I would like to seek clarifications on two aspects of the Bill. First, to the Ministry of Transport on the keeping of unsafe devices under the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Act, and secondly, to the Ministry of Home Affairs on the proposed outsourcing of traffic violations processing under the Road Traffic Act.
New Offence of Possession of Unsafe Devices
Part 6 of the Bill will introduce a new offence of keeping an unsafe active mobility device (AMD), by amending the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Act 2020.
First, let me say that I strongly support this amendment. From time to time, I have encountered AMD fires in my ward, caused by overnight charging of devices suspected to have non-compliant batteries. Such fires are fierce. The damage caused is not just to property but also to residents of nearby units, who suffer from smoke inhalation injury such as swollen eyes and respiratory airways, and carbon monoxide poisoning. There is also trauma and psychological damage. Long after the fires subside, residents look on AMDs at the common areas with trepidation, for fear that the next fire outside their door might leave them trapped.
Nationwide, the effect of AMD fires has also been sobering. On 12 January, in response to an adjournment motion filed by WP NCMP Andre Low, MHA confirmed that AMD fires had been disproportionately fatal. The media release on this Bill by MOT also acknowledged that non-compliant e-scooters “pose severe fire risks”. Given this experience, I would expect LTA to take the lead in enforcement actions against non-compliant devices, especially those found at HDB blocks where harm to many residents is most imminent.
It would be useful for the MOT to clarify how enforcement actions will change when the Bill becomes law. Based on correspondence with LTA in July last year, I was given to understand that LTA’s enforcement then was focused on non-compliant devices that were being ridden on public paths, a point alluded to by the Minister of State in his speech earlier. Our Town Council was told that for non-compliant devices found parked in common areas, the TC should do its own enforcement or review its by-laws. But clearly Town Councils are not the subject matter experts as to whether a device is compliant or not. Two days ago, LTA had indicated to our Town Council its openness to including one of our hotspots in a possible island-wide operation against non-compliant AMDs. I welcome the Minister of State’s acknowledgment earlier that the Bill will expand LTA’s scope in this area of enforcement. With the amendments proposed today, could MOT confirm that LTA will be taking the lead in the enforcement of the new provisions in the common areas of HDB estates?
Outsourcing of Processing of Traffic Violations
Clause 79 of the Bill proposes to outsource processing of traffic violations from the Traffic Police and LTA. According to the MHA’s media release of 12 January, civilian contractors will be tasked to process traffic notices for camera-detected violations. It was stated that such a move would enable the Traffic Police to outsource the processing of straightforward cases, and hence free up resources to focus on more complex cases.
While I appreciate that outsourcing will result in cost-efficiencies, it is important to elicit some details to understand how this move will affect members of the public. To this end, I have four queries that I would like the Ministry to clarify.
First, it was mentioned that the outsourcing will be to civilian contractors. These civilian contractors are presumably private sector companies. What are the criteria for selection of these contractors? Will there be more than one contractor appointed concurrently?
Secondly, Clause 79 of the Bill provides that an assessment framework for the prescribed offences will be prepared by TP or LTA, which these contractors must adhere to. Could Ministry clarify at what level of detail these assessment frameworks will be pitched? A case example using a specific offence would be useful to understand this.
Thirdly, residents may wish to lodge appeals for offences to be waived or reduced. Although camera-detected violations may seem straight forward and not appealable, I have not found this to be true in all cases. For instance, in one case, a resident of mine was initially charged with beating a red light. After appeal to the police, the charge was reduced to a lesser one of not forming up correctly when making a right turn, which carried a lower fine and less demerit points. When the provisions on outsourcing are activated, who will decide on appeal cases? It seems to me that some human judgment and discretion is required, which is better exercised by our public servants in the police and LTA.
Fourthly, on viewing of camera footage. So far, the police have been forthcoming in arranging for the public to view the camera footage to confirm if they had indeed committed offences such as beating a red light. Will the contractors similarly make such arrangements when requested?
In summary, while I support the Bill, I look forward to the clarifications from the two Ministries.
