition, there are dangers posed by helmets which do not meet regulatory requirements or are of unsuitable sizes. I have seen children pillion riders wearing helmets which are too big for them. How will the Ministry ensure that motorcyclists provide their pillion riders with the correct type of helmets? Will there be more public education programmes to highlight the importance of wearing right-sized helmets?

I am very concerned about the safety of young motorcycle pillion riders, some of whom are only in pre-school or Primary school. Would the Ministry consider mandating the wearing of the correctly-sized helmets?

Another amendment of the Bill is to empower Police officers and authorised personnel to conduct security screening of bus and MRT commuters. While I support this measure to ward off potential security attacks, I have concerns about imposters taking advantage of passengers. As the Bill had stated, these personnel may or may not be in uniform, so it is really not easy for commuters to tell if they are genuine. Molesters or pickpockets may pretend to conduct frisk searches. Would the Minister share what measures are in place to reduce the likelihood of this happening?

Lastly, I would like to touch on the proposed amendment regarding the forfeiture of vehicles used for illegal road races. With the amendment, a vehicle involved will no longer be forfeited if the offending driver is not the owner and had used it without the owner's permission.

On one hand, this seems to be fair to the owners but, on the other hand, there may be instances where owners of the vehicles claim that they did not provide consent in order to keep the vehicles. However, in reality, they had given consent and provided the offending driver access to the vehicle. How would the Ministry be able to separate the genuine cases from the non-genuine ones? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many delivery staff for goods and meals use PABs to earn a living. Hence, I urge the authorities to ensure that the test fees are affordable to them and I also urge companies which engage their services to pay the fees for them.

I am also worried about the safety of young pillion riders on motorcycles. Some of them are Primary school students who wear helmets which are too big. Would the Ministry consider requiring them to wear right-sized helmets?

The Bill will empower Police officers and authorised personnel to conduct security screening of bus and MRT commuters. May I ask the Minister what measures will be implemented to prevent those imposters who wish to take the opportunity to molest or steal?

As for the clause concerning the forfeiture of vehicles involved in illegal racing, I would like to ask the Minister how the Ministry would distinguish whether the owner of the involved vehicle did or did not provide consent to the offending driver.

(In English): Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

3.38 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. From 2018 to 2020, a total of 31 people have been arrested over four cases of illegal street racing. During the circuit breaker period, we have seen videos of an illegal street race along KPE where six men and two women were eventually arrested. In a separate incident, also during the circuit breaker period, 57 motorists in 50 vehicles were investigated for taking part in an illegal car race in Tuas. The roads of Lim Chu Kang, Seletar, Tuas have been observed at times to be used for drag competition, with multiple cars gathering at these locations to watch the race. And how can we forget the shocking deaths of five young men earlier this year after they sped through Tanjong Pagar?

These illegal racers not only put themselves at serious risk of harm, but also expose other road users and innocent bystanders to these risks. While I understand that some people are passionate about cars, these racing-related activities do not have a place on our public roads. We have been lucky thus far that no innocent bystanders have been hurt, which makes it even more important for us to act now to ensure that our roads remain safe for everyone who use them.

Hence, to keep our roads safe, I am in support of the increased penalties for racing and speed trials. In addition, to ensure that the right punishment is meted out to the right individual, I am also in support of the stiffer penalties for individuals who mislead the Traffic Police in their investigations.

Additionally, I am in support of disqualifying motorists for road rage. However, I would like to seek some clarification on this matter. What if the accused was a cyclist exhibiting road rage to a motorist? How do we ensure the consequence to cyclists and motorists can be equally meted out as we have seen videos of cyclists verbally abusing and punching motorists on several occasions already?

I support the penalisation of motorists who fail to ensure their pillion wears an approved helmet and the introduction of stiffer penalties for those selling poor quality non-approved helmets. I think that this legislation would provide a good baseline safety standard for helmets that should be used on our roads and improve the overall safety of our motorcyclists and their pillions.

I would also like to seek clarification on the penalising of motorcyclists who fail to ensure their pillion wears an approved helmet as well as the stiffer penalties for those selling non-approved helmets.

I appreciate and understand the intent in ensuring that helmets pass certain safety standards so that they can protect both rider and pillion. In Singapore, the standards follow the TUV SUD PSB Standard. It involves one-drop test on the front, back and side of the helmet, a penetration test using a sharp object falling on the helmet and a chin strap test using a weight pulling on the strap. These tests are conducted in batches, meaning dealers have to put about 1% to 4% of each batch of helmets that they bring in, that they import in, through these destructive tests.

According to the Singapore Motor Cycle Trade Association (SMCTA), the price of testing open face helmets is S$1,283 for a minimum of four pieces, with the next five pieces costing S$194 each. There is also an additional stamp duty of S$110. The high price, compulsory batch destructive testing and the small market make helmet testing an economical burden to both the dealers and the riders. The dealers will have to then pass on this cost to the riders and this may be a deterrent to the riders, especially if we have riders from the lower income group. Hence, while we seek to ensure better safety standards for more of our motorcyclists and their pillions, the economics of testing may hinder the intent of the legislation.

Given Singapore's small motorbike market compared to the world, by requiring an additional destructive test on an already small batch of helmets increases the helmet price prohibitively and may act as a deterrent for motorcyclists to get the good helmets that can keep them safe.

One way we can overcome this is if we can consider accepting other standards that are internationally accepted. Renowned bike helmet manufacturers like Shoei and Arai that are declared safe for MotoGP use, the "Formula 1" of motor racing, usually come with the ECE or SNELL standards. ECE refers to the Economic Commission for Europe safety standard, which is used by more than 50 countries, including Europe, and recognised by international racing bodies. World safety standards for helmets also include the US Department of Transportation (DOT) and SNELL standards.

We must also consider motorcyclists who have already purchased such high-end helmets with internationally-accredited standards but without the soon-to-be mandatory PSB certification. It would be economically costly for these motorcyclists to have to purchase yet another helmet when the present high-end helmet they have, such as those produced by Arai and Shoei, are already internationally-certified as safe.

In addition to considering accepting ECE and SNELL standards, some other proposed solution could be conducting the destructive test once per model rather than per batch and possibly making the testing free or at a highly subsidised rate to ensure affordability and, hence, enhance the safety of riders.

If, however, the concern was counterfeit products from these renowned manufacturers, perhaps the Ministry can consider dealers showing proof of source direct from manufacturer.

The challenge of scale in Singapore's small domestic bike market is even more evident if special helmets are required. For example, since the demand for a good kid's pillion helmet is small in Singapore, it does not make economic sense for a dealer to provide for PSB-approved kids' helmets. This may subsequently result in the child riding pillion having to wear an ill-fitting, oversized PSB-approved helmet as compared to a correct fitting helmet approved by the ECE or SNELL standards.

This seems counter intuitive to the intent of the legislation, which is to improve the safety of our motorcyclists and their pillions. In a Facebook video created by content creator TRI333PLE for the motorcycling community, the video showed how some expensive high-end helmets with SNELL and ECE certification performed better at impact testing as compared to cheaper PSB-approved helmet. As mentioned by a few riders, Mr Imran Ayub and Mr Sultan Shaheed, they want to be given the opportunity to provide the best safety gear for themselves and their loved ones.

Many welcome the new legislation for PABs as yet another way to keep our roads and pedestrian walkways safe.

I would like to highlight though that, especially since the circuit breaker in 2020, more and more people depend on PABs as a means to earn their income. We just have to consider the many Foodpanda and GrabFood drivers who use PABs to do their deliveries. For such cases, how soon can they sign up and go for the test such that their income will not be inadvertently affected by this new legislation? Should they fail the first-time round, how soon can they book for a subsequent test? Are we able to conduct these PAB tests using vernacular languages for those who are not as comfortable with English as a medium of instruction?

Another consideration is the cost element of such tests. How affordable will it be for people who really depend on the PABs for their livelihood? Is there a chance that we can provide subsidies, possibly via SkillsFuture, to defray the costs of these tests? While we improve the safety of our roads and pedestrian walkways, let us not put such groups that depend on the PABs for their livelihood at a disadvantage. Let us try to make it as quick and convenient as possible for them to get their certification so that they can continue using their PABs safely for their livelihood. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Illegal racers not only put themselves at a serious risk but also expose road users and those who are innocent to this risk. To keep our roads safe, I support higher penalties for racing and speed tests.

With regard to the higher penalties for unapproved helmets, I would like to seek a clarification. I believe this law will provide a good basic safety standard for helmets while improving the safety of motorcyclists and pillion riders.

However, there are also helmets that are safer and conform to international standards, such as ECE and SNELL. High-end helmets, such as Shoei and Arai, often come in limited numbers to Singapore. Given the fees and destructive testing required for PSB certification, it may not be economically practical to conduct destructive testing. As such, for these branded helmets, I hope MHA can consider other internationally accepted safety standards, especially for helmets from well-known manufacturers.

The new laws for power-assisted bicycles, or PABs, are another way to keep our roads and pedestrian footpaths safe. However, many people, like Foodpanda and GrabFood deliverers, rely on PABs to earn a living. Can they register immediately and undergo tests as soon as possible so that their incomes will not be affected by this new law? Can we conduct these PAB tests in the vernacular languages, such as Mandarin, Malay, Hokkien and so on, especially for those who are uncomfortable using the English language?

Another consideration for the PAB test is its affordability. Can we make the PAB test more affordable for those who rely on it to earn their living? Perhaps we can provide subsidies through SkillsFuture. In our efforts to improve safety on the roads and pedestrian footpaths, let us ensure that these PAB tests are affordable and can be taken easily so that they can continue to use PABs for their jobs as soon as possible.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the increased penalties for racing, time trials and road rage will assist to make our roads safer. It is also important to enforce basic safety standards for helmets. However, I hope that the Ministry can consider approving other internationally accepted standards like ECE and SNELL so that our riders can equip themselves with safety gears that meet the international standards. With regard to the mandatory theory test for PAB riders, we need to ensure that rolling it out does not affect the livelihood of many who are now dependent on the PAB. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I stand in support of the Bill.

3.49 pm

Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the usage and safety of our roads is important to our citizens. Over the years, this Government has put much effort into improving road safety through legislation as well as through non-legislative efforts.

Based on Traffic Police statistics, the efforts have shown to be effective. While traffic fatalities have steadily declined over the last 10 years in absolute terms and a similar downtrend is seen in road traffic injuries sustained, this improvement is even more significant if one considers the other side of the equation – that both road traffic and users have also increased.

Given the limited road capacity in Singapore and increased road traffic and shared usage, I am glad that we have continued to re-assess our approach in response to the evolving trends and threats in road safety.

The amendments to the Road Safety Act, or RTA, tabled in this House today are even-handed in approach, with enhanced penalties for higher risk areas, recalibrating penalties, for example, in vehicle forfeiture to reduce prejudice faced by non-complicit vehicle owners and added new offences as well as requirements factoring new trends related to road traffic usage. This legislation has also added new offences as well as requirements factoring the increase in PABs on the road.

I will now speak on the specific amendments.

On the issue of enhancing penalties for the existing offence of importing or selling unapproved helmets, I welcome this move. This amendment is an enlightened approach by looking more strategically at the supply chain to signal to both importers as well as sellers that the sale of unapproved helmets will not be tolerated.

Turning to the increase in penalties for illegal speed trials, I believe that this sends a strong signal to racers that their anti-social behaviour on the roads attract consequences.

The updated penalties are significant with the first offence carrying a fine of $5,000 and 12 months' imprisonment, making the monetary impact five times higher and doubling the prison sentence. Given the uptick in illegal speed trials in recent years, as mentioned by the Minister of State, it will, hopefully, deter and prevent needless loss of precious lives and damage to property, such as the devastating Tanjong Pagar car crash that happened a few months ago.

Apart from the obvious endangerment to life, illegal speed trials create other social ills that affect even more people in Singapore and, that is, noise pollution. Similar to Members of this House who have spoken on this topic before me, my residents at Nee Soon have shared that they are often woken up by the sounds of loud revving cars and motorcycles. This is due to motorists speeding from Yishun Dam to Avenue 1 in Yishun outside their homes in the wee hours of the morning. Residents are frustrated with little recourse.

I thank the Traffic Police and LTA officers for responding to our feedback where, most recently in March, The Straits Times reported that the joint operations at the Yishun Dam area netted 71 summonses. Of these, 54, or over three quarters, relate to illegal modifications and this is a very high proportion. These modifications include illegally modified engines and exhaust systems which are the source of noise pollution, causing public nuisance as well as enhancing engine power settings that increase the safety risks to the driver and other road users.

In trying to stem illegal vehicle modification, it was discussed in this House last March and the RTA was updated in 2017 to give more teeth to enforcement efforts against errant workshops to deter them from offering such services.

While enforcement against errant workshops can be challenging, I applaud LTA for some success in stemming this activity at the source. For example, last week, CNA reported that a workshop was charged with three counts of illegal vehicle modifications under the RTA.

Given the above, could the Minister of State consider more effective measures to be put in place to address this through better detection instead of what seems to be mainly an enforcement approach which is a cat-and-mouse game that is resource-intensive?

If our traffic enforcement officers are able to identify illegal vehicle modifications at roadblocks in the early hours of the day, one would expect vehicle inspection centres with specialised equipment to better detect such modifications to engine as well as exhaust systems even if they are not easily visible. Additionally, the vehicle noise test could perhaps be done under more realistic conditions where a vehicle is put under load and accelerated on a rolling stock to detect the “pop and crackle” sound. I hope more thought can be given to how we may overcome these challenges through better detection and if the Minister can provide further updates on this to better protect road users as well as our community.

On the topic of introducing a single theory test for PABs on the roads, I believe this would be helpful in ensuring that PAB users are aware of the road traffic rules and behave in a safe manner on the roads. However, I note that the theory test is envisaged to be online and the results are valid lifelong. I raise three questions for clarification on how this would be operationalised, as I am sure the public would be very interested.

One, if the test is to be done online, whether there will be special arrangements made for those who are not tech-savvy or not as literate, such as our elderly PAB users?

Secondly, given that the tests are valid lifelong, will there be any refresher courses required for PAB users if they are involved in a traffic offence?

Thirdly, whether the test will involve a fee and, if it does, are there ways to either subsidise or waive the fee so as not to impose a burden on residents, especially those in financial difficulties?

Before I end my speech, I wish to briefly mention about the issuance of fines for offences committed under the RTA. A number of my residents who have not been able to have their traffic fines waived because of the seriousness of their offences, such as beating a red light or speeding, have often appealed to be given the option to pay the fine in instalments. I hope the Minister will consider making instalment payments more readily available so that they can pay fines without being put in a difficult financial position, which is not the objective of the RTA.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

3.57 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Act, which will create new offences to deter irresponsible behaviour on our roads and help make them safer for all users.

One of the amendments is the introduction of a mandatory theory test regime for users of PABs. I feel that this test will be very helpful. As PABs can be used on both roads and shared paths, it is prudent and necessary to ensure that the riders are thoroughly educated on safety measures, potential risks, road etiquette and regulations. They will benefit from understanding the importance of compliance, which will enhance road safety for themselves and other road users. Would the code of conduct require riders to render assistance to the other party in the event of an unfortunate accident?

It has been announced that the test, comprising multiple-choice questions, will be conducted online. Will the theory test be conducted in languages other than English for non-English speaking applicants? Would the Ministry consider making oral tests available as well? In addition, will the Government require riders who had been caught flouting traffic regulations to go for refresher training?

As many PABs are used by riders on delivery platforms, there is a need for these tech companies to review their reward systems, so that the riders will not be speeding to meet clients’ expectations at the expense of public safety and their own lives. The delivery charges could be based on mileages between points at a reasonable and compliant speed limit. Otherwise, tech companies could be equally liable for offences if their systems encourage excessive risk-taking at the expense of public safety.

Companies which employ riders who use active mobility devices on public paths are required to cover them with third-party liability insurance. I would like to suggest that all riders purchase insurance for themselves and to meet third-party liabilities, too.

Lastly, enforcement will always be needed to ensure compliance and one of the ways is to utilise technology to tag the PABs. May I ask if the authorities plan to tap upon technology to enhance safety for all road users, especially to deal with reckless hit-and-run riders? With that, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

4.01 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is quite a broad one that covers various and diverse areas. I would like to focus my speech primarily on power-assisted bicycles or PABs.

In the past year, PABs have increased in number – especially as many use it as a form of transportation on public roads. This was, no doubt, driven by the increase in the demand for food delivery services, which, in turn, led to a rise in the ownership and usage of PABs as food delivery riders saw PABs as providing a quick, convenient and fairly affordable method for them to fulfil their orders.

With this increase in numbers of PAB riders over the years, I believe it is now useful for us to review the Road Traffic Act and introduce amendments to better safeguard the well-being of PAB riders and also other commuters and users of the road.

At present, as Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim mentioned, PAB riders are required to pass a theory test before they can ride on cycling paths. The amendments to the Road Traffic Act introduce the need for these riders to pass a similar test before they can ride on the road. This is a much welcome move as casual observations would tell us that many PAB riders have been riding on the roads even before the introduction of such a mandatory qualifying test.

We have seen, over the years, many fatal and near-fatal accidents involving PABs. Implementing a qualifying test that aims to inculcate road awareness, defensive riding and road use safety would certainly help to alleviate the situation if PAB riders are now going to be more aware about riding and road use etiquette.

Yet, training PAB riders, Mr Speaker, is only one part of the solution. With more PAB riders on the road, other vehicular road users must also be more aware and mindful of their presence and learn to co-share the road with them. Would there be plans to update the existing training curriculum of motorists to inculcate greater awareness in our present road users – our motorists – about the presence of this new group of road users, such as PAB riders, and even regular cyclists, who are also increasingly making their presence felt on the roads as well?

On to my next point, Mr Speaker, Sir, and this had been surfaced by many other Members in the Chamber. I believe that the official handbook for the PAB mandatory theory test that is available on the LTA website comes only in English. Given that not all PAB riders are comfortable in English and are Internet-savvy, would there be plans to translate the current English handbook into other languages – such as Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, perhaps – and also make the handbook accessible to PAB riders offline as well? If there are plans to translate the handbook into other languages, when would these handbooks be made available, either online and possibly offline as well, in the form of a physical handbook?

Also, will the proposed tests be as challenging as the motorists' Highway Code test, which, although I have not taken for quite a few years now, I understand does require some time and effort to study and prepare for? There are cases of people who actually fail to pass the Highway Code test.

While these tests are currently going to be done online, would there be the option of written or even oral tests for those who might not be so comfortable with the digital testing option?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have observed PABs travelling on the roads that seemed to be going at speeds similar to that of small motorcycles or scooters. Given that riders of these vehicles – motorcycles and scooters – need to pass practical tests before they are allowed on the road, does the Government foresee users of road-travelling PABs needing some sort of simplified or modified practical test or some basic practical training in terms of how they should manage their PAB on the road?

Riding on the road and riding on cycling paths are two very different experiences. If one of the aims of this Bill is to ensure the safety of the PAB riders, then perhaps PAB riders should be educated on how to ride on the road before actually being allowed on the road. Perhaps this education could take the form of some sort of practical experience, as onerous as that may sound.

A final point, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I would like to raise was previously highlighted when I spoke about the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill last year and, that is, while the implementation of a qualifying test will certainly enhance the riders' awareness of road safety, the challenge is in ensuring that all PAB riders will go through this test. How will the authorities intend to ensure that all riders are certified before they ride on the roads and how would this enforcement be done?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my clarifications notwithstanding, I am in favour of any initiative that enhances the safety of all road users and conclude my speech in firm support of the Bill.

4.06 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, after the advent of the Internet at the turn of the millennium, AVs may be the next big game changer. The implementation of self-driving technology will have a huge impact on our transport system. AVs will provide a much-needed solution to the shortage of manpower resources required in public transportation, goods delivery and industries.

With recharged power, the AV fleet is able to operate 24/7 with no rest days required and no human resource headaches. In the long run, as AVs proliferate, we can expect to see lower costs of operations, higher productivity, enhanced convenience in last-mile connectivity and better control of road safety.

The benefits of AVs are clear and the vision of future roadways operated by a mixed-use traffic is compelling. However, the journey is still fraught with many uncertainties. Unfortunately, the roadmap to achieve a stable AV system remains unknown.

Back in the early 2000s, even though Singapore does not have a vehicle manufacturing industry, we chose the uphill path to be an innovation leader instead of being a technology adopter.

Recently, Hyundai announced that they will build an innovation centre in Singapore to manufacture electric vehicles.

Singapore has been ranked first in the KPMG 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index. We must take advantage of our well-developed transport system and implement AVs as soon as possible. We do have a conducive innovation eco-system, including a sandbox to trial AV operations and push technological boundaries.

In transportation, safety is key and vehicle reliability is critical. Roadways are a complex intersection of motorists, cyclists, commuters and pedestrians. Even though there is only one set of traffic rules, the human response can be varied and not everyone will always follow the rules. That is why it is so challenging to integrate machine-coded logic in AVs into the dynamic roadway system.

Safety is paramount. Any mishap or a possible accident can easily derail many years of efforts to build safety, reliability and trust in AVs. Till date, a safety driver behind the wheel is still necessary. This is because equipment and systems can sometimes fail too. We must adapt AVs to our road users and continue to train more bus drivers to be AV bus safety operators.

I would like to talk about the AV testing environment. The designated trial zone we have will allow a gradual phasing in of AVs and for the engineers to understand how AVs can be improved. However, the AV race will become more competitive as more AV companies enter the market and make breakthroughs in AV technology. Therefore, we should extend the sandbox by another five years for the AV technology to be more mature and fully tested.

This extension will allow time for our AV engineers and land transport regulators to better understand and ensure smooth and safe operations before providing any approvals. In fact, I would suggest for LTA to consider extending the sandbox to other parts of Singapore where the roadway conditions may differ slightly from different parts of Singapore. The sandbox extension will also give space and time for road users to gain confidence and for AVs to make that ultimate big leap towards the day when safety drivers are no longer required.

Over the next five years, engineers and regulators will validate how the AV technology can be applied safely towards our robust mixed-use traffic operations. MOT, the law enforcement and insurance fraternities must also work out the corresponding changes needed in the road traffic rules, insurance coverage and compensation framework.

A traffic accident involving an AV and a car driven by a human is not as straightforward as two human drivers involved in an accident. For instance, if there should be a malfunction of the AV leading to an accident involving deaths, would the owner or the manufacturer of the AV be liable? This aspect is as complex when compared to technology and safety development. The legal liability and insurance framework cannot be considered without the full understanding of the design and AV technology. I would hope MOT and the relevant Ministries are able to provide us with some information about AV legal protection and insurance coverage.

Finally, I would also like to touch on the livelihoods of people who have been working as drivers. Every gamechanger will have its boons and its banes. Just like the adoption of digital technology, the disruptive nature of AVs will have some drivers losing their jobs once the technology is implemented on our roads. Some residents in Sembawang West have shared with me their concerns regarding their livelihoods once AVs are implemented on our roads. At this point, I can only assure them that AVs will not happen overnight. We will still have another five to 10 years to avert this disruptive socio-economic impact and we must make good use of this window to prepare ourselves well for this socio-economic disruption.

As we extend the duration of the sandbox, let us all think out of the box to carefully plan ahead to be ready for a new equilibrium on our roads. Human drivers and driving machines will co-exist and this sandbox must not become a Pandora's Box.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the concerns highlighted, I support the amendments in the Road Traffic Bill.

4.14 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I would like to speak on the need to safeguard the safety of our delivery riders, or sometimes called platform workers, and the impact of the new theory test on these workers. I will also speak on how we can and need to go beyond the current set of amendments to improve the safety and working conditions of these delivery riders using PABs as a working tool.

My fellow Labour Members of Parliament and I have spoken in Parliament on various occasions for the protection of platform workers. These workers make up a sizeable proportion of Singapore's growing gig economy. It is necessary to build a better eco-system of support for them.

Clearly, more competent delivery riders translate into enhanced safety for all road users, including drivers and pedestrians. The online theory test also underscores the duty of PAB riders to be more responsible to other road users. Our aim is not to unduly penalise delivery riders, but to ensure that they are well-equipped with the requisite knowledge to enhance their safety on the road.

Could the Ministry clarify when the requirement for the competency certificate will take place? While the theory test can be taken from 30 June onwards, I am concerned about the potential difficulties that delivery riders may face in meeting this requirement. We must not forget that a day a delivery rider does not have a competency certificate translates into a day without income. To not unduly penalise these workers, could the Ministry consider a transition period before the theory test requirement to ride on the road is effective? This will provide them with some time to comply with this new requirement.

The Bill is clearly in the right direction in pivoting towards greater responsibility on the part of riders. However, it is not so clear with regard to the operative and substantive role played by platform companies in the safety and behaviour of their riders. Delivery riders are themselves also vulnerable road users. They have a limited time to complete their job. It is not uncommon for them to take risks to avoid being penalised. This problem is worsened when riders are unaware of the road traffic rules. These workers also do not enjoy the statutory benefits under the Work Injury Compensation Act, or WICA, in the event of an accident. These companies might purchase third-party liability insurance now. Others might offer personal insurance coverage. However, the compensation amount and protection under WICA is still superior.

I believe that platform companies must take on greater responsibility in safeguarding the safety of both their riders and other road users. Taking responsibility over the competency of the riders is the first step. Currently, section 47 imposes liability for allowing untested riders on the roads. Can I clarify and confirm that section 47K also applies to platform companies, such as the food delivery companies, which engage and allow untested riders on the roads? I would presume that these companies have liabilities because of their direct role in causing these untested riders to be on the road.

Furthermore, if section 47K is intended to impose liability on platform companies, can the Ministry clarify whether the liability under section 47K attaches to the natural person who grants approval of the untested rider, or the company which the natural person is working for? While I do note that section 2 of the Interpretation Act defines "person" to include a "company", it would be helpful for the Ministry to clarify on whom will the liability attach on.

The incentive schemes and penalties embedded within the structures of the payouts directly contribute to road safety. A platform company must know a route that a rider must take to deliver its assignment. It must then know the terrain and associated dangers. It must also know the number of hours that a rider has been on the job. This is clearly no different, for example, from a public transport operator knowing and being responsible for the hours worked by a bus captain. A review of the payout structures and time afforded for deliveries must be undertaken to align them with the new rules prescribed by the Ministry. In fact, I suggest that the Ministry review the payout structures and deployment mechanism from a workplace and road safety perspective.

Additionally, I would like to call on platform companies to internalise the costs of the theory tests for their delivery riders. This would form part of the company's training efforts and its larger responsibility to other road users. This should be the case whether a delivery rider can afford to pay for the test or otherwise. The underlying rationale behind this is for platform companies to be cognisant of their responsibility to these workers who are indispensable to their operations.

I propose for the Ministry, platform companies and the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA) to work together to ensure the smooth administration of the theory test. We must bear in mind that some delivery riders might not be equipped to navigate these tests with ease. I propose for the Ministry to ensure that the online tests are simple and comprehensible, while retaining the requisite substantive takeaways of the road traffic rules. Like many of the other Members before me who have spoken on the need for vernacular languages, indeed, many of these riders, including the delivery riders, are senior and they may need some support.

Additionally, I would like to suggest to the Ministry to establish an online database of every person who has been conferred a theory test certificate. With the certificate being granted in digital form, it would be easier to unlawfully manipulate certificates. To ease transport companies' compliance to the new certificate requirements and perhaps reduce prosecution under section 47K, a database would go a long way towards ensuring that only competent PAB riders are allowed on the roads.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is an important marker in charting the legal roles and responsibilities for PAB users and riders, especially those using or benefiting from PABs commercially. Stakeholders who play a significant role in contributing and benefiting from safe deliveries and road usage must similarly also share in the corresponding legal liabilities. Platform companies play an important role in our economy. Holding them liable and magnifying their role in road safety reflect their growing importance. Notwithstanding the above, I reiterate my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

4.21 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act which I believe will enhance the safety levels in our land transport system. I will speak on three key topics – cyclists, security searches and infrastructure for AVs.

The pandemic led to a boom in cycling, power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and e-scooter usage has increased. I am supportive of the combined theory test regime for the use of PABs on roads and shared paths. The theory test will raise awareness on the rules and also, hopefully, serve as a reminder to experienced riders. Can the Minister share what are the costs involved to get certified to ride on the roads? As some PAB users are riding for a livelihood, I think most of the Members have shared that the added expense could be a burden for them. Will the certifications be issued as physical cards or electronic digital certificates?

In designing the scheme, we must be wary of possible inequalities that may occur. The Official Handbook for Mandatory Theory Test released at the end of April for PABs and PMD scooters is quite comprehensive and useful. I tried to read all the pages in the handbook. It is quite comprehensive. I hope it can be disseminated more extensively to our youths in schools as some aspects of the road traffic rules and practices are useful as well as for non-motorised bicycle users. In addition, as some Members have mentioned, a vernacular version of this handbook will be useful. May I suggest to maybe add in an audio version of it as well, such that some of these tests can be taken in audio form so that some of the PAB users can take some of the tests; other than online, they can be taken in audio as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I laud LTA and MHA's combined effort to cover new offences to deter irresponsible behaviour on the roads and to educate our road users via the new online combined theory tests, but it has to go hand in hand with enforcement efforts and I hope new techniques to capture offenders and manpower needs will meet these demands going forward. Can I ask if the relevant agencies' enforcement resources will be enhanced to meet the demands of these new amendments?

I now move on to security searches and checks, as mentioned in the Bill, which will be conducted on commuters as part of counter-terrorism efforts at our public transport nodes. I urge the authorities to ensure that the involved personnel are trained to conduct these searches as discreetly and as politely as possible. We want to avoid issues of perceived, for example, racial profiling by the public, that can lead to further entrenchment of stereotypes. And as we are in the midst of a pandemic and body searches often require involved parties being at close proximity to each other, how can authorities guarantee the safety of the public and of the officers conducting the searches?

Looking ahead, I am pleased to note that the research and development trials for AVs are still going strong. As we open up new towns and estates and technology improves, it is inevitable that the usage of AVs will have future applications. It is essential that safety issues are ironed out properly ahead of any mass deployment in the future. I am supportive that the AV regulatory sandboxes which are due to expire in 2022 will be extended by another five years to facilitate trials and deployments. While it is necessary to test the performance of self-driving software under real-world conditions, this should only happen after comprehensive safety testing and evaluation before we allow citizens to access the benefits of the technology.

Sir, may I ask the Minister what are the plans for larger-scale deployment of AVs in Singapore and what are the specific safety issues that will need to be addressed? Where will these trials and deployments take place and where can the public get access to regular updates?

I hope this extension and eventual deployment will allow a set of standard tests and make companies benchmark their algorithms on standard datasets before their vehicles are allowed on open roads. It may still be in early stages, but will there be a graduated approach to certification in which a self-driving system could first be evaluated in simulations, then in controlled real-world environments, pass specific benchmark tests before they can be allowed on open roads? The recent crash of a Tesla car in the United States in which two people died has reignited debate about the capabilities and safety of today's self-driving technologies. The tragic incident has raised questions over self-driving technology: how safe is it and how much attention does it require from drivers?

Finally, in relation to long-term infrastructure needs, will existing road infrastructure have to be upgraded to accommodate AVs in the future? Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.26 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, the most hardworking food delivery riders in Singapore can make up to four to five trips in an hour which easily rises upwards of 30 to 40 trips in a day. Some riders choose to make these trips on foot, some cycle, some get on their motorbikes. However, getting around on power-assisted bicycles (PABs) are perceived by many riders as the most cost-effective and efficient way to make their deliveries.

Understandably, travelling on the roads, especially on PABs, poses its own set of dangers. Even as they ride to put food on our tables, we must make sure that they get home safely to put food on their tables as well.

It is commendable that the Government is taking measures to ensure the safety of PAB riders even if the first step towards securing their lives and livelihoods takes the form of mandatory theory tests. Theory tests like this, beyond educating our riders about safe practices while travelling on roads, also delineate clearly what the responsibilities of riders are so that they may not be taken advantage of in disputes that occur on the roads, knowing what practices are well within their rights.

During the crisis, time and again, our delivery riders have proven themselves to be an essential service, bringing food to our families and keeping the food and beverage sector alive. Simply put, they oil the gears of our society, especially at mealtimes.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must ensure that these tests, essential as they are for awareness, education and safety, are inclusive and we cannot afford in any measure to allow these tests to become unfair barriers to the livelihood of our delivery riders in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we firmly welcome the notion of a one-time test that can be administered online. However, considering that the test will be online, delivery riders are also looking forward to the possibility that the fees for taking the test can be defrayed. In the same vein, relating to the online nature of the tests, accessibility options must be provided for those who may find such online platforms challenging to navigate, or simply inaccessible.

My residents often relate to me the conversations they have with other delivery riders about the best routes to take in the area, as well as the best makan spots along the way. This is the beauty of the delivery rider platform and community – that people from all walks of life can and do become delivery riders and are yet united by their shared livelihoods. To accommodate for this diversity, I think the theory test should account for literacy and language barriers. If possible, we would love to see a simply-worded test made available in multiple languages, with options, such as oral examinations, available even for those without basic literacy foundations.

Finally, our delivery riders are concerned about the turnaround time should they fail to pass the tests. While we understand that the tests may not be perpetually available for sitting to uphold the rigors of the standards, a day's delay for those who fail their test and who are unable to get on the road poses significant cost to the livelihoods of our delivery riders. The availability of these tests is also paramount to allow entry to becoming a delivery rider, as many delivery riders do this as a part-time gig, such as students on their holidays. Having potentially to wait a week or two after applying to take the tests might set these prospective riders back unnecessarily.

All these being said, Mr Speaker, refining the administration of these theory tests is only half the story. The education of our delivery riders can only elevate their prospects of safety so much. In this field of work, delivery platforms should place priority to the health, safety and lives of their partners. It is thus commendable that while we are enforcing the mandate of theory tests for riders on food delivery platforms, it is also essential that we try to secure the lives of our delivery riders. We must also be conscious that this goes hand in hand with securing their livelihoods.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our delivery riders can virtually lose their jobs if they do not move quickly enough. Delivery riders who do not make their deliveries in a timely fashion according to the expectations of customers can accrue enough bad reviews to be penalised, if not banned.

How can we, on one hand, prescribe safe practices and speed limits in a test handbook and on the other hand have delivery riders fearing for their job security if they do not move fast enough? Oftentimes, the delays in delivery times are not even the fault of riders but arise upstream, with the restaurants, though riders are well aware they are the ones who bear the brunt of these late deliveries, leading some to feel they have to make up for lost time and lost ground.

Surely, Mr Speaker, the rules of the game must be changed to complement the education of our delivery riders. Therefore, we call for a review of the rewards and punitive actions run by food delivery platforms. This is so that we can safeguard the lives and livelihoods of our delivery riders.

Finally, we must ensure that the formulation of theory tests do not produce a lock-in effect on our roads. Singapore now boasts 460 kilometres of cycling paths, with plans to triple and expand the density of our cycling network to 1,300 kilometres by 2030. There are clear ambitions to grow Singapore into a connected cycling-friendly city.

Should the PAB theory test define the rules of the road for riders, we must also maintain a flexibility in the test handbook to accommodate for the ever-evolving face of road infrastructure in Singapore in a bid to promote active mobility. Do not be surprised if we see cycling lanes on our roads one day, bicycle boulevards or even smart traffic lights that respond to the volume and type of vehicles on the road. With the push towards becoming a cycling-friendly city, the rules of the road and, naturally, the theory tests for PABs must be kept on their feet to change as our city also changes. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First of all, let me thank the authorities again for introducing appropriate measures to ensure that PABs are used safely. This Bill not only provides for the safety of riders, but also pedestrians and other road users. When it comes to safety matters, we must be careful and not lose the big picture.

The convenience brought about by the one-off online test will help many people. However, we must consider carefully if we can lower the test fee and provide translated or audio versions of the online test for users with different needs.

These considerations are essential, because this will ensure that riders of different language abilities can take the test equally and that riders with different education qualifications can all take part.

(In English): Mr Speaker, these concerns not withstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. Since food has been delivered to the Members' Room, I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.35 pm until 5.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

5.01 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Speaker, this Bill introduces amendments that will make our land transport system more future-ready and resilient. I thank the Members for their queries, suggestions and support for the Bill and will address them in turn.

First, the Bill makes changes to the Road Traffic Act (RTA) to update our regulatory framework to facilitate trials of AVs. Specifically, clause 3 of the Bill extends the sandbox that permits the AV trials from 2022 to 2027. I am glad that many Members spoke up in support of this extension.

Singapore has been facilitating AV trials on public roads since 2015. Today, a growing eco-system of leading AV firms from China, Europe and the USA, such as Motional, Continental and Desay, have been conducting research and development (R&D) trials here. Local AV enterprises, such as ST Engineering Autonomous Solutions, have deployed on-demand commercial AV services. However, fully autonomous transport remains a long-term aspiration, requiring more R&D.

Therefore, extending the sandbox by five years until August 2027 will allow these companies to continue to develop and trial AV technology for local deployment. The sandbox will also support the large-scale pilot deployment of autonomous buses and shuttles that Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Melvin Yong asked about. As previously announced, this will take place in Punggol, Tengah and the Jurong Innovation District, under the Call-for-Collaboration launched by LTA. This large-scale deployment will help us better understand the requirements for mass deployment, such as whether infrastructure upgrades are needed. LTA will provide further updates in the lead up to deployment in the mid-2020s.

The AV sandbox is meant to cover the trial and use of vehicles equipped with autonomous systems that enable the operation of vehicles without active physical control or monitoring by a human on public roads.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about the use of the Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). ADAS technology requires active monitoring by human drivers and, therefore, does not fall within the realm of AV technology. Before approving any motor vehicle for registration and use on public roads, including those fitted with ADAS, LTA checks to ensure the vehicle model’s compliance with stringent safety standards, such as those set out by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Vehicle Construction and Use Rules under the RTA. As ADAS technology grows more advanced, we agree with Mr Melvin Yong’s observation that it may carry new risks. We are monitoring global developments closely and will consider further regulation if necessary.

Besides the sandbox, another move LTA made to support AV trials was to expand the AV testbed in 2019 to include 1,000 kilometres of public roads in western Singapore, covering a wide range of traffic scenarios and road conditions. This has served the needs of AV developers interested to deploy AVs in Singapore. However, there are developers who may be considering other environments for their trials beyond western Singapore, as suggested by Ms Poh Li San, and LTA is open to such considerations when assessing their trial applications on a case-by-case basis.

In trialling AVs, public safety is our top priority. This is why LTA has put in place stringent safety assessments. Mr Saktiandi Supaat will be pleased to know that there are milestone tests in place today, administered in a specially-designed facility – the Centre of Excellence for Testing and Research of AVs at NTU, or CETRAN. All AVs must undergo and pass these tests prior to on-road trials. All AVs must also have a qualified safety driver onboard who can take immediate control of the vehicle during trials, should the need arise. These safety drivers are subject to the same responsibility as drivers of manned vehicles in ensuring the safe driving of the vehicle. The requirement for safety drivers will remain in place until AVs are able to operate safely without a human driver.

We agree with Ms Poh Li San’s observation that the liability and insurance framework for AVs is just as important as the underlying technology. This is why all AV developers, as owners of the AVs, are legally required to purchase third-party liability insurance for all AV trials. In the event of an accident, the insurance will cover any losses or damages that the owner and any authorised safety driver may suffer, as a result of any injury, death and property damage caused to any third party. This is not much different from the motor insurance coverage for manned vehicles. All AVs must also carry data recorders to collect data to support investigations in case of incidents.

But as we move towards fully autonomous transport in the longer term, MOT and LTA will need to adapt and review the liability framework for motor vehicles. Among other things, we are working with legal experts and insurers to better understand how to ascertain and assign liability in the case of accidents involving autonomous driving systems, as suggested by Ms Poh Li San.

While there are potential benefits, Ms Poh Li San has also rightly pointed out that AV technology can be disruptive. We will pace the transition carefully so that livelihoods will not be severely disrupted.

In 2019, to demonstrate our commitment to upskill our public bus captains, LTA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with industry stakeholders, including the public transport operators and the National Transport Workers’ Union. This will ensure that public bus captains are equipped with the necessary skills for new job roles, to continue contributing to the public transport system even when autonomous buses are introduced into the public transport fleet.

For taxi and private hire car drivers, LTA will be updating the vocational licence training curriculum after engaging the industry. The new curriculum will keep drivers up to date on new technologies, such as AVs and digitalisation, in the future economy. LTA will be seeking feedback from the industry, as well as the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles’ Association, before finalising the new curriculum.

Second, the Bill will update and future-proof our vehicular tax system, which is a key part of our vehicular controls and management. All vehicles used or kept in Singapore are subject to taxes upon registration. But there are exceptions. For instance, ambulances and fire engines are exempted as they provide essential public services. However, when these vehicles are no longer on a tax-exempt scheme, it is only fair to all other vehicle owners and drivers that taxes are re-imposed on these vehicles. MOH has announced enhanced regulatory standards for private ambulances and medical transporters. When these new standards take effect from 1 September this year, some vehicles might no longer be able to function as ambulances and, hence, will no longer qualify for tax exemption.

We are amending the RTA today, as shown in clauses 6 to 8 of the Bill, to facilitate and clarify LTA’s existing practices and to streamline the existing legislative provisions related to tax re-imposition. At the same time, we will amend the RTA, via clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill, to facilitate the recovery of undercharged or under-declared taxes as fines, similar to the existing provision for the Government to recover road tax arrears.

Third, the Bill will make changes that help ensure our public transport system remains safe and secure. Clauses 24 and 31 of the Bill empower the Police and authorised officers to carry out security searches on persons on the public transport system. The terrorist threat to Singapore remains serious. Considering that the public transport system plays a critical role in Singapore, we need to remain vigilant and safeguard it against such threats.

Members asked for the authorised officers to be appropriately trained to ensure security searches are conducted professionally, as well as in a discreet and polite manner without entrenching stereotypes. These security searches are conducted similar to those carried out at major events, such as at the National Day Parade. I would like to assure Members that authorised officers carrying out security searches would have to undergo proper training and must complete the necessary Security Workforce Skills Qualifications or WSQ courses approved by the Singapore Police Force before their deployment. In their training, the authorised officers are taught how to spot anyone displaying suspicious behaviour without bias against any race or religion. Only upon completion of the training and certification can they be considered as "Senior Approved Persons" as defined in the Bill.

Members asked about the types of measures that would be applied during frisk searches to prevent passengers from being taken advantage of. I would like to assure Members that all authorised officers have to be in uniform when conducting frisk searches. In addition, security searches will be conducted within the video surveillance coverage to provide assurance to the public that any alleged abuses will be investigated accordingly. To safeguard the modesty of a female person and to ensure frisk searches are conducted professionally, only authorised female officers can conduct frisk searches on a female person. We also have the powers to enforce against imposters, as provided for under section 11B of the LTA Act.

Mr Saktiandi also asked how we will ensure the safety of the public and authorised officers, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Adequate safe management measures have been put in place. Authorised officers are required to strictly adhere to these measures as well as the MOH’s health advisory. The authorised officers are also reminded to practise good personal hygiene. All security equipment is regularly sanitised after each use. In addition, hand sanitisers will be provided for commuters to use.

I will now address the broader land transport issues raised by Members.

I would like to assure Mr Murali Pillai that under the Vehicle Construction and Use Rules, we already require vehicles to be roadworthy, such as having well-functioning brakes and headlamps.

With regard to illegal modifications, it is already an offence for any person to illegally modify a vehicle. They can be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed up to three months. Penalties are doubled for repeat offenders.

Like Mr Derrick Goh suggested, vehicular inspections are a key touchpoint during which illegal modifications can be detected. We introduced the Enhanced Inspection Regime where vehicle owners caught with illegally modified exhaust systems for a second or subsequent time will be subjected to more frequent mandatory vehicle inspections.

I shared with this House in March about the challenges of enforcing against errant motor workshops. That said, we have stepped up enforcements island-wide. Just last week, a motor vehicle workshop was charged in Court for illegally modifying two cars’ exhaust systems. This is a very serious offence, as modifying a vehicle's exhaust system may lead to public safety concerns when the vehicle is used for racing, or result in public nuisance due to excessive noise.

Vehicle safety is a key concern and we will do more to deter illegal modifications. To this effect, we will strengthen penalties for illegal exhaust modifications for greater deterrence. For first-time offenders, LTA currently issues a composition sum of $500. Going forward, LTA will double the composition sum to $1,000 for new offences committed from 1 July this year. We will also not hesitate to take offenders of more egregious cases to Court, even if they are first-time offenders. Furthermore, for repeat offenders, LTA will apply to the Court to detain the offending vehicle for up to three months.

I am glad that many Members have voiced their support for the theory test for e-scooters and power-assisted bicycle (PAB) riders. This is not a licensing regime which will be more onerous for riders. Instead, it is a one-time theory test which will ensure that riders are familiar with active mobility rules, regulations and code of conduct. The amendments to the RTA today will enable us to implement a single theory test for PAB riders on roads and cycling paths.

To answer Ms He Ting Ru's query, the minimum riding age for PAB and e-scooters is 16 and riders will be required to take and pass the test before being able to ride. E-scooter riders below the age of 16 can only ride under adult supervision and the supervising adult will need to have passed the test.

LTA just launched the English handbook for e-scooter and PAB riders and we will make available the Mandarin, Malay and Tamil translations shortly. The handbook is available free-of-charge and we will study suggestions raised by Members on more widely disseminating the information, including through schools.

To address Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question, the handbook includes information on what to do in an accident, on top of rules and code of conduct and a section on equipment check. On Mr Darryl David's question on including a practical component, the theory test is a useful start to address the lack of knowledge of rules and to tackle deliberate errant riding behaviour. We will continue to monitor the landscape and update the testing requirements, if necessary, while balancing against how onerous the regime will be on PAB riders.

Many Members asked about the theory test. LTA will release more details in June, but I will address some key points, such as the cost of the test and if it will be accessible to those who face difficulty taking an online test, including our seniors. We will keep test fees affordable to minimise the financial impact on riders, especially those who ride for their livelihoods. For the first three months, the test will be chargeable at $5 for two attempts. And just in case Members do not really understand what it means, let me just clarify. Five dollars for two attempts means if you try the first time, it will be $5. If you pass, we are happy for you. If you cannot pass, you can take the test again for free the second time; that is, $5 for two attempts.

This is a discounted rate to encourage greater test take-up. Subsequently, the test will be chargeable at $10 for each attempt. The test will be conducted online in the four official languages. Special provisions can be made on a case-by-case basis for those who are not digitally-savvy or illiterate. Upon passing, digital certificates will be issued to the rider. We will have the means to verify unlawful manipulation of the certificate. We will provide an adequate transition period for riders to prepare, take and complete the test before enforcement kicks in.

I would like to assure Ms Yeo Wan Ling that the process to register for and take the test, including retakes, will be kept simple with minimal turnaround time. We will work through the NTUC, food delivery companies and active mobility interest groups to raise awareness and ensure that all riders are certified before they ride.

I am glad to hear from Mr Abdul Samad that the NTUC is working on a training programme to prepare delivery riders for the test.

Mr Desmond Choo asked if the new section 47K also imposes liability on platform companies. Yes, it will be an offence for a company to allow an uncertified rider to ride on the road with the knowledge that the rider is uncertified or being negligent as to whether the rider is uncertified.

To Mr Gan Thiam Poh's and Mr Derrick Goh's queries on errant riders caught flouting traffic regulations, they are already required to undergo the Safe Riding Programme, which includes both theory and practical components today.

On enforcement, Mr Saktiandi Supaat's and Mr Gan Thiam Poh's suggestion of using technology is a good one. LTA's MyTransport.SG mobile application has a "snap and send" function that enables members of the public to report errant riders. LTA is also trialling using CCTV technology and video analytics to identify errant riders. This will complement on-going enforcement efforts.

Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Darryl David, Dr Shahira Abdullah, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Sharael Taha have also asked about the safe use of bicycles on our roads and paths. This has been an on-going effort and one which LTA has devoted much attention and resources to. Over the years, we have put in place a regulatory framework to provide clarity on rules, launched outreach and public education programmes and enhanced our enforcement efforts against errant riders. We are continuing with these efforts.

Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat spoke about this at length, including how we are expanding the active mobility infrastructure, which Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Raeesah Khan have suggested. We have recently asked Active Mobility Advisory Panel or AMAP to conduct a review to improve road safety for both cyclists and motorists. Among other issues, AMAP will study how to enhance public education and awareness of rules for all road users – both cyclists and motorists alike. AMAP will engage different stakeholders and submit their recommendations in due course. At the same time, we will press on with enforcement against errant riders and motorists.

That said, I would like to point out to Mr Dennis Tan that road safety has to be a collective effort from all road users to play their part by driving and riding safely, to be considerate to one another and to do their part to build up a safe riding culture.

Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Hazel Poa, Ms He Ting Ru and Dr Shahira Abdullah have asked about enhancing the safety of using lorries to ferry workers and provided many suggestions. This issue is not within the ambit of the Bill and has already been addressed extensively yesterday. I will not deal with this in detail again. Nonetheless, I will reiterate some key points. Let me first clarify that the exemption under section 126 of the RTA applies to all workers, regardless of nationality.

As I mentioned yesterday, we are deeply saddened by the recent accidents involving lorries ferrying workers and understand the concerns raised by Members. We share their concerns. However, we also cannot just ignore the fact that the injury and fatality rate involving persons onboard lorries has come down over the last decade, as various measures, such as side railings and canopies, enhanced test requirements for drivers, sustained engagement and enforcement, have been implemented.

Internationally, practices involving the use of lorries to ferry workers are varied and we have studied this widely. While some Members have identified countries that disallow the practice, there are also countries, such as Canada, Thailand and the USA, that allow workers to be ferried in the rear deck of lorries, albeit with safety precautions and some restrictions. This is an important point to note and it shows that this practice is not uncommon.

There are also very significant, practical and operational issues, as I have noted, on top of just cost considerations that need to be considered in any enhancements of existing measures. These are not vague statements, but concrete feedback given by many companies and SMEs, and reflect the realities on the ground. Regulatory changes now will cause even more acute pain to the industry, given that the industry is being severely affected by COVID-19.

Such moves will have wider ramifications, including on livelihoods for both local and migrant workers. If the Member who raised this, Ms He Ting Ru, speaks to SMEs on the ground, I am sure she would know this even without having to do a study. So, while it is clearly not just about cost, to argue as though cost does not matter at all, is not practical and does not gel with reality. What we have been striving to do is to preserve the safety of workers and, at the same time, ensure that they can continue to have their jobs. And for the migrant workers, this is the very reason why they are here.

We will continue to review the existing safety rules, engage stakeholders along the way, taking all feedback and suggestions, as I have said, and find a sensible and balanced way forward, taking into account all concerns for the benefit of all. In the meantime, we will continue engaging employers and drivers of lorries to remind them about our rules and encourage safe driving behaviours. We will also step up enforcement against any non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

Between January and April this year, LTA had issued 227 notices of offence. And we urge all employers to do their part in ensuring the safety and welfare of their drivers and workers.

In sum, MOT will continue with our efforts to make Singapore's land transport system more future-ready, resilient and safe. This Bill is part of that work and I thank Members for their support.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I have got three clarifications for MOT. The first question is I wonder if the Senior Minister of State could explain to us regarding frisk searches whether commuters can expect these searches to be targeted, that is, based on suspicion, or would they also be conducted on a random basis, as a general deterrent to would-be offenders? So, that is the first question – whether it is targeted or does it also include random searches for no suspicion at all.

The second question is, she mentioned that the persons who would be empowered to do frisk searches and other searches would receive the relevant training in consultation with MHA and she highlighted that they would have to undergo WSQ courses. Would she be able to tell us which modules they would be required to undergo?

And, lastly, I heard what she said about the safeguards for searching of passengers, including searching of women to be done by only women personnel, as well as the searches to be done in a video recorded area. So, while these safeguards are recorded in the Hansard, would that also be enshrined in some subsidiary legislation or made public in an easy-to-understand form so that commuters as well as the officers empowered to search would know where the boundaries lie?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her clarifications.

Firstly, with regard to whether it is targeted or random, I think I said in my speech earlier that they are trained to spot suspicious behaviour and then, they can decide that they will do frisk searches. But it is only authorised officers who have gone through the approved training, and this will be the Police officers, the auxiliary officers, the security officers, enforcement officers. So, they are actually in uniform. If the Police is not in uniform, then they will have to identify themselves.

And it also depends on the alert level, the threat level. Because there are different threat levels and, depending on the threat levels, they will be doing their checks at the public transport areas.

Secondly, regarding the approved course, it is approved by SPF, WSQ and it is an entire module that is related to this. I do not have the name with me, it is in a file back there, because I thought we are going to have the Minister of State's speech before we have clarifications, but I can give it to you. It is actually an approved course and there is an entire module specific to this.

The other thing I need to also highlight is that what we are doing in terms of security checks, as well as frisk searches, is not different, as I have said, from those that we have already been conducting for major public events, for instance, NDP. And they go through the same training.

Regarding informing the public, awareness by public, well, I am sure this is recorded, this will be publicised. We will also look at how we can ensure and reach out to the public further, in order to make sure that the public also know and have assurance that this is done. But having said that, it is really not just about the public knowing it because our authorised officers have a duty, responsibility and obligation to ensure that they do this in accordance with protocols and SOPs.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai, you have got a quick clarification?

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, two short points of clarification. One, the hon Senior Minister of State mentioned that I had, in my speech, spoken about migrant workers being transported in lorries. I would just like to clarify that I did not do so in my speech.

Second one, again, a short point of clarification, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor mentioned about the point that I raised in my speech which refers to the fact that there is no offence linking an owner of a vehicle who was lackadaisical in maintaining his vehicle. The point I actually made was a bit different. I recognise that there are provisions in that regard, but my point was a bit more involved. I was talking about a case where an owner is lackadaisical in maintaining his vehicles which led to a fatal accident or injuries. That is the point I was making but I do not need any response from the learned Senior Minister of State.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.

5.34 pm

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor has addressed the questions relating to areas under MOT’s purview. This includes questions on PABs. I will now address those under MHA’s purview.

Members have raised questions in three areas. First, on MHA’s proposals to raise penalties for offences relating to illegal speed trials, helmets, individuals who obstruct, prevent or defeat the course of justice, and road rage. Second, on MHA’s proposals to enhance TP’s operational efficiency. And third, on enforcement and other matters.

First, let me address Members’ questions on the raising of penalties.

On the vehicle forfeiture regime for illegal speed trials, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the reason for making the vehicle forfeiture regime for illegal speed trials non-mandatory. I would like to share with the Member that the intent of moving towards a non-mandatory regime is to balance deterrence and fairness. While we want to deter persons from taking part in illegal speed trials through vehicle forfeiture, we also have to be fair to owners who did not consent to the offending driver using their vehicle and were not involved in the illegal speed trial.

A non-mandatory forfeiture regime does not mean that offenders get off easy. The Public Prosecutor still retains the power to apply for the forfeiture of a vehicle used in an illegal speed trial. The burden of proof is on the owner to prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, that the vehicle was used without his consent. In such situations, we can let the Court decide, by looking at all the facts of the case.

This also ensures parity with forfeiture for other offences in the RTA and in other Acts. This House would recall that in 2019, we amended the RTA to provide for non-mandatory forfeiture of vehicles involved in the offence of dangerous and careless driving. As another example, under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), if a person is convicted of any offence and if the Public Prosecutor makes an application to forfeit a vehicle, the Court shall order the vehicle to be forfeited unless the owner establishes that the vehicle was unlawfully in the possession of another person without the owner’s consent.

Mr Murali Pillai also asked about the situation where the owner was wilfully blind. In other words, the owner suspected that his car could be used in an illegal speed trial, but did not ask. As I have mentioned earlier, the burden is on the owner to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the vehicle had been used without his consent. In a case where the owner suspected that the offender used his vehicle and could have asked, but did not, it is up to the Court to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether there had been implied consent to the use of the vehicle. If the Court finds that there was implied consent, the vehicle will be forfeited.

Ms Joan Pereira asked how we would be able to discern genuine cases of owners claiming that they did not provide consent to the offending drivers to use their vehicles in illegal speed trials. As part of the investigative process, TP interviews all involved parties separately and procures other relevant evidence, such as video footage. This evidence will be submitted to the Court, for the Court to decide based on the facts of the case and the arguments from both sides. For non-genuine cases, TP will not hesitate to take action against the persons or anyone who falsely claimed that the offending driver had used the vehicle without the owner’s consent. They may be charged for the offence of providing false or misleading information and face a jail term, a fine, or both, if found guilty.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked if TP will step up enforcement to increase detection of illegal speed trials. As I have mentioned in my opening speech, TP has stepped up enforcement and expanded its enforcement camera network to improve detection. There are now close to 300 traffic enforcement cameras deployed to detect and deter speeding and red light running. TP will continue to monitor the road safety situation and assess if there is a need to install more enforcement cameras. TP will also continue to conduct regular enforcement operations at known hotspots and will mount additional enforcement operations where necessary.

Members also asked about helmet-related offences. Regarding the minimum age for child pillion riders, Mr Murali Pillai is correct that the minimum age for pillion riders on motorcycles is 10, while the minimum age for pillion riders on PABs is higher, at 16.

Motorcyclists, unlike PAB riders, go through more stringent training and testing before they are allowed to ride their vehicle. As part of the process to obtain a driving licence, motorcyclists will need to take two theory tests, go through a series of riding lessons, before taking their practical test. The training includes a module on how to ride safely with a pillion rider. On the other hand, PAB riders only need to go through a theory test and do not need to undergo any practical test. The motorcyclist has, therefore, undergone more training and is better able to handle a motorcycle with a pillion rider compared to the PAB rider.

We are conscious of the costs of getting helmets certified, a point raised by Mr Sharael Taha. The Singapore Motor Cycle Trade Association has also raised this concern. The current standards used to certify motorcycle helmets was formulated in 2014, in consultation with the industry and technical experts, including the Singapore Motor Cycle Trade Association. These are in line with the internationally recognised United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation Number 22, though we have additional requirements. For example, Singapore’s previous review concluded that it is important to include additional tests, such as the penetration test, which tests how easily the helmet’s shell is penetrated when it hits a sharp object, such as a fence or a motorcycle footrest.

That said, we hear the concerns about the costs of certification. We have to balance against the safety of road users. We will work with the relevant stakeholders to find the right balance.

Enforcement and penalties are not enough to ensure road safety. TP will also conduct more public education on the importance of wearing proper helmets. As Ms Joan Pereira pointed out, there are risks in wearing a helmet that does not meet regulatory requirements or is not of the right size.

Next, on individuals who obstruct, prevent or defeat the course of justice, Ms Sylvia Lim asked why we are increasing the penalties for the offence of furnishing false particulars to TP, especially since we had only done so recently. To clarify, our proposed amendments to section 81 are not just increasing the penalties for the existing offence of furnishing false information. We have broadened the offence to cover individuals who, alone or with others, deliberately mislead TP and prevent the identification of the correct offender driver. Thus, we have increased the fine by two times to reflect the greater seriousness.

Mr Sharael Taha asked what the penalties are for a cyclist exhibiting road rage to a motorist and whether we can ensure that there are equal consequences for cyclists and motorists.

The RTA provides that if a motorist commits an offence, such as voluntarily causing hurt while being a driver of a motor vehicle, he is liable for an additional offence of "road rage" and the Court may make an order to disqualify the offender from driving, or holding or obtaining a driving licence. This disqualification is on top of the penalties that the motorist may face for the underlying offence. The policy intent of this provision is to prevent motorists who have committed road rage from driving a motor vehicle again, as the behaviour might be repeated and cause harm to other motorists. The penalty of disqualification is, therefore, only applicable to motorists.

In the scenario painted by the Member, where the cyclist verbally abuses and punches a motorist, the Court may not disqualify the cyclist from driving. This is reasonable. The cyclist's behaviour may not represent his driving behaviour since he was not driving a motor vehicle at the time of the offence. It may not be possible for the Judge to assess whether it is undesirable for the cyclist to be allowed to drive a motor vehicle.

Nonetheless, the cyclist will still be liable for the relevant underlying penalty. For example, a cyclist who commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt in a road rage type of incident will, similar to a motorist, be liable for a penalty of up to imprisonment of two years and a fine of $5,000.

We propose to amend the RTA to require companies to designate a responsible officer to see to the timely reporting of information needed for TP's investigation of the traffic incident. Mr Murali Pillai asked about the logic of making the chairperson, managing director or company secretary of a company responsible for maintaining a proper record of the vehicle's usage. He suggested that we can instead require that the Board appoints an employee to be the responsible person. The responsibilities of the chairperson, managing director or company secretary would then be discharged once the appointment is made.

To clarify, this provision does not require the chairperson, managing director or company secretary to actually carry out the record keeping personally. Instead, they are to ensure the keeping of such records.

Ensuring that records are properly kept so that investigations into a traffic incident can be conducted promptly is very important. We want the company to take this seriously and actively take steps towards this end, by designating its chairman, managing director or company secretary, or any position analogous to these offices, to be responsible for ensuring that records are properly kept.

Mr Speaker, let me now turn to the questions on enforcement. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if we would be enhancing enforcement efforts to complement the new offences to deter irresponsible driving behaviour. Over the years, TP has enhanced its enforcement strategy by leveraging technology to improve detection of offences. TP has also become more transparent with motorists by alerting them before they reach enforcement camera zones, to encourage them to drive more safely. TP will also enforce against motorists who commit the new offences as part of their existing enforcement strategy.

Mr Murali Pillai shared his views that we should hold vehicle owners and operators of vehicles criminally liable for fatal and injury-causing accidents which are due to mechanical failure in the vehicle. I agree that it is important that vehicles are well maintained, to ensure the safety of not just the occupants but other road users. This is why for accidents involving mechanical failure, such as when the vehicle's brakes are faulty, TP can already take to task the person who holds the responsibility to maintain the vehicle. That said, we hear the Member's suggestion and we will work with MOT to review how we can strengthen this.

Mr Derrick Goh asked MHA to consider allowing individuals with financial difficulties to pay road traffic fines in instalments. As mentioned in MHA's Committee of Supply debate in 2021, MHA has been studying this. There are several considerations that MHA will have to think through. I will raise two key considerations.

First, whether instalment plans would dilute the deterrent effect of the fines. While we empathise with those facing financial difficulties, we also have a duty to ensure the safety of all other road users.

Second, resources that could otherwise have been used to directly enhance road safety, will have to be diverted to monitor instalment plans and manage appeals. These details would have to be worked through.

Nevertheless, currently, for genuine cases of financial difficulty, if the individual appeals to TP or the LTA and the appeal is assessed to be meritorious, TP or LTA already extend their deadline to pay the traffic fine, by up to several months. This is probably even more helpful to the offender than an instalment plan.

Mr Speaker, road safety is the shared responsibility of all road users. Beyond the amendments to legislation, a wider change on building a good road safety culture is essential.

If I may quote Mr Murali Pillai, he said, "It is clear that legislation must not be the only policy instrument to protect our most vulnerable on the roads. Instead, there must be greater awareness, education and behavioural change."

This is why our efforts have gone beyond enforcement, to encouraging a good road safety culture through engagement, education and infrastructural improvements. As Ms Joan Pereira highlighted, public engagement and education on our road traffic rules are important. In this regard, TP and LTA have been continuously working with various stakeholders to improve road safety. I would like to thank our stakeholders for their partnership, hard work and dedication. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.52 pm

Ms Joan Pereira: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister of State. I would like to know, apart from the enhanced regime for helmet-related offences, what other measures are MHA and TP planning to undertake to protect all our motorcyclists?

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, if I may, TP adopts a multi-pronged approach of education, engagement and enforcement. We work with our stakeholders, as I have shared earlier, to improve road safety for the motorcyclists. For education, for example, since December 2020, we have a new feature as part of the education process for learner motorcyclists, where we introduced simulation training. They have to go through a few modules, where they will be able to identify and go through the process of top 10 vulnerable accident-prone situations in the simulation. We also have a riding theory handbook available online for them to learn. So, we continuously engage motorcyclists because we know they are a vulnerable group.

We also have positive engagement with them. We award the rider. In the last few months when I was involved, I went around in a TP car to identify riders who practised safe habits, such as wearing the necessary gear well and so on. I think that actually spread among the motorcyclist community and it gave a very positive vibe and message to motorcyclists that it is good to be on the safe side, to practise good habits for road safety.

As I have mentioned earlier, we will continue to enforce where we work with community partners; we work with the feedback that we receive and look at the hotspots where there may be opportunities for us, not only to enforce, but also to educate, engage and bring out positive impact, not only to the motorcyclist community, but for all road users as well.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to seek a clarification from the Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor because I did not get a chance to raise the queries earlier.

First of all, I would like to thank her for highlighting that PAB users taking the test do not have to pay for the second round of test. But I would like to ask a question with regard to the audio version of the test. I found out that for some places in Australia, in New South Wales, the transport agency creates a hotline for those taking the road theory test and for those who have learning difficulties or special needs. So, is there a possibility that we can create an audio version of the test? And second, whether we can create a hotline for PAB users who have learning difficulties, for example, those who have trouble reading or understanding questions for them to make arrangements in that regard?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his questions.

Just let me say that it is free only for the repeat test taken in first three months. But having said that, as I said, we are mindful to make sure it is affordable to PAB riders.

With regard to the Member's suggestion for an audio version of the test, first, let me say that, on a case-by-case basis, there is a need for special consideration, they can actually do an oral test. But I think his idea of an audio version, meaning an online audio version, is a good idea. We can look into this and study to see if it is feasible.

With regard to the hotline, they can contact LTA and let them know if there are special requests.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification for Minister of State Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. Earlier he mentioned that nationwide, we have about 300 cameras to detect speeding offences. I do note that it is more than before. But from time to time, we also get requests from residents for us to convey to TP that they would like speed cameras installed at certain locations. The reply from TP, typically, is that they would consider the matter and any decision whether or not to install would depend on the accident rate as well as public feedback.

So, I would like him to confirm that TP does not need accidents to happen before they decide whether to install a camera at a certain location.

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the question. I am not sure whether the Member was in the House when I answered a similar question on this. TP does not wait for traffic accidents to happen. Essentially, we work with various stakeholders and when we have feedback that there is a certain hotspot, or even, not a hotspot, but feedback relating to speeding in certain areas, we will go down and take a look.

When we go down, it does not mean that we will install a camera in the area. But we will do our intelligence work and enforcement operations around the area, making sure that even before we install a camera, we know that there is a real problem there.

If there are other solutions, we will continue with other alternatives. I want to assure the Member that we do not wait for traffic accidents to happen. This is something that we all know very well. I have said this in this House. This is the operational procedure of what we do at TP.

Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.

Mr Derrick Goh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a clarification question for the Minister of State. He earlier mentioned about statistics where over the last 10 years till 2019, traffic fatalities have dropped. However, in that lower number, about 80% of traffic fatalities relate to the elderly. So, the clarification question for the Minister of State is whether there are plans and initiatives that have been put in place to address this given that our population is ageing.

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we share Mr Derrick Goh's concern about the accidents and the vulnerability of our seniors and elderly. In fact, we are going to enhance our penalties against irresponsible motorists in Silver Zones. We want to encourage more and greater caution in areas which are frequented by elderly pedestrians. We will be doing something shortly, later this year, where motorists who commit offences in the Silver Zones will incur two additional demerit points, on top of the usual demerit points. They will also be liable for an additional $100 in composition fine.

In addition to that, we also engage the senior community by working with Senior Activity Centres and Lion Befrienders. Just in February this year, TP launched the Eye Care Kit to work with the seniors on how they are able to walk and travel safely.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira, do you have another question to ask? No.

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. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim].

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