Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.42 pm

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

This Bill, together with the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill, or the "Active Mobility Bill" for short, which will be read next, relates to small motorised vehicles, including personal mobility devices (PMDs) and power-assisted bicycles (PABs).

Sir, with your permission, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on both Bills take place together, under the common objective of ensuring and developing a safe and sustainable active mobility landscape. This will allow Members to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Active Mobility Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed. You will be taking two speeches together?

Dr Lam Pin Min: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I would like to thank our delivery riders, who have been instrumental in providing delivery services to Singaporeans during this COVID-19 circuit breaker period. It is not an easy job; they brave the elements and are on the move all day. I am grateful for their efforts in making our lives more convenient, amidst this trying time for all of us.

Let me first address why we are tabling these Bills now. In many cities around the world, we have seen an uptake in active mobility modes of transport after the outbreak of COVID-19. We have observed a similar trend in Singapore, where travel demand for active mobility devices appears to have increased, even as ridership for public transport, taxis and private hire cars fell drastically. This has arisen because of the larger number of short trips between homes and neighbourhood centres. With the expansion of the cycling path network in the years ahead, we should also expect use of active mobility devices to pick up again. With more users, it is all the more critical for us to strengthen our regulations and enforcement even as we deal with other COVID-related challenges.

The Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill, or the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill for short, sets out an import control regime to stem the inflow into Singapore of unsafe small motorised vehicles, which include PMDs and PABs. The Active Mobility Bill allows LTA to shorten the forfeiture process for such devices which pose significant safety risks, and expands the public path network to include certain open spaces, so that active mobility devices can be used safely in accordance to our regulations.

Let me now elaborate on the main provisions of the two Bills. Let me first start with the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill.

Today, only active mobility devices that comply with device criteria on weight, width and speed are allowed to be used on public paths. This is to enhance public safety on paths. Motorised PMDs and PABs are also required to meet the relevant safety standards, which is the UL2272 standard for motorised PMDs and the European Standard EN15194 for PABs.

Sir, devices which do not meet the relevant safety standards pose higher fire risks and accounted for all 115 fire incidents in 2019 involving PMDs and PABs.

We have introduced many measures to tackle the supply of non-compliant devices, including prohibiting the sale of non-UL2272 devices for use on public paths since July 2019 and mandating inspection of e-scooters from April 2020. LTA regularly enforces against retailers who display, advertise and sell non-compliant devices, and alter devices to make them non-compliant, as well as path users who ride such non-compliant devices on public paths.

Despite our efforts, LTA continues to detect non-compliant devices being used on public paths, and fires involving non-compliant devices continue to occur. In 2019 alone, 972 users were detected riding non-compliant PMDs and PABs on public paths and public roads.

Irresponsible retailers have compounded the problem. In 2019, 11 retailers were caught for displaying non-compliant PMDs and PABs and failing to display warning notices.

In view of these challenges, we need to go upstream to stem the inflow of non-compliant devices at the point of import.

Clause 5 of the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill requires all importers to obtain import approval from LTA before they can bring small motorised vehicles into Singapore. For a start, we will implement this requirement for motorised PMDs and PABs. This will ensure that we have oversight of the inflow into Singapore of all such devices. LTA will assess import approval applications based on the safety of the devices to be imported. It will be an offence to import motorised PMDs and PABs without valid approval from LTA.

We recognise that there are legitimate reasons to import non-compliant devices, such as for research, re-export or commercial use exclusively on private land or land with restricted public access. For these specific cases, import approvals can still be granted after LTA has ascertained that these non-compliant devices will not be abused and eventually used on public paths where they could be a danger to other path users. Thus, clause 8 makes it an offence for importers to allow non-compliant devices they have imported to be used for purposes other than what had been allowed under the import approval or to fail to comply with a condition specified in the import approval. LTA will also affix tamper-proof tags on all non-compliant devices allowed to be imported, to facilitate downstream enforcement.

We will take decisive enforcement against the provision of false information and imports without import approvals. Similar to other import controls regimes, ICA officers appointed as officers of customs will work with LTA to carry out random inspections at the checkpoints. LTA is also empowered to conduct searches of premises or conveyances located within any premises, used for or in connection with the import of small motorised vehicles or the storage of such imported vehicles, in order to investigate an offence under the Bill. This could include premises suspected to contain motorised PMDs and PABs imported without valid import approval from LTA. Motorised PMDs and PABs found to be imported without valid import approval will be seized and forfeited and their importers will be taken to task.

Let me now move on to the Active Mobility Bill.

Non-compliant devices pose fire risks even when not being used or charged. Since the Active Mobility Act (AMA) was passed by this House in 2017, LTA has seized PMDs, PABs and bicycles used in the commission of offences under the AMA or the Road Traffic Act (RTA) and stores these in holding yards pending the outcome of prosecution or the acceptance of a composition offer. Some are not UL2272 or EN15194 compliant and others could have been badly damaged or have leaking batteries after being involved in accidents. It would be dangerous for LTA to retain custody of such forfeited devices.

To mitigate safety hazards arising from the storage of such seized devices, this Bill amends the AMA and the RTA to allow LTA to immediately forfeit devices that LTA has assessed to be dangerous, prior to composition or conviction and to dispose of them after providing a 30-day notice period for objections to be submitted. There will be no changes to the forfeiture and disposal process for non-compliant devices that are not dangerous.

In addition to PMDs, PABs and bicycles, the process also extends to non-compliant mobility vehicles, or what we refer to as personal mobility aids.

Lastly, to improve clarity of rules for all path users, the Active Mobility Bill expands the public path network by allowing path-connected open spaces to be declared as public paths. Path-connected open spaces are generally indistinguishable from the existing public path network. This includes spaces such as courtyards, plazas, squares and atriums that are accessible to the public. This amendment will allow our public path network to accommodate the largest range of possible users. It will also enable LTA to extend the public path user rules to reduce potential conflicts between the motorised and non-motorised users in these open spaces. The clarity will be useful to all path users.

We understand that some of these path-connected open spaces are used for community or municipal functions, such as grassroots events, night markets or community roadshows. We will facilitate events and activities by allowing open spaces to be closed temporarily.

Lastly, clauses 29, 30 and 31 of the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill makes miscellaneous amendments to the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act, Rapid Transit Systems Act and the Road Traffic Act to channel certain sums collected by LTA into the Consolidated Fund. This delinks LTA's regulatory and enforcement functions from the associated revenues from these actions and aligns LTA's financial practices with the whole-of-Government financial governance framework.

We remain committed in promoting active mobility as a viable and attractive mode of transport and lifestyle choice in Singapore. When used safely, with the appropriate regulations and infrastructure, active mobility devices can be an affordable, environmentally-friendly and convenient commuting option. This is why, even as we are heartened by the significant improvement in footpath safety since the use of e-scooters was banned on footpaths from November last year, we are pressing on to improve our cycling path infrastructure and to further strengthen our regulatory framework.

Mr Speaker, our active mobility regulatory framework must continue to evolve to keep pace with new technology and new trends. It is timely for us to put in place a regulatory framework to ensure that active mobility devices being brought into and used in Singapore are safe. This is a key step in helping us put in place a safe and sustainable active mobility landscape in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

1.55 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bills – the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill, which seeks to stem the inflow of non-compliant active mobility devices and the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill, which aims to improve the clarity of our active mobility rules.

Since the Active Mobility Act (AMA) came into force in May 2018, much has been done to strengthen the safe usage of active mobility devices. Examples include the introduction of the UL2272 certification and the mandatory registration of active mobility devices. But despite these measures, the number of fires involving non-compliant devices continue to remain an issue. Therefore, the introduction of the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill is timely as it serves to control the import and use of non-compliant devices, which are often a fire risk.

However, I have a few clarifications and suggestions.

First, I would like to ask how will the Bill regulate the import of active mobility devices that are bought online. What will be the responsibilities of e-commerce platforms, such as Tao Bao, Qoo10, and Carousell? Will the onus on ensuring device compliance be imposed on e-commerce consumers?

If onus is indeed placed on consumers, we should strive to raise awareness of compliant active mobility devices. I would suggest that LTA consider active promotion of compliant models. Having a "white list" of devices that meet the latest regulations would help consumers make better purchase decisions from both physical stores and online platforms.

When it comes to purchasing from online platforms, Members of this House will know that there are instances when an online seller ships a wrong product to the buyer, either deliberately or by mistake. In an event where a buyer purchases a compliant model, but the online seller ships a non-compliant one to him, would the unknowing buyer be liable for an offence under section 5 of the Bill?

As the Bill also covers the import of unassembled active mobility devices, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the import of replacement parts, which are vital for servicing and repairs, will also be regulated. Remote as it may be, there is a possibility that some may create their own non-compliant active mobility device by piecing together various replacement parts. Already, we have seen instances of PMDs being "souped up" to provide more power, more speed, more battery life. Such modifications can be dangerous and I hope that LTA can take proactive steps to deter this.

Mr Speaker, I would like to also ask if the Bill's proposed import restrictions of non-compliant small motorised vehicles would have any impact on the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that Singapore had already signed with other countries.

Finally, I would like to reiterate my repeated calls for mandatory third-party liability insurance for all users of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs). I am glad that the Ministry had, in December 2019, accepted the recommendations made by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, to make third-party liability insurance compulsory for those who use PMDs in the course of their work. However, in my view, this requirement should be extended to all PMD users, as there remains a sizeable number of PMD riders who use PMDs for non-work purposes. I understand that the cost of obtaining third-party liability insurance is not exorbitant, and more importantly, we need to ensure that victims would be adequately covered for any medical bills arising in the unfortunate event of a PMD-related accident.

Mr Speaker, as we continue our enforcement and education efforts to inculcate a safe active mobility culture in Singapore, we need also to ensure that we stem the rise in the number of fires involving non-compliant devices, and to better protect victims should an accident happens. The proposed import restrictions are a timely measure that will further enhance the safety of our homes and our public paths. With that, I support both Bills.

Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

2.00 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I wish to record my appreciation for the delivery riders who are doing an essential task during this period. They have, in the midst of a pandemic, risen to the occasion to deliver all manner of goods, so that the majority of the population can stay at home and practise social distancing measures and live their life as normally as is possible.

The demand for delivery services is on the rise, and it will continue to stay high even after circuit breaker measures ease, as we navigate this pandemic. More people are taking up delivery jobs to supplement their lost income. As a result, we will see more mobility devices out in public.

Some users are also relying on these devices to get out and about for their daily exercise. With fewer options to spend their free time, I observe that more residents are taking to the parks and park connectors, bringing their devices with them.

When the Active Mobility Bill was debated this February, me and several of my Parliamentary colleagues expressed concerns about fire risks with the increased usage of PMDs.

Just last week, last Wednesday, to be specific, there was a fire in Nee Soon South at 4.30 am. About 100 residents had to be evacuated and, according to SCDF report, there was a PMD being left to be charged overnight. Luckily, there was no major injury but three occupants were sent to hospital.

It is timely that Minister has followed up swiftly with the introduction of upstream measures to prevent the unauthorised import of non-compliant devices which do not meet safety requirements.

The shortening of the current forfeiture process will also help to conserve resources spent on storing impounded devices, as well as mitigate fire safety hazards from storing these devices for prolonged periods. This would hopefully serve as a strong statement to those who knowingly purchase or import non-compliant devices or refuse to do their due diligence on this matter.

These new measures are indicative of the authorities’ determination to stamp out such devices. Targeting non-compliant imports will help to nip the problem in the bud. However, as some of these devices and their parts may be purchased online by individuals from overseas companies, how does the relevant agency manage these individual imports?

Like the fire that I just mentioned that happened last week, what I understand is that the PMD was new and it was left to charge for the first time. According to the SCDF report, there is no approval label on the PMD. For those without approval labels, non-compliant, they are not allowed to use on the road from 1 July onwards. So, why do people still buy these devices? Is it because lack of publicity? Perhaps MOT need to study why people still buy non-compliant PMDs.

During the circuit breaker, I also received worrying feedback from residents about e-scooters reappearing on the pedestrian paths.

Due to reduced footfall on the pedestrian paths, some would even speed. That is not right. Pedestrians still do use the paths, and any number of accidents, especially fatal ones, is one too many. Whoever these riders are and whatever their reasons, no one is above the law. They must not ride their PMDs on the pedestrian paths.

How can enforcement be stepped up, especially during manpower constraints and social distancing measures? Are the relevant authorities exploring the use of technology, such as facial recognition or, perhaps even drones, to quicken the process for identifying perpetrators and arresting them?

Previously, I also raised safety concerns for residents waiting at the bus stops and open spaces.

Even with the new laws in place, some errant riders would not disembark when they should as they do not want to inconvenience themselves. Town centres, plazas, courtyards and squares have high pedestrian traffic and are not appropriate for PMDs or PABs. Most riders have been understanding on this matter. Yet, others take advantage of the fact that these places are not visually distinguishable from the public path network and continue zooming through on their devices.

So, I am glad that the amendments to the Active Mobility Bill will extend coverage of public paths to include the path-connected open spaces, so that law enforcement can be taken against those who flout the rules in these spaces. This is something that I feel very strongly about. In fact, I had spoken to LTA officers many times on this issue.

Safety is paramount and even with fewer pedestrians out and about, this must not be taken for granted. As circuit measures ease, the footfalls will be back. If PMD riders continue their errant ways, I fear that we will see a spate of accidents because they have become used to cruising the pedestrian paths. In the meantime, I urge pedestrians to stay alert and vigilant as you get out and about. This does not only apply to just staying safe from PMDs, but in any situation, everybody has a shared responsibility for staying safe in their environment.

Sir, I support the Bill. These amendments are necessary to protect the lives and safety of both pedestrians and the PMD riders. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In February this year, when we were debating the Active Mobility Bill, several Members of Parliament and I expressed concerns about the fire risks associated with the increased usage of PMDs.

Last week, there was a fire caused by a PMD in Nee Soon South and this has made me even more worried about this problem.

I am very pleased to see that the Government has quickly introduced this amendment Bill to tackle the non-compliant PMDs. Some PMDs and spare parts can be bought online; may I ask how the Government is going to check these PMDs?

I am also happy to note that this Bill would extend coverage of public paths to include path-connected open spaces. Therefore, PMDs will also be banned in places, such as town centre squares to protect pedestrians’ safety.

Residents also told me that during the Circuit Breaker period, some PMD riders saw that there were no enforcement officers around, so they feel like what the Chinese say, "the mountain is high and the emperor is far away", and just took the PMDs back on the paths again. May I know how the Government is going to carry on the enforcement work while ensuring safety? For example, will the Government use technologies, such as drones and face recognition?

In fact, we have just given our residents some peace of mind not so long ago. In terms of pedestrian safety, we must not go backwards. We should not reduce all these rules and regulations to nothing but paper tigers.

2.10 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that MOT is finally introducing the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill. In particular, it is finally introducing a law to make it an offence for a person to import a small motorised vehicle without having a permit to do so.

Back in April 2016, at the 2016 Committee of Supply Debates for MOT, I had mentioned that unauthorised e-bikes were still available for sale. I said that many e-bikes which were in use were not authorised models and I asked the Ministry to consider only allowing authorised e-bikes to be sold in Singapore. This was when MOT was looking at introducing new active mobility laws and looking to promote use of PMDs for first and last mile connectivity.

Less than four years later, on 4 November 2019, on the day MOT announced in Parliament that e-scooters were to be banned from the footpaths, consigning it into, at the least, temporary obsolescence for many users, I had a Parliamentary Question that day asking what are the measures in place to deter the sale and supply of non-compliant PMDs in Singapore by online suppliers and whether the Ministry has asked Singapore Customs to help detect and prevent non-compliant PMDs from being brought into Singapore by any supplier or individual.

I wondered why it has taken so long for the Government to cut this import of illegal e-scooters or e-bikes. The public had to endure wide usage of illegal specs e-scooters and e-bikes for some time. Till today, I still see quite a few illegal e-bikes being used. Senior Minister of State Lam also mentioned this recently.

I remember in the debate for the Second Reading of the Active Mobility Bill, I was asking about allowing throttle operated e-bikes and Senior Minister of State Lam gave his explanation as to why throttle e-bikes were not allowed. But till today, we still see throttle e-bikes around.

The best solution to disallow non-specs e-bikes, e-scooters or other PMDs would simply be to ban its import. After the Bill is passed today, the requirement for import approvals will likely be a first step to make sure that we do not have unauthorised e-bikes or e-scooters, and in fact, other types of PMDs, some of which we may not even be able to imagine at this moment.

We need to make sure that the controls are in place to ensure that no unauthorised small motorised vehicles can even be shipped into Singapore via any shipping lines or logistic service providers. They must be stopped at all our customs checkpoints for land, air or sea.

The logistic service providers of all importers including online suppliers must be made aware and accountable for the ban. Online e-commerce suppliers must not allow sale and import of such unauthorised machines into Singapore.

Will the Senior Minister of State share with the House how the Government will work with suppliers and retailers as well as all shipping and logistics companies to ensure that no unauthorised models can be brought into Singapore including from foreign e-commerce online suppliers? Will someone who try ordering an illegal vehicle online from a foreign webpage be told before paying and checking out that it cannot be delivered to Singapore?

Finally, given likely frequent changes in technology, standards for permissible SMVs should be regularly updated and that these updates be made easily available to the public to access and check. For instance, a link to these requirements can be placed on a prominent place on the LTA website's landing page. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

I now move on to the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill. I support this Bill’s intention to extend the coverage of the law to include path-related open spaces.

Clause 4 amends section 6(1) to allow for any such space to be declared pedestrian-only, footpath or a shared path by LTA whether be it in public land or private land. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how would this be done in practice? Would LTA consult the local stakeholders before declaring any area to be a specific type of path?

I also support the Bill’s intentions to enable the earlier disposal by LTA of seized non-compliant active mobility vehicles for safety reason. On the issue of the disposal of seized vehicles under the Act, may I know currently how many of such seized vehicles are being held by LTA? May the Senior Minister of State also share with this House how does LTA currently dispose the seized vehicles? Are they taken apart and sold for scrap locally or abroad? How are the batteries disposed of, bearing in mind the safety risks associated with illegal batteries?

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the circuit breaker, it was reported in the media that many people flocked to use many parks and park connectors. I am a daily user of a popular park near my home as well as a park connector leading up to the East Coast Park and I concur with those reports.

My use of the parks and park connectors during the circuit breaker reinforced my previous views on the culture of foot path or park connector use by all users.

Even without a large number of e-scooters in use, as we have previously seen, we can do more to improve on the culture – keeping left, giving way, or giving space to each other; riders reducing speed when approaching other users. I have previously spoken of how information needs to be piped to those who do not sign up for a course or do not actively seek such information online, including cyclists and device users as well as pedestrians. I hope that the MOT and LTA will look at how to enhance the public education efforts for shared use of foot paths and public connectors.

Next, I would like to talk about adequate enforcement – the other limb necessary for safe active mobility use.

On 5 May, The Straits Times reported that Senior Minister of State Lam had said that there has been increased use of non-compliant personal mobility devices (PMDs) on roads during the circuit breaker period. Even though we have seen fewer e-scooters around, there is hardly a day for me when I do not see any e-scooters on foot paths or on the road. There are still e-scooters defying the ban after so many months. These riders clearly think they can get away with it because they do not sense that they will be taken to task immediately.

I am really not sure that enforcement is indeed sufficient with spot checks on certain locations. For example, I use the Siglap Park Connector daily and I have never seen enforcement officers in the vicinity of the connector. Unless one pushes his e-scooter to the park connector, most riders will need to ride on the road or on foot paths to get to the park connector. Ditto for other park connectors. For example, the one along Hougang Avenue 7. I am sure I am not the only person who has recently seen e-scooter riders riding across the road at traffic lights.

Even if we think that these days, we may not see as many e-scooters as we used to do before the foot path ban, we should not forget that when the expanded cycling path network is up, e-scooters may yet be popular again. So, it is important that we get the issues of public education and adequate enforcement right, or we will be kicking the can down the road.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few months, from April to June, I have seen on quite a few occasions, food delivery riders in their uniforms using e-scooters on foot paths and on roads. They are mostly from Grab and on two occasions, Foodpanda. In February this year, I asked in a Parliamentary Question whether the Government will consider imposing legal obligations on food delivery companies to ensure that their delivery riders on e-bikes or e-scooters will comply with active mobility or road traffic regulations, including but not limited to compliance with device requirements or proper usage. Minister Khaw Boon Wan said in reply that under the Activity Mobility amendment and the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Act, food delivery companies should be responsible for ensuring that their riders ride safely.

However, it is not clear as to how those laws were imposed on obligations. So I raised the same concerns again at the Committee of Supply debate for MOT this year and also suggested the imposition of penalties on the food delivery companies in the event of any failure on the part of their riders to comply with the law. Senior Minister of State Lam said in response and I quote, "Businesses have a role to play, which is why LTA has introduced regulations on companies and continues to work closely with companies to encourage responsible behaviour in their riders." But no further details were given on enforcement.

In lieu of the continuing use of e-scooters by a small number of food delivery riders and their companies not able to stop them, I would like to ask Senior Minister of State Lam to clarify explicitly: (a) besides taking actions against errant riders, can and will LTA take immediate action against their companies to stop such breaches of law? (b) What penalties are available against the food delivery companies for failing to ensure their riders' compliance with the law?

Mr Speaker, Sir, not long ago, we heard in this House that the construction of the expanded cycling path network for use by bicycles, e-bikes and PMDs will be ramped up. May I ask the Senior Minister of State to provide an update on the status of the construction of the expanded cycling path network and whether it has been affected by COVID-19 measures or by any of the foreign workers involved in the project being quarantined or prevented from working?

The nagging question I have about the expanded cycling path network is whether cycling paths will be directly linked to HDB blocks, condominiums, houses, shophouses, office buildings and industrial buildings such that riders do not need to alight and push their PMDs or e-bikes along foot paths to their homes, workplaces or other destinations. If riders need to pass a foot path or road en route to their destination, it may result in some e-scooter or e-bike riders continuing riding on the path and taking the easy way out.

As e-bikes have become more commonly seen after the foot path ban for e-scooters, we also see more e-bikes on foot paths now. We may end up kidding ourselves after spending so much money on the expanded cycling path network – that it will solve the problems created by e-scooters' use of foot paths.

If this seems too expensive, impractical or ambitious, then MOT may need to reconsider e-scooters and other PMDs as a serious option for first and final mile connectivity. However, if our cycling path network were to become sufficiently extensive, such that PMD and e-bike riders do not need to alight and push, it may in turn do away with the need for cyclists to share the use of foot paths, which is still currently allowed. This prospect may be welcomed by many foot path users who may not think that sharing foot paths with cyclists is a good idea.

I have asked these questions earlier this year and I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarification today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the questions and concerns I have, I support this Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

2.21 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I am glad that we are moving upstream in addressing the hazards posed by active mobility devices by introducing an import controls regime. It is also sensible for us to address the fire risk posed by non-compliant active mobility devices held by LTA before any incidents occur.

I have three clarifications to raise on the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill.

My first point relates to the return of a non-compliant forfeited vehicle that has been deemed dangerous. The new section 53(1A) provides that a non-compliant vehicle forfeited by the LTA under the new section 51(3) may be returned to a person if LTA receives from the person a written objection showing good cause for its return and there is no reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle is linked to an offence. Even if such a vehicle were not linked to an offence, it seems extremely unsafe to return a vehicle that is too dangerous for LTA to retain to an individual.

Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances such a vehicle may be returned to the individual? Will the safety of the vehicle be a pre-condition for such a return?

My second point relates to the notice requirement before selling, destroying or disposing of a non-compliant vehicle that is dangerous to retain. The new section 53(3A) provides that LTA may sell, destroy or dispose of a non-compliant vehicle if it is dangerous for the LTA to retain custody or it increases the likelihood of an outbreak of fire at the holding yard. LTA may do so after giving one month's notice in the Gazette of its intention to do so.

I appreciate that the e-Gazette was made public earlier this year. However, the reality is that publication in the Gazette will not be a meaningful notification for the average individual.

The new section 53(3A) applies to vehicles that are moved to a holding yard under section 45 or section 46. Both sections require LTA to give notice of the move to the owner of the vehicle as soon as practicable, if the owner is known. This requirement does not seem to apply where LTA intends to exercise its powers under section 53(3A).

Can the Minister clarify in a situation where the owner is known, whether LTA will be required to give notice to the owner of its intention to sell, destroy or dispose of potentially dangerous non-compliant vehicle under the new section 53(3A)?

My final point relates to the risks that continue to be posed by non-compliant vehicles held at the holding yards. Even under the expedited procedure introduced by the amendments, there is still a one-month notice period before the LTA can sell, destroy or dispose of a forfeited vehicle that is dangerous or that materially increases the likelihood of an outbreak of fire. Accidents can happen during this one-month period. The danger is compounded when you consider that there are other vehicles in the holding yards that are similarly dangerous or materially increase the likelihood of an outbreak of fire.

Can the Minister share what safety measures are put in place to mitigate the risk of fire at the holding yards? Further, in the worst-case scenario that a fire breaks out, who is liable for the damage caused? For instance, in the event that the fire can be traced back to a single vehicle, would the owner of that vehicle be liable for the damage caused by the fire caused by their vehicle, notwithstanding that the vehicle is now in the custody of LTA?

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

2.25 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Sir, personal mobility devices were quickly adopted by many Singaporeans in the last few years because they were cheap and fast. They filled a transport need that our public transport system and existing private vehicles could not. But as we discovered, this came at a high cost to safety – from accidents on roads and foot paths to charging fires at home. It was a case of market forces running ahead of regulators since we had no laws to ensure that these imported personal mobility devices met safety standards.

I support the intent behind the Bill, which will create a regulatory framework for licensing the import of small motorised vehicles that will promote safety and meet consumer needs.

However, new regulations will impose a cost on businesses and commuters. We need to minimise these costs while still ensuring that regulations serve the purpose of promoting public safety. In some respects, this Bill imposes more regulations on importers of small motorised vehicles than our existing laws on the import of motor vehicles do. For example, under existing law, any person in Singapore may import a motor vehicle, subject to import approval from Customs and vehicle registration from LTA. The concept of a licence to import motor vehicles simply does not exist under the Road Traffic Act. Our approach for motor vehicles is to regulate the vehicles rather than to regulate the importers.

This Bill, in contrast, will create a regulatory regime to license small motorised vehicle importers directly under section 5 of the Act. Import regulation will effectively restrict competition in the market for small motorised vehicles to approved importers and to approved mobility devices. Further, the Bill's powers also extend to import of components for small motorised vehicles, which also affects repair services and even individuals who may wish to import spare parts for their own repairs. Overall, the regulations imposed by this Bill could create barriers to entry, which would harm consumers. It will be critical for LTA to implement a robust framework that ensures competition will be maintained while maintaining safety standards for users and the community.

My concerns range over three areas: who is allowed to import; what small motorised vehicles can be imported; and whether regulations will be made under the Act to cover competition in the market.

First, I wish to ask how the framework for approving importers will be applied and whether it will facilitate entry and competition in the market for small motorised vehicles. I am concerned that consumers may face higher prices and fewer choices if prospective dealers are unable to gain approval or are discouraged by high licensing requirements. In particular, will consumers have a choice to directly import their small motorised vehicles from overseas suppliers? For example, will overseas sellers be licensed to sell direct to consumers in Singapore or can consumers be licensed to import for private use if the vehicle meets standards?

Next, I wish to clarify the framework for approving small motorised vehicles for import. As Singapore is a small market, manufacturers may be reluctant to design small motorised vehicles to meet Singapore-specific requirements. Certification could also be costly.

Will study whether international design standards for small motorised vehicles such as those in force in China are suitable for Singapore? If so, will certifications from the relevant international authorities be acceptable for import purposes? Or is the intention to develop local certification capability and how quickly and cost effectively can that be done?

A related concern is on the import of small motorised vehicle components. A broad reading of the Act suggests components could also be subject to import control because these vehicles can be easily assembled from parts. If enforced strictly, this would affect competition in the market for servicing and repairs, and prevent consumers from sourcing their own repair parts from overseas.

Will LTA consider limiting import restrictions only to components which are integral to the small motorised vehicle or which are safety critical such as the motor, chassis and batteries?

Finally, I wish to ask whether LTA will consider competitive behaviour when making licensing decisions under this Act. I am concerned that these regulations will reduce the number of firms in the market and hence, enhance market power over consumers.

As we know, similar issues can arise in the motor vehicle market, which is dominated by a small number of firms who are the exclusive authorised dealers for the major car manufacturers. Within car brands, the only competition really comes from parallel importers. In the case of the car market, the barrier to entry, they are not just regulatory in nature, they arrive in the combination of the small domestic market, combine manufacturer's decisions to authorise dealers on an exclusive basis. Will LTA be able to regulate or to consider competitive conduct as a factor in licensing importers under this Bill? These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Muralli Pillai.

2.31 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support both Bills. I wish to seek clarification on two areas. First, the Authority's power of forfeiture of vehicles under both Bills; and second, the ambit of the definition of "path-connected open spaces" in the Active Mobility (Amendement No. 2) Bill or AMB, and plans under this Bill to harmonise the use of such spaces amongst pedestrians and vehicle users.

On the first issue, I wish to make two points. First, it is proposed to allow the Authority to order forfeiture of non-compliant vehicles if it is of the view there is a danger in storing them. Currently, the power of forfeiture is limited to situations where a person has been convicted or compounds an offence in relation to the Active Mobility Act (AMA), or the Road Traffic Act (RTA). Otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction on the issue of forfeiture.

In a situation where the Authority orders forfeiture of a non-compliant vehicle posing a hazard, there could be a perceived conflict of interest arising. This is because the Authority enforces the AMA and will also enforce the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill (SMVB) once it is enacted. The Authority prosecutes offenders under both bills. Then, the Authority exercises a power of forfeiture of this vehicle, that is subject matter of ongoing criminal proceedings.

Let us take an example of a person who was brought to book and charged in Court by the Authority for importing and using a non-compliant PMD. His PMD has been seized and stored by the Authority. He denies the charges. Criminal proceedings have commenced. Before it concludes, Authority takes the view that the continued storage of the PMD is dangerous and wants to have it forfeited. Under the provision, it can do so at once, without reference to the accused or the Court. I wonder whether it would be better to vest with the Court the jurisdiction to deal with such matters instead?

Next, under clause 15(4) of SMVB and the proposed section 51(4) of the AMA, the Authority will be vested with the power to release to a third party who claims to be the owner of a non-compliant vehicle even though it was used in a commission of an offence under SMVB and AMA.

From a policy view point, may I please ask, what is the purpose of providing to the Authority the power to release a non-compliant vehicle used in a commission of an offence back into public circulation? I believe the hon Member, Mr Louis Ng, made a similar point. It is noteworthy that the Authority, in the same provision, may refer the matter to the Magistrate who must order a forfeiture if he finds that the non-compliant vehicle was used in the commission of an offence. In other words, the Magistrate has no discretion and it seems to me that we may be proposing to give the Authority a wider power than the Magistrate.

We need to bear in mind that the purpose behind the SMVB is to dry up the number of non-compliant vehicles in Singapore. The hon Senior Minister of State, Dr Lam had already highlighted the fire hazard as well as the big numbers of non-compliant vehicles that were forfeited just last year.

Moving on to the second issue, I wish to first deal with the AMB provisions dealing with the extension of the public path system to include path connected open spaces. This makes eminent sense as it will harmonise enforcement against users who flout the rules on usage of pedestrian paths, footpaths and shared paths, thereby endangering other users; particularly pedestrians.

I have two queries on this point. First, the ambit of "path connected open spaces". Under the Active Mobility (Footpaths) Order 2018, void decks and the frontage abutting any commercial premises are excluded as footpaths. Under the proposed Bill, is it still the intention exclude both areas? If so, may I please ask why?

Void decks and frontage abutting commercial premises are sometimes connected to paths as well. We, in this House, are aware of incidents in the past involving people colliding with PMD users in void decks. This has led to 15 Town Councils to enact by-laws to ban use of PMDs at void decks. Would it not be better to harmonise the application of the laws dealing with PMD users under one Act?

Next, and this is my final point, in bringing path connected open spaces under the AMA, how is it proposed that the areas are demarcated as pedestrian paths, footpaths or shared paths respectively. It seems to me better to provide clear demarcation of areas where use of vehicles are permitted. This will augment the harmonisation of usage of paths and areas amongst pedestrians and vehicle users.

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

2.36 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, I support these two latest Bills to further strengthen safety in the use of PMDs.

We are all concerned about the safety of PMDs. Not only do they compromise the safety on shared paths, they also create fire risks when being charged.

The first line of defence is to stem the inflow of non-compliant PMDs into the country. Hence, banning the import of such devices is a concrete step. Last year, after a number of serious accidents involving PMDs occurred on footpaths, I asked for a temporary halt on PMD imports during a Parliamentary Question.

Requiring approvals from LTA is a necessary step. However, I will urge LTA to err on the safe side in the approval of the new devices as there will always be new and innovative devices that will be brought to the market; they may seem safe initially but develop unforeseen problems after some usage. We should not take chances on fire safety. Once the public has bought the devices and started using them, it would be very difficult to call back.

We also cannot rule out the possibility that some people might do illegal modifications on their devices, compromising the safety. Hence, can I ask the Minister if MOT sees the need to have a validity period for the approved devices, as the functionality and reliability of these devices may deteriorate over time? Is there a need for the devices to undergo inspection after some years of usage to ascertain their safety worthiness?

Besides being the approving authority for new devices, LTA can also regulate the number of devices allowed, given our limited pathways. Again, it is always better to be safe and conservative. One of the reasons why the public was concerned about PMDs last year was the sheer number and the high utilisation rate of these devices, increasing the likelihood of accidents.

Can I also ask whether LTA will take the delivery companies to task if their delivery people use devices that are not approved?

I support the immediate forfeiture of the devices assessed to be dangerous. This can also serve as another deterrence. I support these two amendment Bills.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

2.41 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the introduction of both Bills which will enhance safety for all as well as connectivity. I would like to begin with some concerns regarding the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill.

The proposal to put in upstream measures to prevent unauthorised import of non-compliant small motorised vehicles is absolutely necessary. These vehicles include personal mobility devices (PMDs) and power-assisted bicycles (PABs) which come in many configurations and specifications.

Very unfortunately, we have seen how, in the absence of import controls, how many of these devices had caused fires, resulting in injuries, loss of lives and property damage. In addition, some of these devices can attain maximum speeds way in excess of what is permitted and the speed differentials with other users on footpaths had led to accidents and serious injuries.

With the legislative framework in place, enforcement will be key. Would the Ministry share how it will monitor individuals who purchase online and import devices which may not be compliant with our regulations? How will MOT work with our Customs to check on these imports?

Another challenge is how MOT will check on those who modify the PMDs and PABs themselves as well as workshops or retail shops that are involved in illegal modifications. I would also like to know how the Ministry can enforce these regulations when users do not send their devices for registration and checks. So far, how many cases of non-compliant devices have been picked up? Would the Ministry consider recruiting volunteers who can be trained and deployed to assist enforcement officers? How about providing incentives or rewards to those who have assisted and given the necessary information regarding offenders?

Next, on the Active Mobility Bill. I am glad that LTA has widened the enforcement area to include path-connected open spaces against the illegal PMD riders on these paths. We have greater clarity now that it is specifically stated that paved open spaces can only be accessed by pedestrians, personal mobility aid users, bicycles and non-motorised PMDs. So, it is clear that connectivity is ensured for these groups of users, with their safety enhanced by keeping motorised PMDs, which can travel at higher speeds, out of these paths. This will promote responsible and sustainable usage of the paths for all. At the same time, we are encouraging a healthy way of transportation and reducing our carbon footprint while promoting active lifestyles.

Once again, my concern is about enforcement. I welcome the move to let LTA will take over the enforcement of offences under the AMA from the Town Councils. I would like to ask if we could tap on greater use of technology to boost our enforcement capabilities. Last but not least, I seek clarification about the age of offenders that the law will apply to as quite a number of such offenders in the past have been teenagers.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

2.45 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, the circuit breaker period has seen a rise in the number of visitors to the pockets of greenery around Singapore. Especially on the weekends, power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) cruising along the park connectors are a common sight. I expect that these small motorised vehicles will continue to be the favourable mode of transport in the current and post COVID-19 period, as people try to avoid taking public transport, while working some exercise and getting some fresh air into their new regimes. As Singaporeans turn to contactless delivery for their daily needs and wants, the number of trips taken and users of these vehicles will undoubtedly continue to rise.

It is, hence, very timely to address the concerns brought about by non-compliant devices. Last year, the number of fires related to charging and explosions of PMDs and PABs also doubled, causing property destruction, injuring inhabitants and even killing one. In densely-populated Singapore, this has a spillover effect to the neighbouring houses. Many residents have very valid concerns about the situation and I am glad the Minister has plans to tackle it with the establishment of an import controls regime to prevent the import of non-compliant and unsafe devices.

I wish to ask how enforcement will be implemented against online purchase of small motorised vehicles by individuals. These are questions that were raised by previous Members.

But I would like to ask whether spare parts, such as battery packs, wheel set-ups, attachments, amongst others, be covered under the new import controls regime? New innovations have made it possible to modify these vehicles. With some tools and online tutorials, one can even do it yourself at home. While a strict import controls regime will help to prevent innocent consumers from being misled into purchasing poor quality non-compliant products, there still remains individuals and businesses who have the capabilities to illegally modify a once-compliant product. Can the Minister share the challenges of apprehending such errant businesses and individuals and what is being done to mitigate them?

I believe heavier penalties and education would be a big part of the solution. I hope LTA will make a public list available for easy viewing that clearly defines what is illegal and dangerous and to update a list of approved vehicles and parts on a regular basis to stay abreast with the ever-changing technology and innovations. It is also prudent to provide a wide range of approved PMDs, including highly affordable models and for a range of uses, from leisure to those for heavier, prolonged use by delivery riders. That said, will the implementation of the new import regime incur resources and will this lead to increased import levies and so on? I am concerned that the extra cost will be passed on to consumers.

Lastly, on a positive note, I am pleased to observe that the circuit breaker has brought out the sporty side of Singaporeans. Despite social distancing measures, Singaporeans have found ways to keep fit alone, from following online fitness videos at home to working out, jogging and cycling near their homes. As flexible work-from-home arrangements persist after the circuit breaker, I believe Singaporeans will continue to persevere with these endeavours to keep fit.

Cycling is truly a great activity for both families and individuals. It is also a useful mode of transportation. Currently, most power-assisted bikes or bicylces on the list of Approved PABs are generally for city use. Can the Ministry look into other ranges, like electric mountain bikes, which is a new innovation – you can mountain bikes fitted with electric powered trains that can run mountain bikes on trails – to cater to sports enthusiasts? So, whether this covers this range of products in the future would be useful.

Mr Speaker, small motorised vehicles are essential to a car-lite Singapore and to be able to embrace wide-spread usage, it is critical that they are safe to use on the roads and in homes. As the circuit breaker comes to an end soon, slightly more people will start moving about in the community. Let us hope riders and users will not forget to comply with the rules on safe riding on footpaths and roads. Mr Speaker, I support both Bills.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

2.50 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support both Bills. Both Bills certainly address the safety aspect. The Bills will ensure that motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) and power-assisted bicycles (PABs) meet the pre-set specifications to minimise fire risks and lower risks of accidents on pathways.

I am glad that it is more clearly stated now which mobility devices are permitted on which paths, thus retaining connectivity for non-motorised PMDs and cyclists while limiting the motorised vehicles to certain paths.

However, I have two points to make.

First, I urge the Ministry to consider requiring cyclists and non-motorised PMD users to dismount and push their devices when they approach areas with fitness equipment, hardcourts or playgrounds as there are children running around and the elderly using the fitness equipment. Most usually dismount or even avoid these areas, but for those who do not, it would be dangerous. I will share an example.

There are a few playgrounds in my constituency in Henderson Dawson where there are little house-like structures that children love to play in. Why? Because the children love to play hide-and-seek there with one another. However, it is dangerous when a child suddenly runs out of this "home", and onto the path of a rider. As for elderly, their reflexes might be slower, and if there is an oncoming rider, they may not be able to move out of its path in time. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I suggest that the Minister should consider setting up regulations requiring cyclists and riders of non-motorised PMDs to dismount and push their vehicles when they are near playgrounds, exercise corners and any venues where people gather. This is because at these locations, there are always children running around and the elderly people walking nearby to use the exercise equipment, and accidents easily happen.

In my constituency, there are a few playgrounds with little houses and children love playing hide-and-seek there. When the kids suddenly run out of the small houses and dash onto the adjacent paths, they could be knocked down by the bicycles or PMDs. This is very dangerous. As for the elderly, their reflexes may be slower and if there are riders approaching, they may not be able to move away in time.

(In English): Second, it is essential for the Ministry to tailor its communications strategies and methods to different groups of users about where they can and cannot ride to prevent disputes and misunderstandings. It is important to explain the different aspects clearly and carefully so that all users know how to share the usage of paths responsibly. The public education programme should be continuous so that every cohort of riders and pedestrians is taught and reminded of the necessary etiquette on pathways. This is how we can maintain a safe environment for active mobility in Singapore.

Sir, I would like to conclude and look forward to the Ministry's response.

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

2.54 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill was passed in Parliament earlier this year to enhance the safety of PMD riders, as well as pedestrians who shared the same public space with them. The present proposed Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill is meant to further enhance the safety of PMD and PAB users by ensuring that the devices imported into Singapore meet the required safety standards.

Safety standards of PMDs and PABs came under scrutiny in 2019 as the number of PMDs catching fire, mostly during charging, had surged to a record high of 102 cases and there were 13 other fires related to PABs. These figures essentially translated into approximately one fire every three days.

In one of the worst cases, a homeowner died in hospital two days after he was rescued from a burning flat where the blaze was linked to three burnt e-scooters. And just recently on 20 May, three residents were taken to hospital due to a PAB fire. Not only do these fires impact the immediate users and family members of PMD/PAB users, they also affect the rest of the residents in the surrounding units as well.

The Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill is thus proposed with the view that we need to better safeguard the lives and property of PMD/PAB users by ensuring that these devices are safe for use and do not pose a threat to the users and those around them. I am in firm support of this.

Part 2, clauses 5 to 8 of the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill lays out the conditions regarding the import of small motorised vehicles and Part 3, clauses 9 to 15 of the Bill lays out the enforcement conditions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Bill has made provisions for the visible part of the market by regulating commercial import and sale of small motorised vehicles, I would like to ask, as some of my other colleagues have alluded to, to what extent does the Bill cover the "invisible" or grey market, that is, online? For instance, will the Bill restrict individuals from purchasing non-compliant PMD/PAB from online retailers who are located overseas and then bringing in these vehicles for their own personal use? Similarly, how would the Bill be applied to individuals who import or buy such vehicles online for their family members?

A casual search on online platforms, such as Carousell, reveals that there are many individuals who are reselling PMDs and PABs. I would like to ask: would the Bill also apply to these individuals who are thus not importing new non-compliant vehicles for sale but actually reselling vehicles that do not meet present safety standards?

While I do not have exact figures, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be reasonable to assume that the present circuit breaker (CB) measures have resulted in an increase in online commercial activity. So, it might be good for the Government to consider the Bill against the platform of online sales and "resales".

In the same vein, Mr Speaker, the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill complements the earlier Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill that was passed in Parliament this year to further enhance the safety of pedestrians by broadening the coverage of the original Bill to cover path-connected spaces to facilitate active mobility while also enhancing enforcement against active mobility violations.

The Bill introduces a new definition of "path-connected open spaces" that enable the authorities to designate substantially-levelled and unenclosed open spaces that are surfaced, such as courtyards, plazas and atriums, as pedestrian-only paths, footpaths or shared paths.

I believe these amendments will be welcomed by pedestrians, especially young families or the elderly who frequent neighbourhood malls where some riders can often be seen riding across the open-air atriums of these malls to reach their destinations. I have received feedback that examples of some areas where this has been happening with frequency are Buangkok Square, Punggol's Oasis Terrace and Westgate, just to name three.

However, Mr Speaker, I believe that while these amendments to the Bill will provide an additional safeguard to the well-being of pedestrians, we also need to ensure that the policy does not eventually make existing users of PABs worse off, especially those individuals like food delivery riders who depend on PABs for their livelihood.

Due to the recent amendments of the Bill, many food delivery riders who used to own PMDs have switched to PABs to complete their deliveries and they would, sometimes, ride into the atriums of the malls before dismounting from their PABs. With the new proposed amendments to the Bill, adequate parking spaces for PABs must be provided nearby so that delivery riders can park their PABs safely and securely, without having to ride into the atrium of the mall or to find suitable parking spaces that might be some distance away. That might also, of course, also impinge their mode of delivery.

Other malls, such as Funan Mall and Westgate, that currently provide a thoroughfare for cyclists and PABs users, could possibly thus have to rethink how to design and designate the use of their thoroughfare in view of these amendments.

I would thus urge the relevant authorities to work closely with property owners to identify how they can redesign their spaces so that their spaces continue to remain accessible to users, while still being safe for pedestrians and consumers.

I do have some other areas of concerns, Mr Speaker, quoting fire investigation reports, which suggest that most PMD and PAB fires are caused by illegally modified units, especially those units that have modified battery compartments.

While the Government may introduce Bills to prevent unauthorised entry of non-compliant devices, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the Government's position is with regard to individuals or businesses who engage in the unauthorised modification of PMDs and PABs since these modifications are often one of the main causes of fire. These PMDs/PABs might be compliant with standards when they were first imported but then eventually became "non-compliant" over time due to modifications that could eventually endanger the lives of users and others around them.

For example, there was a resident in my constituency who actually ran an informal PAB/PMD modification workshop from his HDB flat. Not only did the vehicles he modified endanger the lives of users, he also created potential fire hazards for his own family and immediate neighbours as his home and the public corridor were cluttered with tools of his trade like spare parts, battery compartments and wires. I had worked with the various agencies like LTA, Town Council, HDB and our grassroots leaders to try and address this issue but we were not quite clear about what guidelines with regard to legislation we could use to effect any change on the resident. The resident has since moved out but I believe problems like this might exist.

So, if these modified vehicles are indeed the main culprits of fire, then I urge the Government to take strong enforcement actions against owners of such vehicles and individuals or businesses that provide unauthorised modification services.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments are not only meant to further enhance and safeguard the well-being of PMD/PAB users, they are also meant to further protect other stakeholders, such as their families, neighbours and pedestrians.

As such, notwithstanding my clarifications, I conclude my speech in firm support of both Bills.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min.

3.02 pm

Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their queries, suggestions and support for the Bill.

Let me first address the points raised by Members that relate to the provisions in the two Bills before I address points on the broader active mobility landscape.

I am glad that many Members spoke up in support of the import controls regime, which will complement existing regulations on retailers against the display, advertisement and sale of non-compliant devices, and regulations on end users against the use of non-compliant devices.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Darryl David, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Melvin Yong, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Mr Gan Thiam Poh had asked whether the coverage of the regime would be sufficiently wide, and some have suggested that we go even further to stem an inflow of unauthorised devices. All fully-assembled motorised PMDs and PABs will need LTA's approval for import. This will apply regardless of who imports them, whether by a wholesaler or retailer to sell, or by an individual buying via an online platform, and regardless of the purpose for which the device is imported.

Members of Parliament have raised a range of views on whether to regulate the import of spare parts. While the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill does not cover the import of spare parts, some Members of Parliament have called for this to be regulated, since such parts may be used to create non-compliant devices. Others have pointed out that this would inconvenience users who source for their own spare parts and affect competition in the market for repairs.

For a start, we will apply the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill to fully assembled PMDs and PABs, but may, after monitoring the situation, extend import controls to cover partially assembled or completely unassembled vehicles, if necessary. LTA will continue to engage and work with industry partners on the process as we implement the import control regime.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira raised concerns over whether the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill would increase costs for businesses and consumers. We will work to keep the import process simple and import approval and application fees low. Details will be released at a later date.

To Mr Melvin Yong's query on whether the Bill will affect the Free Trade Agreements that Singapore has signed with other countries, MOT will administer the import control regime in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner, and is also working closely with MTI to ensure that Singapore continues to comply with our international trade obligations.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira mentioned that the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill would put in place an importer licensing regime. To clarify, clause 5 of the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill does not do this. It simply requires any entity that imports devices to obtain import approval from LTA for each import transaction. At the moment, we do not have plans to license the importer as that could be an additional regulatory burden and may restrict competition, as Assoc Prof Walter Theseira has pointed out.

Mr Dennis Tan asked why we took so long to put in place the import control regime. MOT and LTA have taken a calibrated approach in introducing device-related regulations. We had already put in place regulations that enforce against the sale, display, advertisement of non-compliant PMDs in 2017. As the number of non-compliant devices being used on public paths remains significant and, after receiving feedback from Members of Parliament, including Mr Dennis Tan, we embarked on an extensive study of implementing import controls, bearing in mind that it has to be done so in accordance with our FTA obligations. We have now, therefore, put in place this new piece in our regulatory framework.

Let me now move on to address questions posed by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Murali Pillai about our forfeiture regime in clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill 2020. There are currently more than 1,500 non-compliant devices held in LTA's holding yards. As Mr Louis Ng had rightly pointed out, many of these devices may be dangerous and pose significant fire risks. LTA has already put in place measures to mitigate these risks, including storing them in sheltered areas to avoid exposing them to harsh conditions, 24/7 monitoring of the holding yards, and installing fire extinguishers and sprinkler systems. Our proposal to shorten the forfeiture process for dangerous vehicles and things will enable LTA to better manage the risks from their prolonged storage. I would like to reassure Mr Dennis Tan that these vehicles are disposed of in a safe manner in LTA-appointed scrap-yards, where LTA will receive the residual value of the device, which is small. The batteries are also dismantled and sold off to battery recyclers appointed by NEA.

Even as we seek to curb the risks arising from non-compliant vehicles, we have not lost sight of the importance of preserving the property rights of individuals to their devices and things, bearing in mind that as I have explained in my opening speech, there could be legitimate uses of non-compliant devices. Mr Murali Pillai's concern on whether LTA is better placed to forfeit such vehicles or whether they should be left to the Courts to better safeguard individual property rights and due process, LTA will only seize and forfeit vehicles after LTA and relevant authorities have gathered supporting evidence and is reasonably certain that the vehicle was connected to the commission of an offence under the Active Mobility Act, Road Traffic Act or Small Motorised (Vehicles) Safety Bill. The prosecution for cases involving the devices will remain independent of the forfeiture.

There were also questions about the device disposal process and LTA's powers to return devices before disposal. LTA is required to provide a reasonable 30-day period for objections to be submitted before the disposal of the device.

This recognises that there may be legitimate claims to the seized vehicles. For instance, an individual whose device was stolen might have a legitimate claim for the PMD to be returned to him since he may have obtained an import approval to bring in a non-compliant device for R&D purposes. While Members of Parliament have suggested that LTA should not return any non-compliant seized vehicles at all despite legitimate claims, this may unfairly undermine the property rights of vehicle owners. That said, vehicle owners should bear responsibility for assessing whether their devices are safe, and should safely dispose devices that may become dangerous.

As to Mr Louis Ng's other question on notifying the owner before disposal, let me clarify that the requirements for LTA to give notice to the owner of the vehicle, under sections 45 or 46 of the Active Mobility Act, continue to apply. The only difference with clause 6(b) of the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill is that, for dangerous vehicles or things, LTA will not have to wait out for 30 days before forfeiture.

But let me assure Members that, where possible, LTA will reach out to the owner to notify them that their device is to be disposed of, on top of publication in the Gazette. The public notice in the Gazette is necessary as there will be situations where LTA is not otherwise aware of the owner of the vehicle or thing. LTA also publishes the disposal notice on its OneMotoring website to facilitate public awareness.

Let me move on to address questions about expanding the public path network by allowing path-connected open spaces to be declared as public paths. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has rightly observed, this extension complements our other efforts to ensure public path safety. Once these areas are public paths, all the other active mobility regulations, including speed limits, restrictions against reckless device usage, and the Code of Conduct, will apply.

The amendment in the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill will thus ensure connectivity for path users, provide greater clarity and assurance to all path users, and promote responsible and sustainable usage of the paths for all.

To answer Mr Murali Pillai's and Mr Dennis Tan's queries, LTA will specify which path-connected open space is a pedestrian-only area, a footpath, or a shared path. Most path-connected open spaces will be demarcated as footpaths, similar to the approach taken for paths today. LTA will work with local stakeholders on this and steps will be taken to demarcate the different types of paths by markings or signboards if deemed necessary.

To answer Mr Murali Pillai's question, LTA and Town Councils had earlier evaluated that void decks and the frontage of commercial spaces (which are today excluded from the public path system) were not critical for active mobility connectivity and had safety concerns, such as numerous blind spots. These spaces are currently regulated under Town Council by-laws.

As for Ms Joan Pereira's concern about certain areas, such as hard courts and playgrounds, LTA will work with the Town Councils to conduct ground enforcement and ensure safe device usage. Town Councils could also consider whether erecting physical barriers around playgrounds would be appropriate for keeping children out of harm's way. We will also keep up our education efforts to remind users to slow down when nearing areas with potential blind spots or which may be crowded, such as bus stops or playgrounds.

Many Members of Parliament have also taken the opportunity at this Second Reading of the two Bills to raise issues not directly concerned with either Bill, but on Active Mobility more generally. With the permission of Mr Speaker, I will deal with these very briefly.

Ultimately, as Mr Gan Thiam Poh has pointed out, the effectiveness of all our regulations boil down to enforcement. LTA has a comprehensive regime that enforces against non-compliant devices at multiple touchpoints, beyond registration and inspection. As I have mentioned earlier, in 2019 alone, LTA detected a total of 972 users riding non-compliant PMDs and PABs, and seized, forfeited and disposed of their devices.

I would like to assure Mr Dennis Tan that we are constantly improving our enforcement actions against illegal device usage. LTA has significantly grown its enforcement footprint to about 200 enforcement officers, allowing for more frequent patrols. LTA also works closely with enforcement officers across various agencies. To augment LTA's enforcement efforts, I agree with Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that we should enlist the aid of technology and the wider community. And we have done so. LTA has launched an 18-month trial of mobile closed-circuit televisions at hotspots to better detect offences, such as speeding. The "Report PMD/PAB Incident" function on the MyTransport.SG app also allows eye witnesses to report instances of errant behaviour.

As Mr Gan Thiam Poh has suggested, LTA has recruited Active Mobility Patrol volunteers to engage residents on active mobility rules and regulations. As of May 2020, we have over 1,000 AMP volunteers across 73 teams.

I would like to assure Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Daryl David and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that we will continue to come down hard, especially on retailers who sell non-compliant devices and individuals who illegally modify devices. This limits the circulation of non-compliant devices and reduces the likelihood that consumers purchase them inadvertently.

LTA passed amendments earlier this year to significantly increase the penalties for retailer offences and will require all retailers to send in their e-scooters for inspections before sale. We also require e-scooters to undergo regular inspections to ensure device safety and deter against illegal modification. LTA also monitors feedback relating to illegal modification of devices closely and conducts regularly checks on workshops and retailers to ensure compliance.

To answer Mr Gan Thiam Poh’s question about young offenders, the provisions in these current Bills do not stipulate a minimum age, but our Courts retain discretion to consider the circumstances of the case, including the age of the individual and the laws on sentencing of young offenders, in deciding the actual punishment to be meted out. On the observation that young riders have been committing active mobility offences, we recently passed amendments to require riders to be at least 16 years old to ride an e-scooter without supervision. We are also targeting younger riders in schools with our education efforts, such as the Safe Riding Programme, and like Mr Dennis Tan suggested, enhancing public education efforts, including reaching out through Active Mobility Patrol volunteers. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) has joined us in emphasising the importance of public education and engagement by designating this as a focus for their current term.

Another area of focus for the AMAP this year is to study extending third-party liability insurance requirements to individual device users, as Mr Melvin Yong has spoken about. AMAP and LTA are already working with the insurance industry to study the risk pool, design and structure of individual insurance options. In the meantime, we strongly encourage individual active mobility device riders to purchase third-party liability insurance for their own protection against third-party claims.

Since May 2019, we have stepped up the level of active mobility enforcement consistently in view of rising public path safety concerns. I assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that even during the circuit breaker period, LTA has continued to mount regular active mobility enforcement operations to enforce against errant riders.

I would like to also assure Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Dennis Tan that LTA continues to work closely with food delivery companies to ensure that they behave responsibly, including ensuring that their riders use devices that comply with active mobility regulations. It has been challenging for our enforcement officers to balance all aspects of their enforcement duties with their concurrent responsibilities to enforce against breaches of safe distancing measures. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our enforcement officers for their service.

With the necessary infrastructure and regulatory regime, I am optimistic that active mobility will be more widely adopted. As Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Melvin Yong and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira have noted, the active mobility landscape will continue to evolve.

LTA will remain open to including new devices types in its publicly available list of approved device models, or consider new device safety standards for use on paths and roads, provided they are suitable for our local context.

Ensuring fire and device safety is the responsibility of every device user – it is necessary to protect riders themselves and their loved ones. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had expressed concern over a recent fire incident in Yishun. Even as we tighten our regulatory regimes at different levels, let me take this opportunity to remind all device users to practise safe charging habits. Devices should not be left charging without monitoring, or overnight. Users should not modify the electrical systems of their devices and should only use original power adaptors and approved battery models for that vehicle type. LTA is working with SCDF to strengthen educational campaigns and outreach programmes.

I concur with Mr Liang Eng Hwa that we should strive to ensure that infrastructure is more than adequate for the active mobility device population. Mr Liang also asked if we should set an effective life span for approved PMDs. I would like to share that there is currently no intention to do so as the regular periodic inspection regime will ensure that the devices remain compliant and safe for use. Even though the PMD population has right-sized following the November 2019 footpath prohibition, we are nonetheless pressing on with the provision of more active mobility infrastructure, extending the cycling path network to 1,320 km by 2030 as I had shared with this House in March 2020.

To Mr Dennis Tan's query, we had planned for eight in 10 HDB households to be minutes away from the expanded cycling path network by 2026, where PMD riders will only need to push their PMDs for a short distance. This will put us on a more sustainable trajectory, as active mobility adoption continues to increase.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, we remain committed to ensuring a safe active mobility landscape, especially with regard to path and fire safety. The Bills today help to ensure that devices are safe by controlling their import into Singapore. They also allow LTA to shorten the forfeiture process for devices that pose significant safety risks, and expand the public path network to include certain open spaces, so that active mobility devices can be used safely in accordance with our regulations.

Even as we tighten our regulatory regime at different levels, all device users need to use original power adaptors and approved battery models for that vehicle type. Do not be careless and leave devices charging overnight without monitoring.

The Government will strive to ensure that infrastructure is more than adequate for the active mobility device population. We plan to expand the cycling path network by 2026. Then, eight in 10 HDB households will be minutes away from the expanded cycling path network. If our plans come to fruition, LTA will also expand the cycling path network to 1,320 km by 2030.

(In English): We have come a long way in our journey on the active mobility front. We may not have had all the answers right from the beginning, but I am thankful for the guidance, the feedback and support Members of this House have given me and my predecessors over the years. To quote Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, one of our greatest advocates for PMDs safety, "Everyone has a shared responsibility for staying safe in their environment." Indeed, the Government cannot do this alone. We need the collective effort of everyone – the active mobility users, the retailers, the pedestrians and other road users. We will continue with our efforts to work towards a safer, more sustainable active mobility landscape. Let us all stay safe together, active together, SG Together. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Clarifications? None.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Lam Pin Min].

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