Round Up Speech by Acting Minister for Transport Jeffrey Siow for Second Reading of Land Transport and Related Matters Bill

Mr Speaker,

1.           On behalf of my colleagues at the Ministry of Transport, and at the Ministry of Home Affairs, I would like to first thank Members for their thoughtful speeches on this Land Transport and Related Matters Bill over the past two days.

2.           There were 24 speeches in total by fellow members. To be honest, my colleagues and I were not expecting this much interest in our Bill.

a.    But we are humbled and appreciative, because the speeches reflect how land transport  is always top of mind for Singaporeans and there are many stakeholders and many points of view.

b.    We have taken in Members’ feedback and suggestions to the best of our ability.

3.           Senior Minister of State Sim Ann and Minister of State Baey Yam Keng have addressed the points raised on enforcement and on active mobility.

a.    I will round up the debate with points related to ERP 2 and other amendments covered in this Bill.

b.    For other topics that are not within the scope of this Bill, I would like to invite members to file  Parliamentary Questions at future sessions.  

Responses to MPs’ questions

4.           Let me start with the comments made by Dr Choo Pei Ling, Ms Valerie Lee, and Dr Hamid Razak on the decriminalisation of missed ERP payments.

a.    Indeed, most missed ERP payments are due to genuine oversight rather than an intent to avoid payment.

b.    This amendment would therefore make the penalties more proportionate to the offence. It is, in Dr Hamid’s words, a more mature regulatory approach.

5.           Dr Choo asked whether shifting the onus for missed ERP payments to vehicle owners instead of the driver would create complications for shared vehicles.

a.    LTA has discussed these changes with fleet operators and taxi operators.

b.    Today, vehicle owners are already responsible for obligations and fees, such as road tax, so putting the responsibility of missed ERP payments on the owner would be consistent.

c.    We expect vehicle owners, such as shared fleet owners, to establish their own arrangements with the drivers to recover missed ERP payments, if necessary.

6.           Dr Choo, Ms Tin Pei Ling, as well as Mr Melvin Yong also asked about plans for distance-based charging.

a.    As I mentioned yesterday, I do not intend to implement distance-based charging immediately. I would like the transition to ERP 2 to be as smooth as possible. So it is best to let the situation stabilise and to have motorists get used to the new system, before too many parameters, or new ones, are introduced.

b.    Distance-based charging is still an option for the future. We have to study this further, as there are many trade-offs involved, as many Members have pointed out. But if we decide to implement distance-based charging, motorists will have ample notice.

7.           Our desire to have a smooth transition is also why we are keeping the broad framework on ERP charges for now. 

a.          I would like to assure members that ERP rates will continue to be reviewed on a quarterly basis, using ERP data, or rather, ERP 2 data, which will now be more accurate and reliable.

b.    The infrastructure light nature of ERP 2 does mean that we can more easily adjust locations where we can have road pricing. Therefore, we can react more quickly to mitigate traffic congestion at hotspots, including in areas where it may not be physically possible to add an ERP 1 gantry today.

Use of ERP 2 Data

8.           Mr Dennis Tan asked how we will manage ERP 2 data.

9.           This is a topic we have discussed before, and have also discussed the use of Government data during the last Parliament sitting, when we passed the Public Sector (Governance) Act.

10.      LTA adheres to all laws and Government-wide standards on data sharing with other agencies; and this includes how we manage ERP 2 data.

a.    As we have said before, LTA will use vehicle-specific data only for payment, charges and enforcement. And this will include non-payment of ERP charges and cross-border taxi enforcement.

b.    To prevent unauthorised access to the data, there are security measures and safeguards in place.

c.    For example, the design of the OBU is in line with the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) level 4 security standard with cryptographic security keys.

11.      Mr Edward Chia spoke extensively on how ERP 2 can support smarter traffic management and transport planning.

a.    My colleagues at LTA strongly agree. LTA is indeed excited by this possibility and will indeed use anonymised or aggregated ERP 2 data for traffic management and transport planning purposes

b.    For example, we are experimenting with merging or using this data to optimise the traffic light signal system, amongst other use cases that we are exploring. 

c.    There is certainly great potential to improve traffic management using ERP 2 data. As we get better doing  so, it may well be feasible to create more capacity on the roads without taking up more land. Potentially this can allow us to have some future growth in our car population.

Implementation of ERP 2

12.      As we move closer towards completing the transition to ERP 2, we are also addressing the final technical difficulties preventing some vehicles from installing OBUs.

a.    For instance, some electric vehicle models are unable to provide a constant power supply to the OBU. To overcome this, LTA has developed an External Battery Device to allow for the installation of OBUs for these vehicles.

b.    Where technical problems cannot be resolved, such as old cars on the Classic or Vintage Vehicle schemes, we will exempt them from the requirement to install an OBU. Owners of such cars will then have to pay a daily flat fee if they use their vehicles on ERP operational days.

Conclusion

13.      Mr Speaker, to conclude, I would like to thank Members once again, especially those from the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport, for their support and suggestions on this Bill.

a.    On safety and enforcement, this House is aligned on the need for deterrence, accountability and proportionality.

14.      On active mobility, we want to strike the right balance:

a.    To preserve the independence and dignity that personal mobility aids provide for those with genuine needs;

b.    But also to act firmly against misuse and dangerous behaviour that puts others in jeopardy.

c.    This Bill gives us stronger tools to do so, and we will implement them with the utmost care and consideration.

15.      Mr Speaker, this Bill covers a range of different amendments, but it is united by one key principle.

a.    Mobility brings opportunity, but it must also come with responsibility.

b.          With the support of this House, this Bill will allow us to keep our transportation system safe, inclusive, and ready for the future.  

16.      Sir, I seek to move.