Unmanned Aircraft (Public Safety and Security) Bill

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, drones are getting more popular. According to the US Consumer Electronics Association, the global market for consumer drones will approach US$130 million in 2015, increasing by more than 50% from 2014 and, by 2018, the figure is expected to reach US$1

Page: 77

billion.

With technology improvements, drones are getting cheaper, too. A popular China-made DJI drone, for example, costs as low as $1,200 and has very good functions. Many even consider it worthy for commercial use.

Drones can help to solve many problems and create new opportunities. However, drones could also cause problems if the drone operators harbour bad intentions. On 29 April 2015, Katsu, a popular graffiti artist, used a drone to discharge red paint to vandalise one of the largest outdoor billboards in New York City. Section 7C of the Bill will prohibit the discharge of any substance from an unmanned aircraft.

On 9 May 2015, a United Kingdom newspaper reported that an American tourist was trying to fly a drone close to Windsor Castle to take photographs. Fortunately, he was caught in time. Section 7A of the Bill provides MOT the authority to declare a list of security-sensitive areas as protected areas and prohibit drones from flying over them or take aerial photographs of the protected areas without a permit.

These two separate incidents show the importance and timeliness of the Bill.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in my Chinese speech earlier, I had used two examples to illustrate how drones could be used to vandalise public property and also intrude into security sensitive areas. Earlier this year, there was also a drone that landed quite unexpectedly in the White House in the US. The incident had caused a huge public alarm. The experiences that I have mentioned above show that it is timely to have an Unmanned Aircraft (Public Safety and Security) Bill in place. Even though I support the Bill, I have three areas of clarifications and one suggestion for the Minister. For the purpose of this discussion, I will use the term "unmanned aircraft" and "drone" interchangeably.

I understand that under this Bill, a permit may be required for a drone to be used for specialised services such as:

(a) flying the drone over any crowd; or

(b) suspending, carrying or attaching any item to the drone unless it is manufactured to hold the item.

We are celebrating SG50 this year and there are many SG50 events besides the National Day Parade, which is classified earlier on by the Minister as a special event similar to the SEA Games. Many drone fanatics would like to use their drones to join in the celebrations. Will

Page: 78

the authorities require an amateur drone operator to apply for a permit from CAAS to fly the drone over SG50 events or other private events for the purpose of taking aerial photographs and videos? Can a drone fly with a Singapore flag during such events? What is the definition of "crowd" as stated in the advisory for the Safe and Responsible Operations of Unmanned Aircraft? This is my first set of clarifications.

Under clause 13 of the Bill, an authorised person, including a Police Officer of or above the rank of Sergeant, has the power to use necessary force to end the flight of an unmanned aircraft in the fastest and safest practicable way. Does it mean that the Police Officer is entitled to use firearms to open fire at an illegal drone or is the authority thinking of using another bigger drone to destroy the illegal drone? What are the examples of necessary force that the authorities have in mind to "end the flight of the unmanned aircraft in the fastest and safest practicable way"? This is my second set of clarifications.

Before I proceed with my third set of clarifications, Mdm Speaker, allow me to declare my interest as I am the Senior Vice President of SBS Transit. I understand that MOT is drawing up a list of security sensitive locations which include airports, power stations, army camps, Police establishments, headquarters of various Government Ministries, as well as Parliament House, as mentioned by the Minister earlier. Does MOT consider Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) tracks and MRT depots as part of the sensitive locations? Were there any previous instances where drones flew over and crashed onto the MRT tracks? We certainly do not want drone operators to take aerial photographs of MRT depots to aid potential intruders in vandalising the trains. We have just heard the Second Minister for Home Affairs saying earlier in the House that the Government is taking a very serious stand against vandalism.

As mentioned in the beginning of my speech, the availability of affordable high-tech drones opens up many possibilities for commercial usage. In Singapore, the Timbre Group is considering using Infinium Robotics' drones to deliver up to two kilogrammes of food and drinks from its group of restaurants. It is not only novel but a practical way to solve their manpower shortage issue. I understand that all drones operating for commercial purposes need to apply for a permit even under the new Bill. At the same time, I understand that about 30% of the 70 applications for a permit to fly a drone in January 2015 were all rejected.

While we want to regulate the usage of commercial drones, we should not over-regulate so much so that the industry will find that it really kills the commercial initiative. For example, Amazon is battling with US Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, for its reluctance to approve beyond visual line of sight operations so that Amazon can continue its trial to deliver lightweight goods to its customers using drones. Currently, in the US, there is a big debate whether the FAA is over-regulating the use of drones for commercial purpose. Meanwhile, Alibaba is pushing ahead with its own trial to deliver ginger tea packets to its customers in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. If this trial is successful, Alibaba could

Page: 79

overtake Amazon in this respect.

If a popular online store in Singapore, such as Qoo10, would like to apply for a permit to conduct a trial to deliver items of, say, less than one kilogramme in weight to its customers using drones, will the authorities approve such a trial?

The commercial usage of drones is like a money plant. Money plants need very little sunlight and water to thrive. However, it still needs some light support for the plant to blossom. In the same way, innovative uses of drones will thrive as long the regulators do not unnecessarily block the initiative, akin to blocking the sunlight. At the same time, the innovative use of drones needs some support from the Government for the industry to bloom, giving Singapore an edge over other countries. With this, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the increasing popularity of unmanned aircraft (UA) necessitates an update of our regulatory and permit framework to facilitate their usage while ensuring safety and security.

This Act amends the ANA and POA. New sections 29G of ANA and 32A of the POA provide for authorised personnel to take action to counteract security and safety breaches. They can direct the fastest and most practicable way of controlling or ending an UA's flight path, even by force, if necessary.

However, it is not very clear to me how far our enforcers are allowed to go to end the flight paths of rogue UAs. Would the authorities be empowered to shoot them down if the operators refuse to land them, or if they are beyond control and likely to cause harm and injuries on the ground? I would appreciate if the Minister could share more details in this area.

What worries me about this Bill is the lack of measures to enable the authorities to carry out preventive checks to minimise chances of UAs carrying prohibited items, especially explosives, from taking off; and in the event rogue UAs are recovered, there may be very little evidence on them to assist with the identification of owners and operators.

I suggest that we put in place checks and restrictions on all UAs, locally-made or imported, and impose licensing and certification requirements so that the authorities will have a complete database of UAs and their owners, somewhat similar to the database we have for SIM cards for mobile phones. Even the UAs owned by hobbyists who fly the UAs for recreation or private use should be included. This way, operators would be more conscious

Page: 80

of responsible usage and it would be more feasible for the authorities to track down operators should something go wrong.

Next, the penalty for carrying dangerous materials, such as weapons or biochemicals, is a fine of up to $100,000, jail for up to five years, or both. I think that this punishment is too light for anyone who carries such dangerous materials which can cause injuries and fatalities on a potentially massive scale. I urge the Ministry to re-examine this.

With more and more UAs fitted with cameras, it would be inevitable that the privacy of all in the flight paths of UAs will be compromised. How would the authority resolve the problem of such intrusions and help protect residents' privacy? Taking UA operators to Court for privacy invasion can be tedious and expensive for most Singaporeans and residents. How can the Government help victims take action against errant operators in an expeditious and affordable way?

Finally, may I request the Ministry to consider prohibiting the flying of UAs in all Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, especially between the HDB flats, as they would certainly intrude upon the privacy of the flat owners, unless with permits and copies of the video recorder are subject to censorship. With that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, unmanned aircraft, also known as 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

Page: 81

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.

The Bill empowers 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 spelt out in this Bill, although some have been mentioned in media reports and 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 safe 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 five 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 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 coordinates 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 will 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 this requirement is 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,

Page: 82

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 to obtain the permits without interrupting operations.

Sixth, CAAS says that 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 will be the expected typical waiting time for permit approval, so that commercial operators can better plan their schedules and operations?

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, 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 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?

Page: 83

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?

Finally, this Bill does not appear to address data protection or privacy issues with regard 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 penalties there are for violators. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, with the increasing applications of unmanned aircraft, this Bill is, indeed, necessary. The broad applications also mean that various needs would have to be balanced. It is evident that this Bill has given thorough consideration to two concerns, that of public safety and security.

I would like to pose a query on a third concern and, that is, the privacy of individuals. With Singapore's dense housing, how do we ensure that unmanned aircraft with cameras do not peep into bedrooms and bathroom windows? There is hardly any mention of privacy in this Bill. So, I hope the Minister will provide more details on how this would be addressed.

While we protect public safety, security and, perhaps, privacy, we need to ensure that we do not hinder useful applications of unmanned aircraft, both current and potential ones. These include using unmanned aircraft for search and rescue, sports science, media coverage of sports events and simply as a hobby. In particular, I would like to highlight that aerial filming of sports events is fast becoming a norm and it is a trend that we should encourage, to keep sports exciting, thereby attracting an active following.

The organising of sports events is becoming increasingly complex and onerous, as we set higher standards for sports safety and compliance. For example, to organise a race at the National Sailing Centre at East Coast Park, organisers require a permit from the MPA. On top of that, to do aerial photography of the event as part of the media coverage, it seems a permit is also required from the Commissioner of Police to bring the unmanned aircraft into a special event area, and yet another from the CAAS to operate the unmanned aircraft for commercial photography within five kilometres of an aerodrome. I would like to ask if it is possible for the Minister to streamline the application of multiple permits and provide a timeline for the application process, to reduce the hurdles for event organisers.

Page: 84

Paragraph 14(b) of the Bill clarifies the definition of an unmanned aircraft. The definition clarifies specifically that an unmanned aircraft excludes a balloon or kite. In a similar vein, given the rapid growth of the sport of kite boarding and kite surfing, I hope the Bill will also clarify specifically that kite boarding equipment – including those with GoPro cameras mounted – are also not considered unmanned aircraft. Mdm Speaker, I support of the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, most Singaporeans, myself included, are not very familiar with "unmanned aerial vehicles", "remotely piloted aircraft", or what one would normally call "drones". If you ask an average person on the street what a drone is, the answer you would typically get is that it is something used in the military or as recreational use by a small group of hobbyists.

However, as I have lately discovered, there is more to these devices than its use in the military or as a hobby. Most recently, in Nepal, drones were used in rescue missions to photograph and map areas affected by the earthquake in Nepal. It proved useful in aiding crews and rescue workers to plan and pin-point areas to focus on. Due to its versatility, drones with cameras attached have also found its uses in law enforcement, scientific research and journalism, just to name a few.

That being said, the use or misuse of drones can also pose a danger to the public and to our security. According to an in-depth report by the Washington Post, there were more than 400 major drone crashes since 2001.

The reality is that drone technology is still evolving. The price of drones is falling, which makes it affordable to more people, and people are finding better and more creative ways of using them. The risk posed by drones to our security and public safety is also very real and other countries have either implemented regulations or are embarking on one. It is, therefore, timely that we introduce this Bill to provide clarity on the regulations pertaining to the use of drones and I fully support this Bill.

There are a few areas, however, that I wish to seek clarification from the Minister.

Firstly, there seems to be very little data on how prevalent the usage of drones is in Singapore. Can the Ministry provide information on how many users there are in Singapore, in terms of commercial and personal uses, how many local sellers of drones there are and whether there are any incidents, accidents or near-misses involving drones?

Page: 85

Secondly, given that offences related to the use of drones are strict liability offences, there should be a greater effort by the Ministry to educate the public on the "do's" and "don'ts" of using drones as well as better information on where the protected or restricted areas in Singapore are where flying drones are off-limits. Does the Ministry have any plans to educate the public and can the Ministry share what these plans are? Can the Ministry provide more clarity and specifics on the use of drones in residential areas, schools, high-rise buildings, stadiums, parks and so on, especially where there is a higher possibility of causing injury to people or damage to properties?

Thirdly, there are already businesses out there exploring the commercialisation or commercial use of drones, for example, in film-making, photography, journalism and so on. Does the Government have any plans to regulate the sale of drones and to what extent will it be regulated so as to strike a balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring the responsible use of drones?

My last question is on insurance coverage. What is the current state of insurance coverage in Singapore with respect to drones? Are these adequate to provide protection to the public against damages caused by drones on persons or property?

Mdm Speaker, I support the spirit of this Bill, that is, the flying of unmanned aircraft must be carried out in a safe and responsible manner.

As a resident, I received an advisory note on the Safe and Responsible Operation of Unmanned Aircraft for recreational and public uses from CAAS. The flyer lists out six "dos" and eight "don'ts".

As the advisor to the Ang Mo Kio Grassroots Organisations, I would like to seek clarification on Nos 7 and 8 on the list of "don'ts" from the Minister.

No 7: "Don't fly the aircraft over or within restricted, prohibited or danger areas, including security-sensitive locations."

No 8: "Don't fly within five kilometres of any airport or military airbase, or higher than 200 feet."

Page: 86

As we know, there is the Amoy Quee Camp in Ang Mo Kio Town. There is also the Seletar Airbase not far from Ang Mo Kio Town.

With the introduction of this Bill, it is not clear if we are allowed to fly drones at all future community functions as we are in the immediate vicinity of the restricted and prohibited areas like the Amoy Quee Camp, Seletar Camp and the Seletar Airport.

Under the category on "Location of Operations", it states that a permit is required if the drone is flying within five kilometres of an aerodrome regardless of operating height, or about 200 feet beyond five kilometres of an aerodrome.

So, is there a need to apply for a permit, if the drone is flying outside five kilometres of an aerodrome and within the 200-feet height limits?

For the information of drone operators for recreational and private uses, will CAAS be publishing a map to indicate the areas that are outside five kilometres of an aerodrome? Many of my areas, for example, the Yio Chu Kang Stadium, there are many activities that are within this area.

In the Bill, it also mentioned about applying a blanket permit for usage at same location. So, is it possible for our Grassroots Organisation (GRO)'s new media team to do it for our community events coverage all year round? For application of permits to use drone for recreational and private uses, will it be a friendly and simple process and, in terms of waiting time, will it be short?

It is good to have a Bill to create awareness on the responsible use of drone by the public on the one hand and to achieve the objectives of national security and public safety on the other hand. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, first, let me thank all the six Members who have spoken out and who have all supported the Bill. They have raised a number of interesting questions, comments and queries. Let me try to group them together into issues and address them in turn.

Page: 87

By way of introduction, basically, many have spoken out in support of the potential for the use of drones, whether it is in terms of dealing with natural disasters or commercial potential. Dr Benedict Tan spoke very eloquently on the use of it to support sporting activities, for filming purposes and so on. And yet, I think everyone has also spoken on their concerns over privacy, security and safety. Indeed, those really are the challenges and dilemmas that we face: how to find a judicious balance that would safeguard us as much as possible with regard to issues of safety and security and so on and yet allow sufficient potential for operators and individuals to experiment, innovate and use them for the right purposes.

Mr Ismail Hussein asked if we could provide information on the prevalence of UAVs in Singapore and how many known users and suppliers there are, both for hobby and commercial purposes. But the answer is that, actually, we do not know because, right now, we do not track the number of unmanned aircraft users and suppliers. For us, this is somewhat difficult and, to a large extent, impractical because the public can easily purchase UAs in many stores in Singapore: for hobbyists, order them online from overseas; or for the enthusiasts, they will actually build or modify some of these UAs themselves. What we do know is that, on average, on a monthly basis, over the course of the first few months of this year, we are receiving about 50 applications for permits. Fifty applications per month this year, compared to about, on average, 12 applications per month last year. So, Members have seen that huge increase over the course of the first few months for this year, and we expect that this will increase, especially with the new regulations. But also without the regulations, there is a greater interest. Hence, that there is a need to not only introduce this Bill both to educate and alert the public but also to put in place the right processes.

Dr Benedict Tan asked if kite boarding equipment is considered an UA. Let me give the Member the definition. A device that is not manoeuvred by electronic means but is physically tethered, such as through strings and manoeuvred by these physical means, or is uncontrolled, such as free balloons, does not fall under the definition of UA for the purposes of this Bill. Under the Air Navigation Order, kiteboarding activities are already regulated. So the answer is that it does not fall under this Bill. But if the Member is speaking specifically about kiteboarding, that is already being regulated.

Some have asked about the number of incidents or near-misses involving UAVs in Singapore. There have been over 20 UA incidents reported in Singapore since about a year ago. So far, we have not received any reports of injury or damage to property associated with these cases, but I think it is really more of good fortune than anything else.

Mr Ang Wei Neng had a very interesting query on whether there were incidents of UA dropping onto MRT tracks. Actually, there have been two such reported incidents. In both incidents, a member of the public was flying the UA in a nearby open field and lost control

Page: 88

of the UA, and this is within visual line of sight, this is not even EVLOS. But even within visual line of sight, he lost control of the aircraft in a nearby open field and one of them came to rest on the side of the track and, fortunately, no train service was disrupted, no damage was caused to the MRT tracks, no one was injured. One of these incidents is under Police investigation while in the other incident, the member of the public was issued a stern warning for an offence of "Negligent Act which Endangers Life or Personal Safety of Others" under the Penal Code.

Mr Ang has proposed that train depots be added to the list of security-sensitive locations. In designating security sensitive locations, I think the Government needs to take a calibrated approach based on an overall threat assessment. Let me assure him that although MRT depots may not be designated as security-sensitive locations, any reported incident of aerial surveillance by UA will still be investigated by the Police, which have the necessary powers to deal with persons with malicious intent to compromise the security of such places.

As for the threat to the safety of train services, this is covered by existing regulations and guidelines. The operation of heavier UA which may cause serious damage and UA operations for commercial purposes will soon require a permit. For hobbyists and operation of light UA, we have enhanced guidelines for their use, and the Police have powers under the Penal Code to charge those who operate UA in a negligent and irresponsible manner which harms or threatens public safety.

Some Members have also asked questions on special event areas. Let me try to address this. Examples of special event areas could include venues of major events where a significant congregation of people can be expected, for example, at the Sports Hub, the Padang and their vicinity during the National Day Parade. To ensure the safety and security of people attending these events, all operation of UA over such areas will require a special permit from the Police, which will determine the conditions under which the UA can operate. The carriage of payload, if any, must also not compromise the safety of the intended flight.

Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and others asked about the enforcement powers related to UA. Breaches of UA regulations will be investigated by Police Officers or safety inspectors authorised by CAAS or Auxiliary Police Officers who are authorised by the Singapore Police Force or CAAS. The enforcers are given powers to assume control of a UA in order to fly the aircraft or to end the flight of the aircraft, or to land it. How this will be done will depend on the circumstances, taking into consideration the need to ensure public safety.

There have been talks of what capabilities we have to deal with it, whether we intend to shoot it down and so on. I do not want to divulge too much the capabilities that we have to deal with this. It is something that needs to be built up and increased over time. But this

Page: 89

is really not so easy an issue to deal with. Some Members have pointed out that, at times, to shoot it down may actually cost more damage and I fully agree with them on that. So, any action that we take, we have to consider very carefully.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh had a question on enforcement, that it could be done before the UA carrying any prohibited items takes off, especially if explosives are being carried. A lot of it will depend, for example, on intelligence, on early warning, perhaps given by members of the public and the Police will have to assess any information received and, if necessary, take pre-emptive action to deal with it. In addition, when Police Officers respond to UA-related incidents or come across suspicious persons with UA during their patrols, they will check to see if the UA is carrying any prohibited item. The shorter the range, meaning if it is within line of sight, it is easier for the Police to try and trace it back, try and deal with it; the longer the range, the greater the area of uncertainty and the more difficult the job will be for the Police.

Mr Ismail Hussein had a very interesting question on strict liability offences. Let me clarify that even though the prosecution does not need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the area flown over is a protected one – meaning that the prosecution does not need to prove beyond reasonable doubt – the accused also has the defence that the UA was not flown intentionally into the protected area but the overflight was caused perhaps by weather conditions or perhaps some other unavoidable cause. So, this would have to be taken into account even though we go with a strict liability regime. I would also like to assure Members that protected areas will be properly described and published in the Gazette that CAAS will be issuing so that there will be no mistake on the part of the accused or ignorance that they really do not know that these are the gazetted areas.

On the extent of punishment, there were some Members who felt that the punishment may not be commensurate with the threat that such UAVs pose. In particular, Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if the penalty for committing an offence of carrying dangerous substances using a UA is too light.

Mdm Speaker, if a person plans to use the UA as a weapon or as a means to carry out an attack, he may be prosecuted under a host of other Acts, for instance, under the Terrorism Act, the Chemical Weapons Act, the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act or the Penal Code. In reality, we have no shortage of Acts to try and catch the offender in a very comprehensive manner. The penalties for these offences can range from up to 10 years imprisonment, up to a $1 million fine and caning. In more extreme cases, offenders found guilty could face the death penalty or life imprisonment.

Page: 90

Let me now touch on privacy issues because quite a number of Members – Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Dr Benedict Tan, Mr Gerald Giam – have highlighted privacy as an area of concern.

Privacy-related incidents where a person uses a UA to pry into another person's property and privacy will be investigated on a case-by-case basis. As a general principle, enforcement action will be taken against users whose activities constitute an offence under existing laws, such as the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act 2014. The interagency UAS Committee, which I spoke about in my earlier speech and which was formed at the beginning of the year, is also looking into a comprehensive framework on the use of UA in Singapore and will look specifically and more deeply into the issue of privacy to see if our current laws are adequate and if any regulatory enhancements are needed.

It was mentioned that maybe, the lighter UA ought to be regulated differently. I think it is a complex issue. The threshold that we use today is seven kilogrammes. I will try to address the points raised by Mr Seng Han Thong because it can seem quite confusing. Anything that is less than seven kilogrammes, flying below 200 feet, outside of five kilometres of an aerodrome, not flying over gazetted areas and special event areas, not carrying out commercial and special activities, do not need a permit. Let me try to say that again because I know that there are a lot of "nots" somewhere. Not more than seven kilogrammes, not higher than 200 feet, not within five kilometres of an aerodrome, not carrying out commercial activities, not overflying specially gazetted areas or special event areas, you do not need a permit. Anything else – and that means over most of Singapore – you need a permit.

As for between two kilogrammes and seven kilogrammes, can we have a different regime? I think that is something that we can look at more deeply. Right now, the regime in many countries is using seven kilogrammes. This is all up weight – it is not just the weight of the drone itself. It is all up weight, seven kilogrammes. It is something that most countries use and, in fact, CAAS is working with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to try and see if there a way to harmonise as well as to expound on some of the requirements for UA going forward, because I think this is a challenge that many countries are, indeed, dealing with.

On public outreach and awareness, Members have also mentioned this and it is really an important area. CAAS has started distributing an advisory to all households on the safe and responsible use of UAs for recreation and private uses. As Mr Seng Han Thong has said, there are six "dos" and eight "don'ts". I thank the Member for reminding us. He is an expert in this House on this area. We will also be distributing posters to all educational institutions and hobbyist clubs next month. CAAS will also be conducting a series of briefings for key stakeholders, such as operators of UAs for commercial and specialised services, as well as hobbyists, recreational users and retailers. Further information can be found on the CAAS

Page: 91

website.

On permits, some Members have asked about permits and I have tried to explain under what circumstances those are required. There are other Members who have expressed some concern that you might need a multitude of permits from different agencies. I certainly understand that concern. CAAS will be the one-stop agency for the application of all permits needed for UA operations. Depending on the scope, complexity and the type of operations, CAAS will then need to coordinate with other agencies in the evaluation of the application and the relevant permits will be collated into a single document for issuance to the applicant.

Mr Gerald Giam had a query on how long it would take. The permits will take, on average, about two weeks but it depends really on the complexity of the application. On average, we take about two weeks.

There are also a number of other points and suggestions that Mr Giam has raised. We will certainly take them back with us and look at them a little bit more. I just wanted to make a clarification on why we singled out commercial operators, which was the point that he talked about. On the one hand, we do not want to be overly prescriptive and, hence, we decided not to say that you must have geo-fencing and so on and so forth. That could be overly prescriptive in mandating certain requirements.

What we do is try and adopt a risk-based approach and assess the operator and the applications on their own merits. But we think that requiring a commercial operator to have a permit, both an operator permit as well as an activity permit, is probably the right thing to do to ensure that we look more carefully into its operations, the way that they deal with safety and, even to some extent, if necessary, the training of the people operating this.

Why? Because we believe that for commercial operations, they could be using a range of UAVs. There could be a wide range of activities and so the risk exposure will vary accordingly. If you have a range of UAVs, different people operating them, covering a range of different activities in different areas, the risk of exposure could vary and increase accordingly. And because the activities are likely to be repetitive, possibly, the risk will also correspondingly increase. So, its activities, its flight paths may be complex, it may entail the delivery of a payload, it could entail more challenging manoeuvres being conducted.

So, we think that for commercial operators, we will require an operator permit and then the activity permit. If there are repeated activities over the same area doing the same thing, a little akin to what Mr Seng Han Thong had mentioned for his grassroots activities, we think you could have one single activity permit covering that same range of activities, but it covers

Page: 92

you for a period of time.

Finally, on insurance. Let me address Mr Ismail's queries on insurance coverage. Based on checks done by CAAS, there are insurers that are prepared to offer third-party liability coverage for property damage and injury to persons arising out of UA operations. There is coverage for damage to the UA, too. But I understand that not many interested parties have made queries about purchasing such insurance coverage. The UAS Committee has included insurance as part of its work in studying the regulation of unmanned aircraft activities in the longer term. It is not covered in this Bill, but it is certainly something that we are looking at for the next round.

Again, we want to try to strike a reasonable balance between facilitating the exploitation of UA and our regulations. In any case, when CAAS evaluates applications for UA operations, for example, from commercial operators, whether the operator has applied for relevant insurance coverage will also be a consideration and could be quite a significant consideration, especially in cases where the UA operation may pose some level of safety concerns. That is something that we will take into account but, certainly, the next time round, when we have to address and revise some of these regulations, we certainly shall have a more definitive stance on this position. That covers it all, Mdm Speaker.

I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I just have one clarification regarding the effective date of this Act. I understand from reports that it is going to be on 1 June. Does it mean that the operators need to apply for a permit and obtain a permit before that time, or would they be given some time to apply and wait for the permit approvals?

I want to thank the Member for that clarification. We really want to try and get this in place before the SEA Games. That is really the intent of why we want to have this read a Second time in Parliament and, hopefully, for Members to agree to pass this Bill because the SEA Games are coming, National Day activities are coming. For the rest, they can start to apply to CAAS. Where it takes a little bit longer, we can then discuss this with operators accordingly.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

Page: 93

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*