Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. Sir, did LTA considered the widespread availability of smartphones when developing the specifications for ERP 2.0 and if so, why was the mobile first approach not taken?
Sir, using a smartphone instead of an unwieldy OBU could save a tremendous amount of installation effort, hardware cost and long-term maintenance costs. Is the Minister prepared to order a system redesign of the ERP 2.0 to make it mobile first? And to be clear, I do not mean providing the mobile phone as an as a secondary option, like what the Minister had just said. I am talking about making it a default option.
And secondly, I understand that there are no immediate plans to implement distance-based charging, but given that distance-based charging is one of the key reasons for this new system – its implementation seems inevitable. My question is, has the Government considered the significant cost impact that distance-based charging will have on those who drive for a living, including taxi drivers, private hire drivers, and delivery drivers and riders.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I think on the second question from Mr Giam, he should not jump the gun. I have said in my COS speech that we are looking at distance-based charging as a possible option that we need to study further. In my COS speech, I also acknowledge that there are trade-offs affecting different groups of stakeholders. Therefore, we need to be quite careful and deliberate in how we go about with this review.
I think that in my main reply, I did not suggest anything that this is an inevitable outcome, as what Mr Giam mentioned. So, I will urge Mr Giam not to overstate the point. What ERP 2.0 gives us is the option to do distance-based charging if we wish to do so, and if in the process of doing that, certainly we need to consider the impact on different groups of users and, overall, what is the benefit to society.
Sir, on the first question on smartphones, we have looked at this, not just once, but several times and with different groups of stakeholders. It depends on what you want to use a smartphone for. If you want to use a smartphone for displaying the information, we are allowing that. It is not something that would be unworkable. Certainly, it is feasible. We have studied that option, and we are going to allow people to opt out of the display and to use a smartphone or their in-vehicle display, if they wish to. That is an option.
However, because your smartphone is something that you carry with you. It is not secured to the vehicle. We need, for the purposes of ERP – whether it is distance-based or other types of usage-based charging – you need a device that is secured to the vehicle so that you know where the vehicle is and there is no dispute about whether the device is functioning or not.
There is also a second consideration, Sir, which is the security of the data transmission. Because the OBU is designed to transmit the information one-way, whereas a phone, you would have two-way transmission. And a phone, depending on the model that you use and the software, and the apps that you install, I do not think you can be assured of the same level of data security and systems security, including against tampering.
So, for all those reasons, a smartphone system would not be able to fulfil all the features and functionalities of what we want to achieve with ERP 2.0. But certainly, I think as part of integrating with the processing unit and the antenna, the use of a smartphone to replace the touch-screen display is a possibility.
Ministry of Transport
8 May 2024
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=oral-answer-3594
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 