All personal mobility device (PMD) riders, particularly those who are food-delivery riders, are encouraged to come together for a peaceful rally this Saturday (23 Nov) at Hong Lim Park from 5pm to 10pm.
The gathering will act as a platform for all PMD riders to pen their thoughts on the recent ban that prohibits PMDs being used on footpaths, in hope that the government will know how much their livelihoods are affected.
While the event primarily seeks to address the issue of the PMD ban, fellow Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PR) who are not PMD users are welcome to join as well. Those who intend to do so are reminded to bring along their IC or passport.
Additionally, for those interested to join as a volunteer for the event, kindly reach out to Sarah Alatas (phone number: 8891 9772).
According to the itinerary posted by All Singapore Stuff on the Facebook event page, there will be four speakers at the rally – Kelvin Ho, Andrew Thong, Tan Kin Lian, and Goh Meng Seng.
What’s more, at 8pm, there will be an hour-long dialogue session for everyone to speak their minds.

Earlier this month (4 Nov), Senior Minister of State for Transport Lam Pin Min announced the ban in Parliament, noting that it follows France’s move to prohibit the riding of e-scooters on its pavements after a high number of accidents involving such devices, several of which were fatal.
Dr Lam added in Parliament that the Government had expected PMD users to “be gracious and responsible” with “public education” on the responsible use of such devices, despite possible challenges facing the co-sharing of footpaths with pedestrians.
“Unfortunately, this was not so,” he lamented. He stated that “cities have allowed the use of such devices on footpaths” initially “as they are non-pollutive, inexpensive and, if properly used, convenient for short intra-town travels”.
However, the ban has drawn the ire of many PMD users, especially food-delivery riders who are dependent on PMDs as they are greatly affected by this move.
In fact, the past couple of weeks, hundreds of food-delivery riders turned up at the meet-the-people sessions with respective MPs to lament their frustrations over the ban.
Dr Lam, who attended one of the sessions on 12 November, wrote on his Facebook the following day about the ‘frank discussion’, saying that “there is no perfect solution”. He noted that the decision to ban PMDs from being used on footpaths was to restore the safety of “the majority of Singaporeans”.
Nonethetheless, the majority of Singaporeans are not on the same page as Dr Lam and the government, seeing how the ban seems to be inflicting more damages – notably to the livelihoods of PMD food-delivery riders – than its purpose to prevent any damages.
As such, over a hundred students have come together to express their solidarity with the food-delivery riders, hoping that their concerns and livelihood will be well-consulted and considered in future policy-making, and that members of the public can empathise with, and provide moral support to those who are affected in this period.
Even the newly-elected chairman of Singapore People’s Party (SPP), Jose Raymond, had his say on this matter. Earlier this week (19 Nov), Mr Raymond took to his Facebook to conclude that the sudden PMD ban shows that the government failed to look at “stakeholder engagement and consensus building in policy making”, adding that the ban “evidences poor policy planning model”.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Tan Jee Say’s paper on New Economy – reproduced here in full

Andrew Loh Mr Tan Jee Say is one of the four Singapore…

Hard truths about integration

Mohd Nizam Ismail The recent brouhaha over remarks made by Minister Mentor…

Workers have to stay skilful and healthy as companies raise retirement and re-employment ages, says NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng

Over 50 companies have raised their retirement and re-employment ages for workers…

对王瑞杰动议“感到不舒服” 官委议员王丽婷、特斯拉弃权表决

官委议员王丽婷和特斯拉博士也参与王瑞杰动议的辩论,他们虽认同议员应维持高标准诚信,惟质疑是否有通过此动议的必要。基于动议无法分项表决,他们只得放弃表决权。 副总理王瑞杰提呈的动议分为两大部分,第一点重申国会议员应维持高标准的诚信和责任感。 第二部分提及此前高庭对阿裕尼后港市镇会诉讼的判决,指林瑞莲和刘程强行为不诚实、有违受托责任,应该回避一切阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会相关的财政事务。 在辩论中,王丽婷先是认同议员需保持高度诚信的原则,但也质疑有关动议的动机,指动议即无法律效益,再者《市镇会法》也已赋予部长权力,可要求阿裕尼-后港市镇会采取必要行动处理不当行为。(参考市镇会法43D项) 在国会讨论法庭诉讼“感不舒服” 再者,他也提及在国会讨论法庭的诉讼个案感到“不舒服”(uncomfortable),再者工人党议员林瑞莲已表明将上诉,故此即便有议员发言免责的权限,仍恐有“藐视法庭”之嫌,干预司法程序。 特斯拉博士提及,此前法庭判决虽指林瑞莲等人,由于无法与前管理公司合作,而未招标即委任FMSS公司管理市镇会事务,有欠妥当;但他指出,根据判决他也未看见有任何证明,当事者是为了个人利益动机这么做。 市镇会实为“政治性的机构”,由民选议员领导,上述动议要求工人党采取行动,动议本身就已涉及政治解决的作用。 故此,尽管他认同议员需保持高道德标准原则, 但以非民选的官委议员身份,去参与表决具有政治意味的动议,同样令他感到不舒服。