Social Studies 2023 – 2nd SBQ Practice Answers and Review

(PURPOSE) What are the impacts of the PMD footpath ban?

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

When Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) such as e-scooters, hoverboards and electric unicycles started
growing in popularity in the early 2010s, the Singapore Government initially embraced the role they played
in complementing our then-strained public transport infrastructure. Based on recommendations from the
Active Mobility Panel set up in 2015, rules and a code of conduct for PMDs were rolled out in 2016, with
more stringent regulations in the Active Mobility Act coming into force in May 2018.

Despite these restrictions, however, the proliferation of PMDs over the years led to increased conflict
between PMD users and pedestrians on footpaths, with accidents and fires caused by PMD batteries
making headlines in the news and sparking debate over the value of PMDs in Singapore. Things came to
a boil on 25 September 2019, when the death of a 65-year-old cyclist led to widespread outrage and a
surge in petitions calling for a ban on PMDs.

On 4 Nov 2019, in response to queries by several lawmakers in Parliament about what the Government
would do to address concerns about PMD use, the Ministry of Transport announced that it would ban
PMDs from footpaths from 5 November. Facing complaints from food delivery PMD riders about the ban,
the Government also announced on 8 November that it would help them switch to other forms of transport
with an e-scooter trade-in grant co-funded by the three major food delivery companies.

(a) Study Source A.

Why did the Ministry of Transport publish this? Explain your answer. [6]

Source A: A poster published on the Ministry of Transport’s Facebook page on 10

November 2019.

1
 Social Studies 2023 – 2nd SBQ Practice Answers and Review

Level/ Study Source A.

Marks Why did the Ministry of Transport publish this? Explain your Remarks
answer.

L1 Answer based on provenance/superficial content

L2/ Message of Source ( The main point of the source)

2-3m Award 2m for unsupported Message.
Award 3m for supported Message

E.g. The Ministry of Transport published this to inform food

delivery riders that there were a wide variety of support
schemes to help food delivery riders cope with the PMD
footpath ban. Source A provides examples such such as the
“E-Scooter Trade-in Grant” that gives them “up to $600 when
[they] trade-in [their] e-scooter and purchase a bicycle”, a form
of reimbursement for riders who would no longer be able to use
their device, as well as “Job Assistance and Career Coaching”
provided by NTUC to help delivery riders find potential new jobs
and transition after having their food delivery jobs disrupted by
the PMD ban. These initiatives show that the Ministry of
Transport was prepared to offer a comprehensive range of
assistance to Food Delivery riders affected by the ban.

L3/4m L2+Answer based on wider context

Award 4m for identifying the context.

L4/ L2+ Answer based on intended outcome and context.

5-6m Award 5m for intended outcome.
Award 6m for intended outcome supported with context

E.g. (Context) The Ministry of Transport published this poster

less than a week after the PMD footpath ban. In that period,
there was widespread unhappiness and outrage from food
delivery riders as the ban would severely affect their ability to
carry out their jobs and earn income.

(Intended Outcome) Hence, by publishing the poster, the

Ministry of Transport hoped that the affected food delivery riders
would be placated and trust that the government is still looking
out for their well-being, and stop expressing their outrage
towards the government, relieving public pressure on the
government.

2
Social Studies 2023 – 2nd SBQ Practice Answers and Review

Reflection and Review of Purpose Question Answering Process.

1. Misunderstanding Question 2. Mis-reading of Source.
requirements
Who Good
o Review past assignments and
sample answers before test. What Bad
o Write down the key steps on cue
cards. o Summarise / Rephrase in your own
words each line or paragraph of the
source.

3. Expression of answer is flawed. 4. Misunderstanding of context / audience/

author motives.

o Draft and re-draft your message or o Annotate Background information:

comparison statements.
o Check and re-check your message
or comparison statements for
accuracy.
o Brainstorm for key words that reflect
source meaning/main points.
dates, key events, key groups or
individuals, public mood.
o Annotate provenance: who is the author
and audience? Situation at date of
publication? What is the audience
supposed to do after reading? How will
the audience action help the author?

Reflection: What did I do wrongly or not do? What is my Question Answering Process (QAP)
for the purpose question from now on?

My Purpose SBQ Answering Process:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

3
Social Studies 2023 – 2nd SBQ Practice Answers and Review

Level/Marks Corrections: Purpose Question Writing Frame

L3/4-6m:

Message, The source was published to convince/persuade__________ (Audience)

supported.
that _____________________________________________ (Message).
Purpose explained
with reference This can be seen from Source ______ which states that/depicts
historical context,
target audience, ___________________________________________________________
Desired outcome.
and ____________________________________________________(2X

evidence) This evidence implies that

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

(Explanation).

Given that _______________________________________ (context-

situation facing author at the time), by giving this speech, the author

wanted _______________ (Audience) to

__________________________________________ (desired audience

action) so as to benefit in terms of

____________________ (Beneficial Outcome for the author

that serves their agenda at time of publication.).

4
Social Studies 2023 – 2nd SBQ Practice Answers and Review

( COMPARISON) What are the impacts of the PMD footpath ban?

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

When Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) such as e-scooters, hoverboards and electric unicycles started
growing in popularity in the early 2010s, the Singapore Government initially embraced the role they played
in complementing our then-strained public transport infrastructure. Based on recommendations from the
Active Mobility Panel set up in 2015, rules and a code of conduct for PMDs were rolled out in 2016, with
more stringent regulations in the Active Mobility Act coming into force in May 2018.

Despite these restrictions, however, the proliferation of PMDs over the years led to increased conflict
between PMD users and pedestrians on footpaths, with accidents and fires caused by PMD batteries
making headlines in the news and sparking debate over the value of PMDs in Singapore. Things came to
a boil on 25 September 2019, when the death of a 65-year-old cyclist led to widespread outrage and a
surge in petitions calling for a ban on PMDs.

On 4 Nov 2019, in response to queries by several lawmakers in Parliament about what the Government
would do to address concerns about PMD use, the Ministry of Transport announced that it would ban
PMDs from footpaths from 5 November. Facing complaints from food delivery PMD riders about the ban,
the Government also announced on 8 November that it would help them switch to other forms of transport
with an e-scooter trade-in grant co-funded by the three major food delivery companies.

Source B: Comments by Minister of State for Transport Dr Lam Pin Min to the media, made on
12 November 2019 after a dialogue session with delivery riders.

Even with the announcement of the assistance package, not everyone will be happy. But they have to
understand that what we're trying to do is to allow them to return to the trade that they want to continue
doing. The authorities will continue to look at the cases of food-delivery riders who are affected by the ban
individually, to help them address their problems.

We have always believed in using active mobility for the first and last mile… but unfortunately, over the
past year, the situation doesn't seem to have improved. We've seen quite a significant number of injuries
from accidents involving PMDs and pedestrians, and we have also seen several fatalities. After looking at
the situation, we know that we have to do something to bring safety back to the footpaths. And therefore,
we have this very difficult decision to prohibit the use of PMDs on footpaths.

Source C: From a statement on the Singapore Democratic Party website, published on 8

November 2019.

The ban on PMDs has caused much unhappiness among its users, especially those who depend on such
devices for a living. This is a difficult situation because accidents caused by PMD riders on footpaths in
the past have resulted in injuries and even death. The dangers of PMD use on footpaths must not be taken
lightly.

But while recognising that the safety of pedestrians is of topmost consideration and the need to curb
irresponsible PMD users, it is also problematic to issue a blanket ban on the use of such vehicles on
footpaths as this affects the livelihood of many who are responsible users. There are alternative ways to
deal with the problem. Banning PMD use outright is the easy and lazy way out. It breaks the rice-bowls of
many of our fellow citizens who depend on PMDs for their livelihood but who are responsible users.

5
 Social Studies 2023 – 2nd SBQ Practice Answers and Review

Level/ Study Sources B and C.

marks How similar are the sources? Explain your answer. (7m)

L1/ Similarity/difference in provenance/source type

1m
E.g. Both sources are made by political actors.

L2/ Identify similarity OR difference in source content

2m unsupported
Must be valid matches; award 2m for one valid match,
unsupported.

L3/ Similarity or difference in source content, supported

3-4m Award 3m for similarity or difference with weak explanation
Award 4m for similarity or difference with strong explanation
Note:

Difference

E.g. Sources B and C differ in their perspective on whether the

PMD footpath ban was justified. Source B believes that the
PMD footpath ban is justified to protect public safety. While
there are “food-delivery riders who are affected by the ban”,
their interests are outweighed by the “significant number of
injuries from accidents involving PMDs and pedestrians, and …
several fatalities”.

On the other hand, Source C believes that the PMD footpath

ban is not justified as it is an overreaction. Despite
acknowledging that the “dangers of PMD use on footpaths must
not be taken lightly”, they feel that the government should not
have issued “a blanket ban… as this affects the livelihood of
many who are responsible users”. Thus, they view the ban as
a blunt and lazy response to a complex problem.

Similarity

E.g. Both Sources B and C are similar as they agree that the
PMD footpath ban would have a significant impact on the
livelihoods of food-delivery riders. Source B acknowledges that
there are “food-delivery riders who are affected by the ban”,
which implies that they are aware of the significant
inconvenience the ban will bring to them. Similarly, Source C
also tells us that the ban “affects the livelihood of many who are
responsible users”. This shows that the ban did not only affect
errant users, but also responsible food delivery riders, as they
could no longer carry out their job as before.

6
 Social Studies 2023 – 2nd SBQ Practice Answers and Review

L4/ Both aspects of L3

4-5m Award 4m for both similarity and difference with evidence cited.
Award 5m for both similarity and difference with evidence cited
and elaborated.

Difference in purpose
Award 4m for difference in purpose supported with intended
outcome but wihout context.
Award 5m for difference in purpose supported with intended
outcome and context.

e.g. Sources B and C are different in their purpose.

The author of Source B, Minister of State for Transport Dr Lam
Pin Min, made the comments (context) to the media, on 12
November 2019 after a dialogue session with delivery riders. His
ministry’s announcement of the ban was the target of
many PMD riders’ outrage and criticism. Thus, the purpose
of his comments is to convince the PMD riders that the
government is aware of the impact the ban has on them and
will “help them address their problems”, but they had no choice
but to respond to the “significant number of injuries… [and]
several fatalities”. (intended outcome)This is so that the PMD
riders would recognise the government’s rationale for the ban
and take heart from the promise of government support, in
hopes of decreasing the amount of anger expressed towards
the government and restoring the minister’s political reputation.

On the other hand, Source C is (context) from the website

the Singapore Democratic Party, an opposition party in
Singapore. It was published shortly after the
announcement of the PMD footpath ban, where there were
widespread criticisms of the government and the ministers
responsible for the ban. Thus, the purpose of the statement
would be to show that the Singapore Democratic Party is
sympathetic to the concerns of the PMD riders as the ban
“breaks the rice-bowls of many of our fellow citizens”, but the
government does not care about their fate and issued “a
blanket ban… [which] is the easy and lazy way out”. (intended
outcome) This is so that the PMD riders would see the SDP as
the party that represents their interests better than the
government, thereby increasing the party’s popularity and
credibility leading up to the elections in the following year.

L5/ Similarity/Different in content AND similar/difference in

6-7m purpose.
Award 7m for similarity/difference in content + purpose
supported and explained with clear intent and clear intended
outcome but with context.

-1m without context.

7
Social Studies 2023 – 2nd SBQ Practice Answers and Review

Reflection and Review of Comparison Question Answering Process.

1. Misunderstanding Question 2. Mis-reading of Source.

requirements
Who Good
o Review past assignments and
sample answers before test. What Bad
o Write down the key steps on cue
cards. o Summarise / Rephrase in your own
words each line or paragraph of the
source.

3. Expression of answer is flawed. 4. Misunderstanding of context / audience/

author motives.

o Draft and re-draft your message or o Annotate Background information:

comparison statements.
o Check and re-check your message
or comparison statements for
accuracy.
o Brainstorm for key words that reflect
source meaning/main points.
dates, key events, key groups or
individuals, public mood.
o Annotate provenance: who is the author
and audience? Situation at date of
publication? What is the audience
supposed to do after reading? How will
the audience action help the author?

Reflection: What did I do wrongly or not do? What is my Question Answering Process (QAP)
for the Comparison question from now on?

My Comparison SBQ Answering Process:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8
Social Studies 2023 – 2nd SBQ Practice Answers and Review

Corrections: Comparison Question Writing Frame

L2/2m Valid similarity or difference in content based on common criteria,

. unsupported by evidence
L3/4m Difference in Content:
Sources B and C differ in their view of
Valid similarity
OR difference
in content
based on
Source B states that
common
criteria,
.
supported by
evidence.
This implies that

In contrast, from Source C, I can infer that

L4/5m:
Source C states that
Valid similarity
AND difference in
content,
supported
This implies that

AND/OR

Similarity in Content:
Sources B and C are similar in their view of

Source B states that

Source C states that

The evidence from B and C implies that

9
Social Studies 2023 – 2nd SBQ Practice Answers and Review

L5/6m Difference OR Similarity in Purpose.

Sources B and C are similar/ different in their purpose.

L3+
Source B was published to convince/persuade__________ (Audience)
Comparison of
Purpose that _________________________________________ (Message).

Given that _______________________________________ (context-

situation facing author at the time), by giving this speech, the author

wanted _______________ (Audience) to _______________________

(desired audience action) so as to benefit in terms of

(Beneficial Outcome for the author that

serves their agenda at time of publication.).

Source C was published to convince/persuade__________ (Audience)

that _________________________________________ (Message).

Given that _______________________________________ (context-

situation facing author at the time), by giving this speech, the author

wanted _______________ (Audience) to _______________________

(desired audience action) so as to benefit in terms of

(Beneficial Outcome for the author that

serves their agenda at time of publication.).

10