(function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();

geraldgiam.sg

Alternative proposals for a better Singapore

Unmanned Aircraft (Public Safety and Security) Bill


Speech in Parliament on 11 May 2015

Amazon's Octocopter

Mdm Speaker,

Unmanned aircraft, also known as an unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) or “drones”, are aircraft which can be operated without a human pilot on board. This Bill introduces a new regulatory framework to address security and safety concerns posed by unmanned aircraft flying in Singapore’s airspace.

Until recently, drones were better known for their ability to spy on enemy movements in the battlefield or deliver precision strikes on terrorists in troubled regions. However, in the past few years, drones have been more commonly mentioned for their commercial and civilian, rather than military, uses.

There is the “Octocopter”, which online retailer Amazon is planning to use to deliver packages in as little as half an hour after the purchase. Drones are also being used for aerial photography, patrolling of secure areas, inspecting ships and oil spills, and search and rescue operations, to name just a few.

In introducing this new regulatory framework, the Government should take care to avoid hindering commercial developments by placing too heavy a regulatory burden on the drone market. This is so that our companies and our local entrepreneurs can benefit from, and contribute to, some of the promising innovations in this exciting new space.

Drone regulations

The Bill empowers the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), with the approval of the Minister for Transport, to make orders and regulations with regard to unmanned aircraft. The detailed regulations have not been spelled out in this Bill, although some have been mentioned in media reports (and in the Minister’s speech).

I would like to clarify if the following regulations are on the cards:

First, will the regulations specify that drones must keep a safety distance from persons, vehicles, buildings or structures, as well as from congested areas or large groups of people, such as sporting events or concerts?

Second, on requiring “geo-fencing”. Flying drones within 5 kilometres of an aerodrome is already prohibited under the Air Navigation Order. However, there is a risk that drone operators may unintentionally fly too close to an aerodrome or military installation. This will pose not just a security risk, but also a safety threat to aircraft taking off and landing. As such, has the CAAS considered requiring drones above a certain weight or size to be equipped with geo-fencing capabilities? Using geo-fencing, the drone can be programmed with the co-ordinates of aerodromes and security-sensitive areas in Singapore. If it tries to enter these areas, it will be forced to turn around or land. I understand that many commercial drones already come equipped with geo-fencing capabilities, so it should not pose too much of a regulatory burden for these drone operators.

Third, CAAS regulations currently prohibit a drone from being flown beyond the normal unaided “line of sight” of the person operating it. However, there are currently beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS) technologies being developed, which enable a drone operator to make course changes to avoid obstacles, including other aircraft, using on-board cameras. It was recently reported that the US Federal Aviation Administration is working with private companies to test commercial drones that can fly beyond an operator’s line of sight. This will open up the possibility for more sophisticated drone operations such as package delivery. While it is still early days for this technology, I hope that CAAS remains open to issuing permits, on a case-by-case basis, to companies to test-bed such technologies in Singapore so that we maintain an edge over our overseas competitors.

Fourth, it was reported that all commercial drone operators will need to apply for a permit. Can the Minister explain why is this requirement being imposed on all commercial operators? Is the risk posed by commercial operators higher than that of, say, hobbyists? Would it not be fairer to require permits only for drones above a certain weight or size, rather than placing a permit requirement on all commercial operators?

Fifth, if commercial operators are required to apply for a permit, then it is important that the assessment criteria for permit approvals be made transparent, in terms of the specifications of the drones, the types of commercial uses that will be allowed and whether there would be any requirements for operators in terms of training and qualifications. If this law is to be effected on 1 June 2015, which is just over two weeks from now, then sufficient time must be given to operators obtain the permits without interrupting operations.

And sixth, CAAS has said it will serve as a one-stop centre for all drone permit applications. This is a welcome move. I hope this will help reduce red tape and the time taken for permit approvals. Can the Minister share what the typical waiting time for a permit approvals is expected to be, so that commercial operators can better plan their schedules and operations?

Security

I have some security concerns about the risk of drones being used for terrorist activities. While this Bill will probably be effective in preventing law-abiding drone operators from unintentionally causing harm to persons and property, it is unlikely to stop a determined terrorist from using a drone to fly explosives, or chemical or biological agents into key installations or large crowds, causing mayhem, fatalities and serious injuries.

It is important that our security agencies develop plans for detecting, intercepting and taking down rogue drones. These include acquiring systems to “detect and defeat” drones. I note that Clauses 13 and 17 give the authorities the power to direct a drone operator to change course or assume control of the drone, by force if necessary, to end the flight of the drone in the fastest and safest practicable way.

However, detecting and defeating rogue drones is not a straightforward task. Most drones are small, move slowly and fly low, which makes it difficult for radar to detect them. To “defeat” a detected drone by shooting it down or jamming its control signals could risk injuring innocent bystanders when it plunges to the ground, particularly if it contains a hazardous payload.

According to The Economist, there are currently systems that can hijack a drone’s navigation and control systems, and fly it to a desired location, or to use another drone to catch the rogue drone in a net. In addition, there are technologies available to track the control signals of a rogue drone back to its human operator, and intercept the operator. Has the Government already acquired such systems to deal with rogue drones?

Also, will there be any enhanced penalties for anyone convicted of using a drone to carry out a serious crime, as is being proposed in the state of Washington in the US?

Privacy

Finally, this Bill does not appear to address data protection or privacy issues with regards to the use of drones. My concern is mainly with the possibility of drones being used to take photographs of people or private property in a manner that infringes individuals’ privacy. Do current laws already provide for data protection and privacy from drones? I hope the Minister can explain how these laws are adequate and what the penalties are for violators.

Madam, I support the Bill.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Third-Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Bill


Speech in Parliament on 11 May 2015

Taxi booking mobile app

Mdm Speaker,

This Bill introduces a framework to regulate third-party taxi booking service providers, which include taxi booking mobile applications.

In recent years, the near-ubiquity of smart phones in Singapore has facilitated the entry of several taxi booking mobile apps like Uber, GrabTaxi and Easy Taxi. Most of these apps allow passengers to book rides with any taxi driver, even independent limousine drivers, unlike the booking services run by taxi operators which are limited to a smaller pool of drivers. This can provide better matching of passenger demand with taxi supply.

Some of these apps allow passengers to track the cab driver’s location, contact the driver directly, rate their drivers and even share a cab with others who are travelling the same route. They help reduce transaction costs, while encouraging taxi drivers to maintain high levels of service.

They are a win-win for both passengers and taxi drivers. Passengers enjoy greater convenience booking cabs, and drivers have easier access to a wider pool of passengers. I understand some enterprising Singaporeans have started their own limousine companies and receive their bookings through these apps. A larger supply of drivers could help address the perennial problem of not enough taxis being available during peak hours or when there is a heavy downpour.

With these “disruptive” technologies, the dominant taxi operators have to up their game or risk losing drivers to rivals. Their drivers could decide to switch to other operators who charge cheaper taxi rentals, while still receiving enough bookings via mobile apps. This could put downward pressure on rentals charged by taxi operators, which will benefit cab drivers.

Third-party taxi booking services could encourage greater competition, innovation and service quality, and improve customer satisfaction. In regulating third-party taxi booking service providers, the Government should focus more on maximising benefits to consumers and taxi drivers, and less on protecting a particular business model or existing taxi operators.

I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on Clause 10(b), in which the regulator, in deciding whether to register an applicant, “must have regard” to the demand for third-party taxi booking services in Singapore. Does this mean that if supply of these booking services exceeds demand, as assessed by LTA (Land Transport Authority), the regulator may decide not issue a taxi booking service licence?

Can the Minister explain why the LTA needs to base its licensing decision on demand for third-party taxi booking services? Is it not the responsibility of potential entrants to assess the viability of their own business models? If the service being provided by the new entrant is more attractive, this will give consumers more choice and consumers will naturally gravitate to them, with weaker players fading out. I don’t think the Government needs to make this decision for consumers.

Overall, I am glad to see that this Bill does not go the way of several other cities that have implemented outright bans on drivers accepting bookings via certain ridesharing apps. It is not a free-for-all, where any private car driver can accept bookings via these apps. At the same time, the regulations require basic consumer protections to be in place, like requiring drivers to be properly insured, conducting background and health checks on drivers and prohibiting overcharging of passengers.

Madam, I support the Bill.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Limits on transport of gold in and out of Singapore


Gold Bars

This is the transcript of the exchange I had with Mr S. Iswaran, Second Minister for Home Affairs, during Question Time in Parliament on 13 April 2015. My question was prompted by reports that a North Korean diplomat was caught at the airport in Dhaka, Bangladesh, with 27 kg of undeclared gold, after arriving on a flight from Singapore, where he had transited.

In his reply, the Second Minister said that there is no weight limit on the amount of gold that travellers are allowed to transport in and out of Singapore. He added that it is “not uncommon, especially for travellers to certain parts of the world to carry what you and I might consider not insignificant amounts of gold in their personal baggage. If they are able to give a clear explanation that these are their personal effects or for personal consumption purposes, generally they would be allowed to carry on with their travel with those items.”

————–

LIMITS ON TRANSPORT OF GOLD AND OTHER PRECIOUS METALS IN AND OUT OF SINGAPORE
(Whether diplomatic immunity extends to such transport)

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the weight limit on the transport of gold and other precious metals in and out of Singapore by individual travellers; (b) whether diplomats are exempt from this limit, if any; (c) whether the Police is aware of a diplomat carrying up to 27 kg of gold bars in his luggage on a flight out of Changi Airport in March 2015; and (d) what measures are in place to ensure that diplomats do not abuse their diplomaticimmunity to carry precious metals, drugs or weapons in and out of Singapore in their luggage.

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Speaker, there is no weight limit on the amount of gold and other precious metals that can be transported in and out of Singapore by travellers. In line with the international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, our measures and controls are focused on the point of sale of such items in Singapore.

All precious stones and metal dealers (PSMDs) are required to conduct customer due diligence and file a Cash Transaction Report (CTR) with the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office when they sell any precious stone, precious metal or precious product to a customer in cash exceeding S$20,000. This is supplemented by the general suspicious transaction reporting (STR) regime, which requires all persons in Singapore to report any knowledge or reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct which comes to their attention in the course of business or employment.

Police is aware of media reports of a case last month where a person allegedly attempted to import gold into another country without making the proper customs declarations, after arriving on a flight originating from Singapore. Police records indicate that the person, who is a foreign diplomat, but not accredited to Singapore, did depart on a flight from Changi Airport where he was screened before boarding and no security threat items were found on him.

All diplomats, like other travellers, are screened for threat items before they are allowed on board an aircraft. This involves the use of metal detectors for person checks, and x-ray screening for their belongings. Although the personal baggage of diplomats are generally exempted from inspection under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), a diplomat’s personal baggage will be inspected if there are serious grounds for believing that he is carrying prohibited or controlled items, such as weapons and drugs.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Second Minister for the reply. I have two supplementary questions: first, why was there no detection of the alleged items in his baggage, given that it was detected when he arrived in Bangladesh? The Second Minister said that no security threat items were discovered. I suppose this does not include gold. Would the diplomat have been allowed to transport that amount of gold, allegedly, through Changi Airport on that day?

Secondly, under the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic bags carried by diplomats are protected from search and seizure. This means they need not pass through security screening. How does the Police ensure that this is not exploited as a security loophole for terrorists or trafficking activities? I am concerned about this because there is no limit to the size of the “dip bag” (diplomatic bag), and there have international incidents in the past where “dip bags” have been used to smuggle a variety of banned items, including drugs, weapons and even people.

Mr S Iswaran: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. First, gold is not a security threat item, and that is why it was not subjected to a security threat screen. Our officers would conduct a normal security threat screen, and if items such as weapons or suspicious objects, or things like large amounts of cash are detected, then they tend to follow through on further checks, as required by the protocol. So, the Member should be clear that this is the context. There was no lapse in terms of security threat assessment and the checks that go with it, as part of the pre-boarding screening.

Secondly, the Member talks about diplomatic bags and I think he is getting a few things mixed up here. The “dip bags” are separate to the personal bags of diplomats. Diplomatic bags have a certain kind of treatment, but diplomats who are travelling and carrying personal bags are subject to pre-board screening, like all other travellers, as I have said. That is the protocol that is observed, not just in Singapore but internationally, because that is what is necessary to ensure safety in aviation and in travel.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Second Minister for his replies. Two points: first, in response to his second point, I am aware that only the “dip bags” are excluded from screening. So, my question is: given that these bags are excluded from screening, would that pose a security threat or threat of smuggling of any other items.

On the first point about the gold, I acknowledged that it was not a security threat item. But would this amount of gold have been allowed to pass through if it was detected without being declared.

Mr S Iswaran: Madam, on the first question, if there is suspicion or serious suspicion that there is a matter of security threat, then the police and the relevant agencies are not constrained from making the appropriate checks on the various items that may be carried by diplomats. It is an international protocol that we observe. So, any risk that the Member imputes to be associated with such practice is a risk that is internationally acknowledged as well. It is not peculiar to the Singapore regime.

Secondly, on the amount of gold and whether therefore it would have been allowed to pass, I want to reiterate first the point that we do not have any controls on the quantity of these precious metals, et cetera, that are being exported out of Singapore, and usually there are certain basic conditions that they observe when they do so. The Member should also be aware that it is not uncommon, especially for travellers to certain parts of the world to carry what you and I might consider not insignificant amounts of gold in their personal baggage. If they are able to give a clear explanation that these are their personal effects or for personal consumption purposes, generally they would be allowed to carry on with their travel with those items.

—-

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Update on TPP negotiations


Parliamentary Question, 13 April 2015

UPDATE ON TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP NEGOTIATIONS

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) if he can provide an update on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations; (b) when is the Agreement expected to be successfully concluded; (c) what are the key obstacles that need to be overcome; (d) to what extent the TPP is likely to improve market access for Singapore-based firms in US, Japan and other markets; and (e) what are our economic agencies doing to prepare Singapore firms, especially SMEs, to take advantage of the improved market access that a successfully concluded TPP can bring.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is envisioned as a high-quality agreement that will boost regional economic integration and improve market access for our exports. It also serves as a possible pathway towards an eventual Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP).

Significant progress has been made over the past five years of negotiations. All Parties are working hard to conclude negotiations as soon as possible given the economic and strategic importance of this agreement.

Singapore already has bilateral FTAs with nine of the eleven TPP Parties. The additional economic benefit of the TPP will come through enhanced cooperation on regulatory measures, and integration of this region into a single manufacturing base and market. Our businesses will find it easier to operate across all TPP countries, and participate in the global supply chain. Furthermore, common trade facilitation rules across TPP Parties will reduce compliance costs for businesses and generate substantial gains in supply chain efficiency for traders operating across them. These benefits are particularly important for SMEs, which will be able to operate with reduced cost and greater certainty. The TPP will also include disciplines on new growth sectors such as e-Commerce and Intellectual Property, which will help foster innovation and commercialisation of new insights and discoveries to benefit consumers.

IE Singapore promotes the awareness and utilisation of the various FTAs we have signed among Singapore-based companies, big and small, through both customised and broad-based outreach efforts. These include one-on-one briefings and consultations to companies and industries, as well as seminars co-organised with Trade Associations and Chambers to inform and educate the business community on the benefits of each FTA. There are also a range of capability-building initiatives such as the FTA Certificate Programme for companies and train-the-trainer sessions for Trade Associations and Chambers. Feedback channels are also open to companies to assist them with FTA implementation issues.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Early CPF withdrawals on medical grounds


Parliamentary Question, 13 April 2015

STATISTICS ON APPLICATIONS FOR CPF WITHDRAWALS

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower for each year since 2005 (a) how many CPF members have successfully applied for CPF withdrawals on each of the following medical grounds: (i) permanently incapacitated from ever continuing in any employment (ii) terminally ill with a life expectancy of 12 months or less (iii) suffering from a severely shortened life expectancy (iv) mentally incapable of handling and receiving monies (v) other reasons; (b) what is the proportion of successful applications which have been granted a full CPF withdrawal; and (c) how many applications have been rejected.

Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: CPF members with serious medical conditions can apply for an early withdrawal of CPF savings under the CPF Medical Grounds Scheme. The current scheme was introduced in July 2006, and there are four grounds for qualifying under the scheme. Members who wish to make withdrawals on any of these grounds will need to have their medical conditions certified by a doctor either from a public medical institution or the CPF Board’s panel. Members who are terminally ill will be able to withdraw their retirement savings in full. Members who are permanently incapacitated from ever continuing in any employment, suffer from an unsound mind or have a severely reduced lifespan will be able to withdraw their retirement savings after setting aside a reduced Retirement Sum at the point the application is granted.

The number of CPF members who have successfully applied for CPF withdrawals under the Medical Grounds Scheme since 2007 is as follows:

CPF Withdrawals on Medical Grounds

About two-thirds of applications between 2007 and 2014 under the Medical Grounds Scheme were successful. The remaining applications were rejected as the applicants were unable to provide the required certification from the approved doctors.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Net neutrality and charging for WhatsApp, Skype


In January this year, Singtel CEO Chua Sock Koong reiterated her belief, which she first made public last year, that telcos should be allowed to charge major Internet content providers ­like WhatsApp, Facebook and YouTube­ for consumers to have faster access to their content. Many saw this as a violation of the principle of net neutrality, which has been a subject of intense debate in the US.

Today in Parliament, I sought clarification from the Minister on the Government’s position on net neutrality, and in particular the the imposition of extra charges for services like WhatsApp and Skype, which consumers currently enjoy for free (except for their regular data charges). The Minister provided the written reply (below) that “ISPs in Singapore cannot impose extra charges on consumers or providers of over-the-top (OTT) services like WhatsApp and Skype where these harm competition or end-users’ interests.”

—————————

Parliament Question, 13 April 2015

NET NEUTRALITY REGULATIONS TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATORY NETWORK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to “net neutrality” (a) whether Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or network operators are allowed to (i) throttle legitimate Internet content, albeit without rendering them unusable and still remaining above the threshold of IDA’s minimum Quality of Service (QoS) requirements; (ii) impose extra charges on consumers or providers of over-the-top (OTT) services like WhatsApp and Skype; and (b) whether there are any plans to introduce net neutrality regulations to prohibit discriminatory network management practices which negatively affect consumers’ experience when using legitimate Internet services.

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: IDA’s net neutrality policy was developed in 2011 after consultation with the industry and the public. IDA’s policy aims to encourage innovative services by ISPs, while protecting consumers’ interest in enjoying quality Internet access. For example, ISPs in Singapore can manage bandwidth usage during peak hours to ensure that user experiences are generally not affected. Certain applications which take up a lot of bandwidth, such as the exchange of files, may be managed during these periods. However, they are not allowed to block legitimate Internet content altogether.

IDA’s policy also allows ISPs to offer differentiated services tailored to the needs of different users, while complying with IDA’s information transparency, Quality of Service standards and fair competition requirements. These providers must publish their network management policies, so that consumers can make informed choices when selecting a service plan. For example, some ISPs have introduced specialised broadband plans for Internet gamers who desire fewer delays in Internet connection and/or direct connection to gaming servers. We understand that regulators in the US and European Union do not prohibit such practices.

ISPs in Singapore cannot impose extra charges on consumers or providers of over-the-top (OTT) services like WhatsApp and Skype where these harm competition or end-users’ interests.

Since the formalisation of the net neutrality policy, IDA has monitored market practices and has not found any pattern to suggest that ISPs are operating in breach of this policy.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Vaccinations for children (MOH)


Committee of Supply Debate, Ministry of Health, 12 March 2015

Sir,

The National Childhood Immunisation Schedule (NCIS) lists seven vaccinations against infectious diseases for children under 18 months. All are free at polyclinics, except the pneumococcal disease vaccination.

Although Medisave and the Child Development Account can be used to pay for it, these have alternative uses. Some parents may decide against this vaccination if they have to pay, especially if they are not aware of the dangers of this disease. It is the leading infectious cause of death in children worldwide, and can cause deafness, brain damage, paralysis and even death. There were 146 cases diagnosed last year in Singapore.

Can the Minister share what percentage of children above 2 years have been immunised against pneumococcal disease?

Why is pneumococcal disease on the NCIS as recommended by the Expert Committee on Immunisation, but not provided for free? Making it free could encourage a higher take up rate and build up herd immunity against the disease, which occurs only when a significant portion of a population is immunised.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Data on health inequalities (MOH)


Committee of Supply Debate, Ministry of Health, 12 March 2015

Mdm Chair,

MOH has released a good amount of health-related data on its websites and in response to Parliamentary questions, and I appreciate the Ministry’s willingness to release this data. However, there remain some information gaps which I hope can be addressed.

We typically see health reports from MOH stratifying disease rates by ethnicity, gender and age, but seldom by income level. Several studies in other countries have found an association between income and health, with low income households tending to have poorer health.

Collecting data by income brackets could help the Government better calibrate social and health programmes. If socioeconomic factors indeed affect Singaporeans’ health status, then social interventions should be used to complement healthy-lifestyle campaigns targeting particular races, genders or age groups. If such data has already been collected, then it should be made available to researchers and the public.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Drones and driverless cars (MOT)


Committee of Supply Debate, Ministry of Transport, 11 March 2015

Mdm Chair,

New transport technologies like drones and self-driving cars have the potential to improve our quality of life, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth. It is important that regulation stays ahead of the curve, so as to provide a welcoming environment for these technologies, while addressing safety and security concerns.

Commercial aerial drones have seen an explosion of interest in recent years. They have found an eager marketplace among movie-makers, online retailers and security companies, just to name a few. Even the National Environment Agency (NEA) is reportedly planning to use drones to search for mosquito breeding grounds. Global spending on drones could be almost US$100 billion over the next decade.

There are legitimate concerns about safety, security and privacy, but these can and should be addressed without stifling innovation. MOT said that it has started reviewing the regulatory framework for drones. May I ask for an update, including when the public consultation will take place and when the review will be completed?

Self-driving cars will revolutionise the urban transport scene. They are potentially safer, and can drastically reduce the car population, free up car park space and cut down on emissions. Many countries are in the process of passing laws to allow driverless cars to be tested on public roads, including Sweden, Japan and several US states. Big technology companies and major car-makers, as well as some local research institutions and companies, are all racing to develop their own self-driving cars.

As with drones, I believe Singapore is in an excellent position to lead the world in the adoption of driverless cars, but we must ensure that legislation promotes, and does not inhibit, the test-bedding and public use of these vehicles.

Government regulation in many countries often lags behind technology. Singapore should strive to do things differently, and be among the first to reap the social and economic benefits of these innovations.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Public transport for people with disabilities (MOT)


Committee of Supply Debate, Ministry of Transport, 11 March 2015

Mdm Chair,

Public transport accessibility is a key enabler for people with disabilities to commute for work and leisure, empowering them to be more independent, and enjoy more fulfilling lives and productive careers. This will more fully tap the potential of many Singaporeans.

Much progress has been made over the years to make our buildings and public transport system more accessible. I am of the view that Singapore should strive to become a world leader in public transport accessibility.

We should strive provide accessibility from door-to-door, especially for wheelchair users and visually-impaired residents, including the “first and last mile” routes between bus stops and homes, which could be located anywhere on the island.

Currently only 14% of the 6,000 signalised pedestrian crossings in Singapore are equipped with audible pedestrian signals (APS). This means that visually-impaired pedestrians may still face difficulty crossing the remaining 86%.

Noise disturbance has been cited as a reason for not installing more APS or extending their operating hours. Can I suggest that tactile pedestrian signals be installed at all signalised crossings, as is common in cities like Geneva? (See Fig. 1 and 2 below.) These are little arrows located next to the crossings, which vibrate when the green man lights up.

Tactile announcements can also be used at all bus stops to inform visually-impaired commuters of the incoming bus service number, without disturbing nearby residents.

LTA says that about 50% of buses are currently wheelchair accessible and it aims for 100% coverage by 2020 while SBS Transit is aiming for 2023. Can MOT push for a fully wheelchair accessible fleet to be rolled out earlier, for the benefit of wheelchair users, which nowadays include an increasing number of elderly residents?

Tactile pedestrian signal
Fig. 1: Tactile pedestrian signal in Geneva

Tactile pedestrian signal
Fig. 2: Tactile pedestrian signal (view from below)

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment