Land Transport and Related Matters Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Acting Minister for Transport.

1.49 pm

The Acting Minister for Transport (Mr Jeffrey Siow): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The Land Transport and Related Matters Bill is an omnibus Bill that regularises provisions across several existing Acts. It is also a joint Bill by the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) covering several key areas.

I will speak on amendments pertaining to the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0 system and increasing penalties for serious vehicular offences. Minister of State Baey Yam Keng will introduce amendments related to active mobility, including regulations on personal mobility aids (PMAs), and the keeping of unsafe personal mobility devices (PMDs). Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will address the MHA components of this Bill, including penalties for speed limiter offences.

The transition to ERP 2.0 has been discussed extensively in this House before. But let me recap quickly why we need ERP 2.0 and the benefits that it will bring.

The current ERP system has been in place since 1998. In combination with vehicle ownership policies, road pricing has kept traffic congestion in check during the peak hours. However, after almost three decades, the current ERP system is reaching its end of life. Replacing obsolete components and infrastructure had become unsustainably challenging and expensive. Hence, in 2013, we decided to prepare to move to a new ERP 2.0 system using Global Navigation Satellite System technology.

While ERP 2.0 was intended to be a step up, providing useful features for motorists such as real-time traffic information, it was nevertheless based on prevailing technology in 2013. The implementation of ERP 2.0 took longer than initially planned. Technology has improved since 2013. Some features envisioned for the On-Board Unit (OBU), such as displaying charging information and traffic alerts, can now also be done via other means, for example, on smartphones. Nevertheless, the ERP 2.0 design, with an OBU, remained fit for purpose for accurate and efficient road charging.

Since we first began the OBU installation exercise in 2024, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has received much feedback. LTA has taken the feedback on board and this has helped to improve the user experience. For instance, after feedback, vehicle owners were given the option to choose not to have a display screen, which would be more similar to the ERP 1.0 experience. But I note that in the end, the vast majority of car owners chose to install display screens.

To date, more than 90% of vehicles have the OBU installed. And having tried out the new OBU, more motorists have now given positive feedback. Motorists tell us that they find some features useful, such as car park availability, reminders on speed limits and bus lanes in operation.

We have been introducing these and other new features progressively. Since September last year, motorists can use the OBU to pay for missed ERP charges by simply clicking a button. Soon, motorists will be able to use the OBU for contactless toll payments at land checkpoints as well as for roadside electronic parking. This is why we are introducing clauses 59 to 64 in this Bill to simplify settlement processes and to decriminalise missed ERP charges, which are currently an offence under the Road Traffic Act.

Compared to ERP 1.0, ERP 2.0 will be more precise and finer in targeting road congestion. It allows us to introduce new charging points without the need for expensive and large physical gantries. We can also spread out ERP charges in smaller amounts across several locations as opposed to just one location and this will be fairer.

At this point, let me reassure motorists that we will be judicious in adding new charging points, doing so only when needed at persistent congestion hotspots.

My intent is to ensure a smooth transition so that the ERP 2.0 experience will be as similar as possible to the ERP 1.0 experience, as we switch over. This means that we will not be introducing distance-based charging in the immediate term. Distance-based charging is something that we will continue to study and explore after motorists have gotten more used to the new system and the situation is more stable.

I want to thank the 93% of vehicle owners who have already installed the OBU. For the remaining ones, LTA is issuing a final reminder. These vehicle owners, who have already been previously notified, will have another three months to install their OBUs at no cost. After that, OBU installation fees will apply. So, I strongly encourage the remaining vehicle owners who are holding out to install their OBUs as soon as possible.

On 1 January 2027, when the ERP 2.0 is completely rolled out and ERP 1.0 is decommissioned, the OBU will be mandatory for all Singapore-registered vehicles. This is because ERP 2.0 uses satellite technology, rather than gantries, to determine the vehicle's location for charging. Clause 65 of the Bill amends the Road Traffic Act 1961 to allow for this.

For foreign-registered private vehicles, we encourage them to install OBUs for usage-based charging, although we recognise that occasional visitors may prefer not to do so. Vehicles without OBUs can still pay a daily flat fee, like cars without the In-vehicle Unit (IU) today. Malaysian taxis, however, will be required to install the OBU, as this is necessary for us to track and enforce against such vehicles if needed within Singapore.

To safeguard the integrity of the ERP 2.0 system, it will be an offence to tamper with or modify OBUs without authorisation, and provide or advertise services on the OBU similarly without authorisation. And these will be set out in subsidiary legislation. For serious cases of deliberate non-compliance or misuse, the legislation provides for penalties of up to $20,000 and/or imprisonment of up to two years. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Acting Minister for Transport", Official Report, 3 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 15, Correction By Written Statement section.]

This Bill also covers housekeeping amendments that harmonise penalties for two categories of vehicular offences.

Today, there are over 1,000 cases of illegal vehicle modifications detected annually. And to deter workshops from doing illegal modification on a large scale, clause 52 of the Bill raises the maximum penalties for such illegal alterations. Under the Bill, individuals can face fines up to $20,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, with penalties doubled for repeat offenders. For non-individuals, first time offenders can be fined up to $40,000, and up to $80,000 for repeat offenders.

Another serious vehicular offence is keeping or using of unregistered or deregistered vehicles. Clause 57 of the Bill increases the penalties for offenders, who will face fines of up to $20,000, and/or jail of up to two years for the first offence, again with penalties doubled for repeat offenders. These enhanced penalties are necessary as we are seeing a growing trend of unregistered vehicles on our roads. Some of them are used for criminal activities, such as drug trafficking. These vehicles also pose serious road safety risks, as they operate without valid insurance or inspections, and are often involved in hit-and-run accidents. Going forward, ERP 2.0 will also make it easier to detect and enforce against such vehicles.

This Bill also includes a few supporting amendments.

Clauses 46 and 47 will amend the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act to expressly empower the LTA to grant financial incentives, support, grant, aid or assistance. This gives flexibility for potential future schemes where direct disbursement may be necessary.

Clauses 48 to 50 will amend the Parking Places Act to enable prosecution in the case of inaccurate lodgements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. The provisions in the Bill support the transition to ERP 2.0 and harmonise vehicular offence penalties across our regulatory system.

I will now invite Minister of State for Transport to elaborate on the active mobility measures in this Bill, followed by Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs who will elaborate on the measures under MHA. Sir, I seek to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Baey Yam Keng.

2.00 pm

The Minister of State for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Mr Speaker, I will now elaborate on the active mobility components of this Bill which represent a significant strengthening of the active mobility legal framework to improve safety.

First, the Bill amends the Active Mobility Act 2017 to implement the new rules on PMAs to ensure their safe and responsible use. Second, the Bill amends the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Act 2020 to make it an offence to keep an unsafe active mobility device (AMD). This grants LTA greater enforcement powers against devices that pose fire safety risks.

Mr Speaker, this House has returned to the issue of active mobility many times over the past decade, reflecting the persistent challenges and evolving nature of regulating active mobility. Since the landmark Active Mobility Act came into force in 2017, we have adjusted our laws multiple times to keep pace with a landscape that moves fast. We introduced the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Act 2020 to stem the flow of non-compliant devices into Singapore and the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Act 2020 to bring order to the business of shared AMDs.

Throughout this journey, we have witnessed a relentless desire for mobility options that are faster, cheaper and more convenient. But ever so often, this came at the direct expense of path safety. Following the ban on e-scooters from footpaths in 2019, we have seen a shift in misuse towards PMAs. Regrettably, as soon as one regulatory gap is closed, another is exploited. This underscores the need for this House to adjust our laws, not out of a desire to restrict and burden individuals with red tape, but out of a duty to curb misuse and keep our paths safe for all.

Many of us have heard from residents who feel increasingly unsafe as larger, faster devices weave through our paths under the guise of being mobility aids. We need to restore the original purpose of these devices to serve their intended users.

To recap, there are three main types of PMAs. First, a mobility scooter, which is a motorised device with a single seat, steered with a handlebar and typically supported by a stem at the front of the device; two, a motorised wheelchair, which is propelled by a motor that forms part of the wheelchair and usually operated by a joystick; or three, a non-motorised wheelchair, which has no motor and is usually mounted on two or more wheels. In this Bill, the first two, mobility scooters and motorised wheelchairs, will be regulated as "mobility vehicles".

As our population ages and more people have to use PMAs, there is a growing need to ensure that they are used safely and responsibly. We face a concerning trend of able-bodied individuals who are misusing mobility scooters. Although the device is a replacement for walking, some ride at top speeds on paths or operate large devices that endanger other path users, especially seniors and young children.

Members, disability groups and the public have consistently called for the tightening of rules on PMAs and improvement in path safety. We hear you. This Bill thus takes a holistic approach to the problem of PMA misuse, speeding and oversized devices. I will not specify the exact clauses as they span across the Bill.

First, we will lower the speed limit for mobility vehicles on public paths to six kilometres an hour.

Second, we will introduce dimension and weight limits for PMAs used on public paths.

Third, we will require that users of mobility scooters be certified to have a medical need for the device, in order to ride a mobility scooter on public paths.

Fourth, we will also go upstream and require that mobility scooters are checked for compliance and registered before they are sold. This upstream rule reduces the likelihood of users obtaining non-compliant mobility scooters.

All four measures were developed following discussions with the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) and careful study of the issue and engagement with key user groups, including PMA users, disability groups, occupational therapists, general path users and food delivery riders. Since we announced the tightening of PMA rules in 2024, we have been working with stakeholders and user groups to prepare for the shift.

This includes readying the healthcare sector to conduct the assessment to grant a Certificate of Medical Need, also known as the Assessment for Mobility Scooter (AMS). We have also been encouraging retailers to shift to new stocks of PMAs that are compliant with the new rules. To give stakeholders sufficient transition time after this Bill, we intend for the rules to take effect from 1 June 2026.

Let me now introduce each of the changes in order.

First, we are reducing the speed limit for mobility scooters and motorised wheelchairs, also known as mobility vehicles, from 10 kilometres per hour to six kilometres per hour. Today, mobility vehicles have a 10-kilometre per hour limit, even if they travel on shared paths where the path speed limit is 25 kilometres per hour. This was recommended by the AMAP in 2018 and intended to discourage able-bodied misuse.

However, experience has shown this limit to be insufficient. Mobility vehicles are generally larger and heavier than bicycles. Travelling at 10 kilometres per hour may still pose a danger to other path users, as it is much faster than typical walking speed. At six kilometres per hour, mobility vehicles match the pace of a brisk walker, which meet the needs of genuine users who have difficulty walking. This will also make our paths safer.

This means that from 1 June 2026, selling mobility vehicles with a device speed limit above six kilometres per hour will carry penalties of up to $20,000 or imprisonment up to 24 months, or both, with higher penalties for non-individuals and repeat offenders. Displaying and advertising such non-compliant devices will carry penalties of up to $10,000 or imprisonment up to 12 months, or both.

An individual who rides or drives a mobility vehicle at a speed exceeding six kilometres per hour on a public path will face fines of up to $2,000 or up to six months' imprisonment, or both, with higher penalties for repeat violations. To ease the transition, we will allow existing mobility vehicles with a device speed limit of up to 10 kilometres per hour to be used on public paths until 31 December 2028, but they need to ride within the six kilometres per hour limit and meet all other rules. From 1 January 2029 onwards, all mobility vehicles used on public paths must have a device speed limit of six kilometres per hour and below.

Second, we will introduce device dimension restrictions for PMAs to address the problem of large PMAs that inconvenience and endanger other path users. This will be aligned with the existing dimension restrictions on public transport.

From 1 June 2026, PMAs must not exceed a width of 70 centimetres, a length of 120 centimetres, a height of 150 centimetres and a laden weight of 300 kilogrammes. Offenders caught riding such devices on public paths face penalties of up to $10,000 in fines or imprisonment of up to six months, or both, with penalties increasing for repea offences.

Selling oversized mobility vehicles will be an offence, with penalties of up to $20,000 or imprisonment up to 24 months, or both, with higher penalties for non-individuals and repeat offenders.

Third, to curb misuse, only those with genuine medical need will be allowed to ride a mobility scooter on public paths from 1 June 2026. We will require users to have a Certificate of Medical Need to ride a mobility scooter on public paths. This targets the core problem of able-bodied users misusing devices meant for those with mobility needs.

When we engaged stakeholders, they welcomed the recommendations. For example, some genuine users shared that the increased misuse of mobility scooters has caused them anxiety because they have had to deal with increasing scrutiny from the public.

Currently, we only intend to require certification for mobility scooters. We do not see a problem of misuse of motorised wheelchairs. So, wheelchair users do not need a Certificate of Medical Need.

The certificate will be available later this month, from 27 February 2026, through the AMS process. The assessment was developed jointly with the Ministry of Health (MOH), with input from professional healthcare associations. A circular and guidelines were issued in November last year to prepare the sector.

Under the AMS, users with medical conditions which result in mobility difficulties will be certified to have a medical need to drive or ride a mobility scooter. Users can approach their regular doctor or occupational therapist for the assessment or a general practitioner who offers the service. We have worked with MOH to engage the healthcare sector to encourage clinics to offer the AMS so that it will be widely available. Based on our survey of clinics, more than 140 clinics intend to offer the assessment. Users will have choices to help keep costs reasonable.

Based on LTA's survey of clinics, fees are expected to range from $20 to $150, with a median fee of $50. Given that a budget mobility scooter costs around $1,000 and mid-range models can reach up to $2,000, the cost of the assessment is relatively modest compared to the price of the device itself. We hope users can understand that this would help to ensure that mobility scooters on public paths are only for those with genuine medical need.

The charges will vary depending on the complexity of the consultation. We have simplified the information that assessors have to provide to LTA. They centre on three key things: first, whether the individual has a medical need to use a mobility scooter; second, whether this need is temporary or long term; and finally, whether the individual has a medical need for a device that exceeds the dimension requirements.

A list of clinics that offer the AMS will be available on LTA's website from tomorrow. Users should contact their preferred clinics directly to enquire about the cost and book an appointment in advance. We encourage users to consult their regular healthcare providers who already understand their medical history, to streamline the assessment process.

We recognise that going to the doctor to obtain certification will take time and cost for users. We will thus take a risk-managed approach to minimise the impact on our healthcare system and on genuine users.

Seniors aged 70 and above will be exempted from the certification requirement. We recognise that as seniors age, the likelihood of mobility challenges increases. The risk of able-bodied seniors abusing mobility scooters is expected to be low. This is especially given the reduced speed limit. We will monitor the situation and calibrate accordingly, if necessary.

We will also exempt users who have had their mobility needs or disability assessed and submitted relevant information to the Government. This includes existing beneficiaries of subsidised mobility scooters from the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) and Assistive Technology Fund (ATF). It also includes individuals already certified with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) needs in "mobility" or "transferring" who have applied for MOH disability schemes, such as the Home Caregiving Grant. These exemptions will apply automatically and users need not do anything. Agencies will issue letters to notify existing SMF and ATF beneficiaries, as well as individuals with the relevant ADL needs who have applied for MOH disability schemes previously.

Moving forward, those applying to SMF for a subsidised mobility scooter will obtain the certificate as part of the subsidy application process. Those obtaining an ATF-subsidised mobility scooter and applicants for MOH disability schemes with the relevant ADL needs, will be automatically exempted.

From 1 June 2026, mobility scooter users on public paths must have this Certificate of Medical Need. Users will have the next three months to obtain the certification, and enforcement officers will engage and educate users on these new rules during this transition period. Those caught riding a mobility scooter on public paths without the Certificate of Medical Need will face penalties of up to $2,000 in fines or imprisonment of up to six months, or both.

Going back to our intention of introducing this rule to curb misuse, our enforcement officers will focus on visibly able-bodied individuals misusing mobility scooters. Our intention is not to inconvenience genuine users. However, some mobility challenges are not visible. So, I seek users' understanding that our enforcement officers will need to do their job and check for their certification at times.

It will also be an offence for businesses to employ or permit an individual to ride a mobility scooter on public path during the course of work, without ensuring that the rider has valid Certification of Medical Need. Offenders will face penalties of up to $2,000 in fines or imprisonment of up to six months, or both.

This is similar to how it is an offence for businesses employing or permitting an individual to ride a power-assisted bicycle (PAB) in the course of work, without ensuring the rider has the mandatory theory test certification.

Fourth, we will require mobility scooters to be registered with LTA to strengthen upstream enforcement. Today, PABs and e-scooters need to be registered with LTA to ensure devices comply with rules and are affixed with identification marks.

To strengthen upstream enforcement and improve the overall effectiveness of PMA measures, mobility scooters will need to be registered. Only mobility scooters that comply with device dimension and speed restrictions can be registered to persons with valid Certificates of Medical Need, exempted persons or whitelisted businesses, such as retailers.

In addition, LTA and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) will make clear through an industry circular that mobility scooters fall under the classification of medical devices as they are specifically designed for individuals with walking difficulties. This means that under HSA's regulations, importers must have an HSA licence and list their devices on HSA's database before import. LTA will only allow mobility scooter models that are listed on HSA's database of medical devices to be registered. Existing mobility scooters need not meet this requirement.

To ensure the registration regime is effective, it must apply to all mobility scooters eventually. If we exempt existing mobility scooters, it will be challenging to distinguish new devices from existing ones.

To give users time to adjust to the rule, we will implement the registration regime in phases and keep the process user-friendly. We will start by requiring registration for mobility scooters sold from 1 June 2026. The sale of an unregistered mobility scooter for use on public paths will be an offence from 1 June 2026, with individuals facing penalties of up to $20,000 or jail of up to 24 months, or both, and higher penalties for non-individuals and repeat offenders.

Thereafter, from 1 January 2029, all mobility scooters will need to be registered before they can be used on a public path. Offenders face penalties of up to $2,000 or jail of up to three months, or both, with higher penalties for repeat offenders.

We have designed the registration process to minimise burden on users. For devices sold from 1 June 2026, retailers will handle registration, creating a seamless experience for consumers.

For existing devices, we will give some time for users to register their devices ahead of the requirement by 1 January 2029. Users will be able to register their devices, if they are compliant, at roving stations that LTA will roll out in mid-2027 at community touchpoints. Devices registered as part of this exercise need not be listed on HSA's database of medical devices.

I know many users may want to rush to register their devices ahead of the rules. LTA will include a survey link on its website for users to indicate their interest in registration. This will help us to better deploy resources for the roving registration stations.

I must emphasise here that only compliant mobility scooters will be allowed for registration. If you have a mobility scooter that does not comply with the six kilometres per hour device speed limit or dimension and weight limits, please replace your device. These new rules were announced two years ago in March 2024 and users should transition to compliant devices by 1 January 2029 – almost five years later.

LTA has engaged retailers on the new registration requirements and we will provide guidance to roll this out smoothly. For AMD retailers, many will be familiar with the existing registration regimes for power-assisted bicycles and e-scooters. We will pay special attention to medical device retailers who may be less familiar with the process.

Mr Speaker, the Bill strikes a careful balance between access and safety. We want to ensure genuine users have access to PMAs, which can significantly improve their quality of life. At the same time, we need to keep paths safe and address the problem of misuse.

In designing our regulations, we also recognise the unique needs of PMA users, who have mobility challenges. This is why we will implement exemptions from the Certificate of Medical Need requirement for seniors and existing Government scheme beneficiaries. We will also keep the registration process streamlined and user-friendly.

Thus far, we have focused on the PMA proposals, which are intended to strengthen path safety. Turning to fire safety, the Government takes a strict enforcement approach towards the import, sale and use of non-compliant AMDs.

Since 2021, local retailers must seek LTA's approval for the import of PABs and PMDs, and they must be registered before use. These devices must also be compliant with safety standards. For PABs, it is the EN15194 standard, while for registrable PMDs, it is the UL2272 standard.

Despite years of regulatory tightening since 2016, we continue to grapple with the fire safety risks from AMDs. In 2025 alone, we recorded 49 AMD-related fires. PMDs accounted for most cases at 31, and the bulk of PMD fires involve non-UL2272-certified devices. We can do more to prevent such fires and we will do more.

Today, it is an offence to ride a non-UL2272-certified e-scooter on public paths or roads, but not to keep such devices. This means that if LTA enforcement officers come across a non-UL2272-certified e-scooter, no action can be taken unless it is being used.

This is unlike the case for non-compliant power-assisted bicycles, where it is already an offence to keep such a device under the Road Traffic Act 1961. We will address this gap. Clauses 84 to 91 will amend the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Act 2020 to prohibit the keeping of unsafe devices. Devices that do not comply with the prescribed safety requirements, such as the UL2272 safety standard for registrable personal mobility devices, will be unsafe devices.

Some may ask why we are only doing this now. LTA's mandate has traditionally focused on path and road safety. However, recognising the fire safety risks of AMDs even when they are not used on paths or roads, we are extending the function and duty of the LTA to include the regulation of the keeping of unsafe devices.

Clause 46 will amend the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act 1995 to expand LTA's function and duty to include regulating the keeping of unsafe devices. The Bill will make it an offence to keep such unsafe devices.

Penalties include fines up to $2,000 or imprisonment up to three months, or both, with higher penalties for non-individuals and repeat offenders. LTA will leverage feedback received via official channels and social media, surveillance as well as day-to-day operations to detect and seize non-UL2272 e-scooters.

Mr Speaker, these measures represent an important shift to implement upstream controls and strengthen our laws, to make our paths safer for everyone. It will enable those with mobility needs who genuinely need to use PMAs to use them safely alongside other path users.

Ultimately, Mr Speaker, we must return to the heart of this matter: the vision of a gracious "we first" society. MOT and LTA are strengthening our laws and enforcement, but they are not a panacea. We must acknowledge the reality that the "cat" – the regulator – will never be fast enough to catch every "mouse" – every errant rider. Path safety is and must always be a collective responsibility. Errant riders and device owners must realise that they are not just breaking the law but endangering themselves and our communities. Responsible riders among us must also speak up and help shape the right culture on our paths.

While the Government will do its part through regulations, infrastructure and enforcement, it is the individual's behaviour and the community's social norms that will ultimately make our paths safe for everyone.

I will now invite the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs to address the MHA components of this joint Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

2.28 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Speaker, allow me to outline the amendments proposed by MHA to the Road Traffic Act and the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) Act under this Bill.

MHA will be making two key amendments. First, to strengthen the regulatory framework around speed limiters to better deter and detect non-compliance. Second, to clarify that the mandatory disqualification periods prescribed for certain offences under the Road Traffic Act are minimum periods and that the Courts can impose longer disqualification periods.

I will focus my remarks on these two amendments, before briefly touching on the other amendments.

Members will recall that in 2024, we commenced the mandatory installation of speed limiters in lorries. This is to mitigate the risks posed by heavy vehicles, which can cause more severe consequences in the event of an accident. We have adopted a phased implementation approach, depending on the weight and registration date of the vehicle. As of 5 January 2026, around 72% of lorries required to have speed limiters installed by the various deadlines have done so.

We have reviewed the existing speed limiter offences and found them to be inadequate in deterring non-compliance and there are also gaps in accountability. To close these gaps, clause 56 of the Bill introduces several new offences and raises the penalties for existing offences.

First, we will hold owners and drivers liable for knowingly causing or permitting the use of non-compliant speed limiter-required lorries and for tampering with installed speed limiters.

Under the current speed limiter rules, only the driver commits an offence for driving a non-compliant lorry. However, there may be situations where such non-compliance occurs under the instruction of the owner of the lorry, who is not liable under the existing rules. The proposed amendment closes this gap by extending the scope of the offence to anyone who knowingly causes or permits the use of a non-compliant lorry, including the owner.

In addition, while tampering with a speed limiter is already an offence, currently, only the person who tampered with it is liable. The current law does not expressly make liable, persons who instructed or caused another person to do so, nor persons who offer to alter speed limiters. Our proposed amendment ensures that all parties who are involved in speed limiter tampering can be held accountable.

Second, we will impose a duty on Authorised Agents to report suspected tampering of a speed limiter.

Currently, only Authorised Agents of the Traffic Police may install or service speed limiters. With this amendment, such agents will be required to notify the Traffic Police if they know or have reason to believe that a speed limiter has been tampered with or is non-compliant. This will enable prompt investigation and removal of non-compliant lorries from the roads.

Third, we will prohibit the advertising of speed limiter services by unauthorised parties. This deters the supply of illegal tampering services and reduces opportunities for tampering.

The Bill will also raise the penalties for existing speed limiter-related offences.

Currently, first-time offenders face a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to three months, while repeat offenders face a fine of up to $2,000 or imprisonment of up to six months. These penalties have not been updated since 1999. The Bill updates the penalty framework by increasing the maximum fines to $10,000 for a first conviction and $20,000 for subsequent convictions. The imprisonment terms will be retained. This ensures that the penalties are a credible deterrent and are commensurate with the potential harm posed by speeding heavy vehicles.

Next, clauses 69 to 73, 75 and 77 of the Bill clarify that the mandatory disqualification periods prescribed for certain offences under the Road Traffic Act are minimum disqualification periods and that no special reasons are required for a Court to order a longer disqualification period. The disqualification period that the Court may impose can be any period equal to or above the prescribed minimum disqualification period, including a lifetime disqualification period if it thinks fit.

These amendments seek to address the observations in the recent High Court judgment of Ng En You Jeremiah v Public Prosecutor. The High Court, in considering a sentencing framework for the relevant driving offence, noted that the offence already imposed a mandatory 12-year disqualification period, “unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to not order or to order otherwise”. The High Court also held that “special reasons” had to be exceptional and that the 12-year disqualification period should apply regardless of the applicable sentencing band for that particular driving offence. The High Court's judgment thus appears to suggest that special reasons must be present before a Court may impose a disqualification period that is longer than the prescribed minimum period.

For serious road traffic offences, such as driving under the influence of drink and car racing, a mandatory minimum disqualification period is prescribed because such conduct poses a serious risk to public safety. The amendments make it clear that there is no need for special reasons before a Court may impose a disqualification period that is longer than the prescribed minimum period.

Sir, I will now briefly run through several other miscellaneous amendments. Clauses 68, 74 and 79 will enhance the operational efficiency of the Singapore Armed Forces and Traffic Police.

Clause 68 addresses an ambiguity under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act. Currently, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) contracts commercial bus companies to ferry soldiers to various locations. In view of the shortage of bus drivers, SAF intends for its personnel to drive the commercial buses it leases. However, section 49 may be interpreted to limit SAF personnel holding military driving licences to driving only vehicles owned by SAF. The amendment makes it clear that the exemption applies to vehicles owned or leased by SAF.

Currently, Police officers are required to manually review, themselves, images and footages captured by Police cameras and manually issue, themselves, the traffic notices, even for straightforward violations, such as red-light beating and speeding. Clauses 74 and 79 amend the Road Traffic Act to allow processing of such violations to be carried out by authorised civilians, including service providers, subject to appropriate safeguards. This would free up Traffic Police officers to focus on enforcement and complex cases.

Clause 82 amends section 4 of the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) Act relating to the forfeiture of road vehicles used to commit any offence prescribed in the Schedule of the Act. Forfeiture is currently mandatory if the Court is satisfied that a road vehicle has been used to commit any scheduled offence or to convey persons to the scene or facilitate escape of any person from the scene where a scheduled offence has been committed. The amendment will make the forfeiture of road vehicles discretionary in all scenarios if it is proved to the Court's satisfaction that the person who committed the scheduled offence involving the vehicle is not the vehicle owner and had used the vehicle without the consent of its owner.

Mr Speaker, in summary, the amendments proposed by MHA in this Bill will update, clarify and strengthen our road traffic laws. But these moves alone are not enough. MHA remains concerned by the road safety situation and has plans to further tighten our laws and regulatory framework. We will share more at the upcoming Committee of Supply debate.

We also call upon all road users to exercise responsibility, patience and graciousness. It is possible to achieve zero road injuries and fatalities but only if we all do our part.

Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.

2.38 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, Sir, land transport affects Singaporean’ daily lives and livelihoods. Today’s debate on the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill reflects this and is therefore of public importance.

Our Transport Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) is giving this Bill close attention, as are many of our People’s Action Party (PAP) Parliamentary colleagues. A total of 18 PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) will speak on the new regulations on PMAs, ERP 2.0, vehicle safety and other related issues.

In the course of our respective work on the ground, my PAP colleagues and I have engaged different stakeholder groups, including private hire drivers, union workers, industry representatives and, of course, our own residents. These engagements gave us precious opportunities to hear their feedback first-hand, understand their lived experiences and challenges faced and gather practical suggestions. My PAP colleagues will share more in their speeches.

At the heart of our interest is the principle of ensuring fair, inclusive and safe use of our public roads and space. In a society where our people have diverse needs, co-existence is key. This means that our public infrastructure and spaces offer choices and accommodate different user groups, and that our legislations enable people yet protect the vulnerable.

Overall, my fellow PAP MPs and I support the intent of the Bill and we will set out our arguments in our respective speeches. We will also be highlighting our concerns pertaining to practical implementation, costs and impact on vulnerable groups, such as low-income groups and platform workers.

Here, allow me to raise a few points.

Firstly, transitioning to ERP 2.0 is a step toward a smarter transport future. This is progress. Despite initial teething problems from mass OBU deployment, ERP 2.0 enables a more intelligent road use management. Real-time data collected via the OBUs can be integrated with existing systems to enable situational awareness and faster incident detection. Over time, these data can support incident and demand predictions. Removing physical ERP gantries eventually will also free up valuable land space. Hence, I support this progressive move.

Second, OBUs are central to ERP 2.0, but the installation was delayed by the global chip shortage from 2021 to 2023. Although most vehicles now have OBUs, full installation is only expected to complete by 2027, at least seven-year gap from original approval to completion. Even longer, if you consider that the OBUs were based on the technology back in 2013.

Given how rapidly technology evolves, how will the Government ensure that the hardware and software, including the operating system, do not become obsolete before we can achieve the smart transport management objectives? Upgrading devices is costly in manpower and money, and it places burdens on vehicle owners. So, we really do not want a situation whereby very shortly after we complete the OBU deployment in 2027, and then we have to go into another round again.

Third, the use of OBUs will make distance-based ERP pricing feasible. I understand the Minister mentioned that it will not be an immediate deployment, but it is feasible. While charging by distance is fairer in principle, it also risks disproportionately affecting those who earn their living on the road, especially delivery riders and private hire drivers who often work long painful hours but also often earning just enough to make ends meet. These workers will be unable to optimise pathways and can only be “price takers” in this instance. So, in the eventual situation whereby distance-based ERP pricing is implemented, may I ask what measures will be in place to support these workers?

Fourth, PMAs are increasingly important, particularly in an ageing society. Many elderly residents depend on them for mobility and well-being. But irresponsible use poses real safety risks to both the device users and others around them. Today, there are effectively no restrictions on who may use mobility scooters. I have personally seen riders moving at high speeds on pedestrian paths and instances of multiple able-bodied users on a single scooter endangering others.

Just to illustrate with an example from a few years ago, I witnessed three young and able-bodied persons riding a mobility scooter along the covered walkway cutting through Circuit Road. I stopped the scooter and attempted to tell the three riders to dismount as it was dangerous. They gave me a puzzled look and then sped off. Unfortunately, I did not manage to chase them down. That was perhaps the most outrageous instance I encountered and thankfully, the only time so far. But the point is that such irresponsible use is dangerous to other pedestrians, especially when we have many frail and elderly residents using that walkway. Hence, I welcome the Bill’s measures to limit PMA speeds and to require a Certificate of Medical Need.

Next, strong enforcement is critical to achieving the Bill’s objectives. Current enforcement is challenging. Officers cannot be everywhere; active mobility patrols rely heavily on volunteers and camera deployments have been piecemeal and temporary. Where cameras are present, behaviour improves. And when they are removed, problems often recur. For example, after temporary cameras were installed in 2024 on the pedestrian bridge between Paya Lebar Way and Aljunied Crescent in MacPherson, compliance improved. But the problem of riders speeding cross the bridge returned once the cameras were taken down.

As such, how will the Government strengthen enforcement capacity? Will more permanent cameras be installed and can our network of cameras support intelligent, real-time monitoring to identify and act, whether it is through warnings or issuance of notices, on non-compliant PMA riders more promptly? I should add that this should include wilful cyclists and other mobility device users as well.

In addition, requiring PMDs and PABs to meet the UL2272 and EN14194 standards has been a prudent safety measure that reduced fire risks from charging. This is a positive outcome, but more can be done to keep fires down further. Hence, I support making the possession of non-UL2272 e-scooters an offence. Keeping such a device tempts one to still use it. Moreover, if it cannot be used, then there is no reason to keep it.

In conclusion, let me reiterate that at the heart of the Transport GPC along with fellow PAP MPs' interests, we want to ensure fair, inclusive and safe use of our public roads and spaces. Co-existence is key to living in a diverse and highly built-up Singapore. We need to keep spaces open for all to live, work and play, but we must also intervene to support or protect the vulnerable.

Overall, this Bill strikes a sensible balance between enabling mobility and managing the risks that come with new usage patterns and technologies. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

2.46 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, the Land Transport Related Matters Bill introduces significant changes to our transport landscape. A key shift in this Bill is the reclassification of what we currently know as PMAs. The Bill replaces this term with a new legal category: "mobility vehicles". This category, in part, encompasses both motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. I will first speak briefly on ERP 2.0, while the rest of my speech will focus on the regime changes for these mobility vehicles and raising several concerns.

ERP 2.0 and data protection. Mr Speaker, the shift to ERP 2.0 brings with it a significant change in how vehicle movement data is collected and used. Under clause 81, a document certified by the registrar containing transaction and location data from ERP 2.0 devices will be admissible as evidence in court. This marks the departure from the privacy-centric design of ERP 1.0.

As noted in The Straits Times article on 16 April 1993, the registry of vehicles explicitly chose a system using prepaid smart card so that, I quote: "all the information is in the card and not with the authorities managing the system".

While the old IU kept trip data local, the new OBUs enable continuous central logging. Can the Minister clarify what specific technical encryption and anonymisation protocols are applied to data transmitted from the OBU to the central server? Furthermore, what are the legal safeguards to prevent this data from being accessed by other agencies for purposes entirely unrelated to road pricing?

Consistent enforcement and public education. Mr Speaker, I have spoken in this House many times since the 13th Parliament on the urgent need for consistent enforcement and robust public education for all AMDs. This includes bicycles, PABs, PMDs and of course, PMAs or mobility vehicles. Yet on a daily basis we still witness widespread disregard for road safety, cyclists and PAB users not keeping left, beating red lights, riding without helmets or using footpaths with little regard for pedestrians. This is notwithstanding statistics revealed by the Traffic Police, I think it was yesterday, of 650 summons issued to errant cyclists in the first half of 2025.

How many cyclists or e-bike riders are aware, for example, that it is an offence riding on the right side of a motor vehicle unless they are overtaking or about to make a right turn? It is also not uncommon to see riders not riding on the left lanes. Are users of rental bikes made aware that helmets must be worn when riding on the roads? These are just examples.

The human cause is evident. In December, a 71-year-old lady was severely injured by an e-bike while exiting Pasir Ris Mall, requiring jaw reconstruction. In January, another lady in her 60s suffered torn ligaments and fractures after being knocked down while crossing the road. In November last year, the Minister of State, Baey Yam Keng himself, was bumped into by a female cyclist travelling in the wrong direction.

Such in these incidents underscore a poor riding culture rooted in years of inadequate public education and enforcement, points I raised repeatedly in this House since 2017. I am reminded of the Road Safety Park at East Coast launched in the 1980s. Its objective was ambitious then: to introduce road safety as a way of life. By its 20th year, more than one million students in Singapore had passed through its gates to participate in traffic games.

They role played as pedestrians and drivers to internalise road courtesy. This was a society wide effort that instil safety consciousness through practical engagement. To truly change our AMD riding culture, we must move beyond static signage to immersive learning. The road safety park's success in the early years shows that when we have the will to invest, we can shape an entire generation's behaviour.

Authorities have cited limited resources as far as AMDs are concerned. Recently, Minister of State Baey Yam Keng reiterated that LTA will do its best within constraints. But Mr Speaker, there should be a greater political will to invest in the resources needed for a safer riding culture and for safer footpaths.

Changes to the PMA regime. Yet, even as enforcement resources remain limited, this Bill introduces more changes, more rules and changes for PMAs: implementing the Certificate of Medical Need requirement, imposing dimension limits and reducing the speed limit for mobility scooters from 10 kilometres per hour to six kilometres per hour. It also mandates the registration for PMAs.

While these measures directly address concerns regarding the misuse of mobility scooters by able bodied individuals, speeding and the use of oversized devices, I am again concerned about the practical execution of the measures designed in this Bill, given the inability to significantly improve safe use and riding culture for different forms of AMDs so far. How will LTA ensure non-compliant mobility scooters are not used after 2028, or unauthorised riders do not continue with their use after the passing of this Bill?

The same gap worries me about clause 84 to 91, regarding the proposed banning of non UL2272 e-scooters or PMDs. In a September 2025 Parliamentary Question reply, Minister Shanmugam said that 187 fires in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates were caused by AMDs. Of these 46% by PMDs, 42% by PABs and 12% for PMAs. It is disturbing that five years after PMDs or e-scooters were supposedly banned from mainstream use, except on park connectors, they are still the main cause of fires for all AMDs. One can imagine how many more are kept in homes and continue to be used. It is also reflective, at least to some extent, of the effectiveness of past and former enforcement efforts in curbing non-compliant use.

On 20 November 2025, an island-wide operation targeted non-compliant devices. What measures were taken for units where occupants were not at home? Five years after the ban, they remain a primary fire risk. How will the offence of keeping these PMDs be enforced on a regular basis? Will there be regular door-to-door inspections? Could the Ministry consider concentrating officers in a specific zone for a sustained period for intensive enforcement? This will send a strategic message rather than spreading our limited resources too thinly.

Impact on seniors and infrastructure. The change of the PMA regime. The reduction of mobility scooter speed limit to six kilometres per hour raises some concerns, and I have spoken on this in this House previously. The Government previously noted that this speed takes reference from walking speeds. However, a 40% drop in speed significantly increases travel time and exposure to the elements for seniors. Can the Minister clarify whether any studies were conducted on the impact of this reduction on the travel range of elderly users?

Some of my residents who use their PMAs to travel beyond their immediate neighbourhood had provided feedback to me that the reduction in speed will increase the time they need to travel and ultimately, reduce the distance they can travel within the time that they have.

At the 2024 Committee of Supply debate for MOT, I had urged the Government in the run-up to the introduction of the new PMD regime to reconsider permitting seniors aged at least 67 or 70 to be allowed to use mobility scooters, even in the absence of a formerly diagnosed musculoskeletal or medical condition. I am glad that the Government has decided to exempt seniors aged 70 and above from the certification requirement.

Mobility scooters do provide seniors with confidence to be out and about, which is a good thing. So, for these individuals, mobility scooters can be invaluable at maintaining mobility, independence and quality of life during their golden years, allowing broader access to seniors above 70 would empower them to remain active and engaged in community life, promoting both physical and mental well-being.

I would also like to suggest that the Government could explore expanding the capacity of occupational therapies in restructured hospitals to provide mobility scooters, assessments and training. This would ensure that seniors and others with genuine mobility needs receive proper guidance on the safe and responsible use of these devices. Such a measure would not only enhance user safety but also foster greater confidence among the public in the appropriate use of mobility scooters.

Next, outreach to existing users who have to discontinue use. I am also concerned about the impact on existing mobility scooter users who have to discontinue their existing use of mobility scooters. There are some parents who use their mobility scooters to ferry their young children or some seniors who ferry their spouses with mobility or health issues on their existing PMAs. These PMAs will not be authorised under this Bill due to their sizes. We must be sensitive to understand that some of these individuals have real transportation needs that in their views are not adequately met by the proposals in this Bill or what is otherwise available out there. So, how will LTA reach out to these affected individuals effectively on the law change and get them to understand the risks perceived by the authorities as posed by such devices on the users and fellow footpath users, and to get their buy-in on the new law?

Finally, Mr Speaker, I must again touch on the last mile problem for some users of mobility scooters. The law disallows PMAs from riding on the roads, presumably except when crossing roads. In 2019 and 2020, I raised in this House how narrow or blocked footpaths in, for example, private estates, would usually force PMA riders onto roads. In January 2023, I had asked in a Parliamentary Question about statistics of enforcement against PMA riders who were caught on the road and the range of punishments imposed. MHA revealed that while notices were issued and fines of up to $2,000 were imposed, the number of formal prosecutions was relatively low, often handled through compensation fines first.

In another reply to my Parliamentary Question in 2024, MHA also confirmed that enforcement against PMA users on roads had increased with 10 users caught between January and August 2024, compared to four in 2023.

Mr Speaker, I do often see PMAs on the road and this is not just in private estates or when they are merely crossing the road. I am surprised by the low statistics of enforcement cited. While I agree that it may not be safe for PMAs to use the road, I recognise that our infrastructure needs to catch up to ensure that there is no reason for PMA riders to use the road.

Today, in 2026, we are slowing these seniors down even further to six kilometres per hour. If we are going to enforce a strict walking pace and a strict road ban, the Government must first guarantee that the last mile footpath in our private estates, for example, are actually wide enough and clear enough to be used. For example, are the pavements free of obstacles and trees to allow free access? Otherwise, it is unfair and unsafe for elderly PMA users. If our seniors are forced to use the road, they should not fear being prosecuted.

On the other hand, from my conversation with many mobility scooter riders, it seems that many are still not even aware that it is illegal to use their mobility scooters on the road. This brings us to the same familiar problem of the need for more and better public education and adequate regular enforcement, as is the case for other AMDs, which I touched on earlier. I would like to ask the Minister to update the House on what public education measures it is intending with the passing of the Bill and also to enhance his efforts to improve the riding culture for all AMD users, including mobility scooters.

In closing, Mr Speaker, I hope the Government will consider the proposals and suggestions I have made. Notwithstanding my concerns and reservations, I support the Bill's intent to improve safety and better regulation. I urge the Ministry to ensure strong public education, effective enforcement and thoughtful implementation so that we build a safer environment for all.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

3.00 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to strengthen transport safety and efficiency – from improving active mobility safety, to tightening enforcement against illegally modified vehicles and streamlining the collection of missed ERP charges. These are important objectives and I support them.

But as we consider these changes, we must remain clear-eyed about who will be most affected on the ground, especially our workers, many of whom depend on our transport system not just to get around, but to earn a living.

I declare my interests as Assistant Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), Advisor to the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA) and Executive Secretary to the National Transport Workers' Union.

Mr Speaker, I recognise the intent behind the enhanced regulations on PMAs, including reducing the speed limit from 10 kilometres per hour to six kilometres per hour, introducing size limits, mandatory registration and the Certificate of Medical Need. These measures are meant to improve safety for all footpath users and that is a goal we all share. But how we implement them matters.

We must be careful not to unintentionally place additional hardship on persons with genuine, often permanent mobility impairments, many of whom rely on PMAs to undertake delivery work as their primary and sometimes, only source of income. For our riders, platform work is not a convenience. It is a hard-won pathway to financial independence.

First, the reduction in PMA speed limits will lengthen delivery times. For riders who are already push themselves daily, those extra minutes compound quickly. Fewer completed jobs mean lower earnings, and for riders living close to the edge, even a modest drop in income can translate into real trade-offs between food, utilities or even medical needs. Media reports have already highlighted concerns that riders' earnings may be significantly affected and these reflect what we are hearing consistently on the ground through our union engagements.

Mdm Farhana Binte Ahmad Mashon, the General Secretary of the National Delivery Champions Association, is herself a mother of six and soon to be a grandmother. She fully supports the intent behind these safety measures, especially to protect young children who may be too small to be seen easily by riders and are particularly vulnerable to careless riding. At the same time, Hana is also a full-time delivery rider who relies on her PMA for her work. Based on her experience, she expects her earnings to fall by 30% to 40% under the six kilometres per hour speed limit if incentives and work conditions are not adjusted. This illustrates the real tension we must address between improving safety and ensuring that riders who depend on this work are not pushed into financial hardship.

As worker representatives, our platform work associations, including the NDCA, have raised these concerns directly with platform operators. We have since obtained commitments and in-principle agreements from platform partners through bilateral negotiations to review delivery targets and work arrangements for our full-time PMA riders, so that safety improvements do not come at the expense of livelihoods. I also urge the Government to work closely with platform operators to monitor post-implementation impacts and to be prepared to offer targeted transitional support if hardship emerges.

Mr Speaker, we support the safety intent, but safety improvements should not disproportionately penalise those who depend on PMAs the most.

Second, while I support the Certificate of Medical Need to prevent abuse, the criteria must not be so rigid that deserving users are excluded. Medical needs are not always binary. Mobility challenges exist on a spectrum. We should avoid overly narrow thresholds that unintentionally create new barriers for those who genuinely need PMAs for safe and independent mobility.

In our engagements with our PMA riders, we see a wide range of profiles and needs. Some, like Ms Toh Bee Tin – a familiar name to many in this House as she was a Para Table Tennis athlete – are born with mobility disabilities and rely entirely on their PMAs, not just for mobility, but for their delivery livelihoods. Others, like Ms Siti Sabarinah, turned to a PMA after suffering a serious leg injury from a delivery cycling accident last year. While she is on the path to recovery, she is still unable to walk independently over longer distances. For riders like her, the concern is not just access today, but the longevity and viability of a significant PMA investment under the new regulatory framework.

These examples remind us that eligibility should be guided by real functional needs, not narrow thresholds. As we tighten safeguards against misuse, we must also ensure that those who genuinely depend on PMAs for safe, independent mobility and to earn a living are not left behind.

Mr Speaker, there is also the issue of cost. Medical certification can range from $50 to $100, which is significant for lower-income riders. To support our members, the NDCA will provide financial assistance to help subsidise and co-pay out-of-pocket compliance costs arising from this Act. This includes expenses, such as medical certifications and installations of attached-on speedometers. In addition, NDCA is in discussion with affiliate general practitioner (GP) partners to make medical assessments and certification more affordable and accessible.

These efforts reflect our shared commitment to upholding road safety, while also protecting the dignity and sustainability of work for those who rely on PMAs to earn an honest living.

I also ask the Government to consider additional support measures, especially for riders, like Siti, who are recovering from health conditions and will eventually need to transition out of PMAs. Support during this transition period is important, so that recovery does not come at the cost of livelihoods. In addition, I seek the Government's consideration for assistance with the purchase of essential equipment, such as speedometers, which will be critical in helping riders comply with this new speed limit.

Finally, I ask the Ministry to clarify whether polyclinics will be able to issue the required medical certificates, so that costs remain affordable and accessible for those who need PMAs the most.

Third, while I appreciate the advance notice given since 2024 and the meaningful consultations with NDCA, I urge an education-first approach during the initial enforcement. Some users will need time to adapt, whether to speed limits, device requirements or certification rules. Reasonable grace periods and room for discretion, especially for genuine mistakes, will go a long way in ensuring compliance without undue stress. Clear rules matter but compassionate implementation matters just as much.

The NDCA has engaged riders extensively across Singapore not just in meeting rooms, but where our riders actually work and rest. These sessions covered recruitment, rider safety, enforcement issues, Central Provident Fund (CPF) clarifications, last-mile delivery challenges and discussions with LTA and our platform operators. This feedback is not abstract. It reflects lived realities and this is why NDCA continues to work closely with platform operators through the tripartite framework to mitigate livelihood impact while complying to these new rules.

We thank our platform operators partners, like Grab, who have given in-principle assurances to adjust performance targets, and NDCA will continue to support riders through the transition to defray costs, including medical certification and device modifications.

Mr Speaker, this is how lives, livelihoods, safety, dignity at work go hand in hand, the tripartite way.

Turning to electric buses. I support the amendments to section 6 of the LTA of Singapore Act 1995 recognising the promotion and regulation for the safe use of electric vehicles (EVs). In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): By 2030, electric buses will make up half of our public bus fleet. This is no small matter and whether we can navigate this path steadily depends mostly on our bus captains.

Currently, companies do provide training, but each has different arrangements. When manpower is tight, training is sometimes shortened.

But bus captains are different. They drive large vehicles with complex systems, carrying passengers and bear heavy responsibility. Some captains have told us that driving electric buses requires not only getting used to new equipment and rules, but also constantly monitoring screens, unlike before when it is mostly monitoring through the rear mirrors. Over time, this causes eye strain and even dizziness. This is no small matter!

I would like to ask LTA whether they could consider establishing a unified, clear and mandatory training for electric buses, so that captains have confidence when transitioning to electric buses, making the road safer.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I now turn to the issue of speed limiters for lorries. Road safety must always remain our top priority. Measures that protect lives on our roads are necessary and I recognise fully the intent behind mandating speed limiters for heavy vehicles. This intent is also understood and broadly supported by the fleet operators and lorry owners whom I have spoken with.

That said, as with many transport policies, the real test lies not in the intent, but actually, in the implementation.

One key concern raised by drivers and operators relates to speed differentials on our expressways. Passenger vehicles may travel at up to 90 kilometres per hour, while heavy vehicles are capped at 60 kilometres per hour. This wide gap can disrupt traffic flow, lead to frequent overtaking, sudden braking and in some cases, paradoxically increasing accident risks rather than reduce them.

Another concern is enforcement consistency. Local operators who comply with speed-limiter requirements may find themselves disadvantaged when foreign-registered heavy vehicles, which may not be subjected to the same standards, continue travelling at higher speeds. This creates uneven road behaviour and undermines both safety objectives as well as fair competition.

Mr Speaker, my point is not to revisit the policy intent, but to emphasise that implementation must be holistic. Speed limiters alone cannot deliver safer roads. They must be complemented by consistent enforcement, clear lane discipline and policies that reflect the realities of mixed traffic conditions.

I, therefore, urge the relevant Ministries to continue engaging drivers and operators to apply enforcement with judgement, and to ensure that implementation remains practical, fair and grounded in real-world conditions so that our roads are not just regulated, but genuinely safer for everyone.

Mr Speaker, with these points raised in the spirit of fairness, safety and grounded implementation, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.

3.12 pm

Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I have a few considerations to share on the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill.

At the outset, let me state that I recognise the importance of ensuring safety and order for all users in Singapore. Our roads, footpaths and shared spaces must be safe for pedestrians, cyclists, persons with disabilities and motorists. As mobility patterns and technologies evolve, our laws must be updated to reflect these new realities on the ground.

One of the most significant developments in recent years has been the rapid rise in the use of mobility devices, such as PMAs, PMDs and PABs. Their use is not limited to elderly Singaporeans or persons with visible disabilities. Even working adults, caregivers and delivery workers are using them, which reflects the last mile connectivity challenges they face.

Mr Speaker, my point here is simple. The increased use of mobility vehicles by Singaporeans is more often than not driven by a practical need. Singaporeans rely on this informal low-cost mobility solution simply to get by and get on with their daily lives.

With the Certificate of Entitlement prices shattering records year after year, a private car is now firmly out of reach for many working families. Even motorcycles, traditionally seen as an affordable alternative, have become significantly more expensive. Against this backdrop, it should come as no surprise that to meet their everyday transport needs, Singaporeans have turned to mobility vehicles that cost from a few hundred dollars, to $1,000 or $2,000 – just a fraction of the price of a motorcycle or a car. For many Singaporeans, these devices are the only viable way to bridge the last mile between their homes and essential destinations, such as workplaces, schools, markets and food centres.

Mr Speaker, I fully understand and acknowledge the Government's concern about the misuse of such vehicles by able-bodied individuals in ways that compromise public safety. There have been genuine incidents involving reckless riding, excessive speeds and conflicts on footpaths.

These issues must be addressed, but we must be careful not to inadvertently cause hardship to Singaporeans who rely on these devices out of necessity. Many such individuals now use mobility vehicles to earn a living, including completing food and parcel deliveries for platform companies, such as Grab. For them, these vehicles are essential tools of work rather than toys for amusement or recreation.

The Bill proposes to reduce the speed limit for PMAs from 10 kilometres per hour to six kilometres per hour. In an article published by Mothership on 27 January, platform workers shared that this reduction in speed limit is likely to reduce the orders they can complete by 20% to 30%, or even up to 50%. This will translate to a loss in earnings. While some workers will be able to make up for this by working longer hours, others who have caregiving needs or health problems may not be able to do so.

Besides being a tool for employment, mobility vehicles can also prove to be the most convenient or practical option for some residents to get around the neighbourhood. Let me illustrate with some examples from my own ward of Kaki Bukit. Take a resident who lives at Block 530 in Bedok North Street 3, which is right next to Kaki Bukit Community Centre. To head to Red Swastika School, the resident has no direct bus route. There are indirect bus options, but this involves switching either at Bedok Interchange or at Heartbeat at Bedok. And that will take more than 35 minutes. The other option is to walk 1.2 kilometres, which Google Maps indicate will take around 17 minutes. To reach Bedok Reservoir Park or Damai Secondary School, the resident has two options to walk – 1.9 kilometres for 26 minutes or to walk one kilometre for 14 minutes to a bus stop near along Bedok North Avenue 3; and then take a three-minute bus ride for three stops.

Mr Speaker, I do not mean for these examples to be comprehensive or exhaustive. Rather, they are meant to demonstrate that for certain short but significant journeys in Kaki Bukit, there are sometimes no direct or convenient public transport options. The only realistic alternative is to walk directly from point to point. This is the healthiest option, but may be challenging for the elderly, those with mobility difficulties or parents with young children who are pressed for time – not to mention the hot and humid weather in Singapore, which does not make for a comfortable walking experience. In such circumstances, a PMA can be useful, especially for caregivers with children or working workers rushing to and from shifts.

Mr Speaker, regulation without viable alternative risks deepening inequality. Transport policy should be concerned with more than efficiency and safety, but also consider equity and inclusion, especially for those with the least resources.

As I mentioned earlier, the increasing reliance on AMDs is driven by practical necessity. Residents turn to these devices to cope with and adapt to what they see as gaps in our public transport network, especially when it comes to last mile connectivity or travelling to neighbourhood amenities that are just slightly too far to walk to comfortably. For such persons, mobility devices are the most viable options, after taking cost, time, convenience and accessibility into account.

As such, improving our public transport links, including boosting capacity for last mile connectivity must be a priority. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, I would encourage the Ministry to offer seed funding to pilot and test community bus shuttles in different towns, including Kaki Bukit, with the intention of providing coverage for those short but significant journeys around the neighbourhood that are currently underserved by our public transport operators. We can even call this the "we first" shuttle. These local shuttles should be targeted to the specific practical needs of residents and reflect how they actually get around the neighbourhood. This may reduce their reliance on mobility devices.

These improvements would also make our public transport network more fit for purpose for our ageing population. Our elderly should find it easy and convenient to take a bus for a few stops to visit their friends or run errands in another part of the neighbourhood. They should not be faced with the choice of either walking that kilometre or two, or having to rely on a mobility device. And I believe we also owe it to them to make these bus journeys free-of-charge.

Sir, in London, those over the age of 66 enjoy free travel across the public transport network at any time, save for the morning rush hour. Over there, they call it the "Freedom Pass". I see no reason why we cannot or should not do the same for our seniors, and give them a Merdeka Pass to travel freely on our public transport. Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): We need to prioritise improvements to public transport links, including boosting capacity for last mile connectivity. I also suggest that MOT establish seed funding to study and test "community bus" services in towns like Kaki Bukit. The service is intended to provide coverage for "short but significant" journeys around the neighbourhood. Public transport is still limited for short journeys like these. The proposed community buses should target the specific practical needs of residents and reflect how they get around their neighbourhood. This can help to reduce reliance on mobility devices.

These measures can align our public transport network with the needs of senior citizens. They should view taking bus rides as something very convenient. They should not have to choose between walking or using mobility devices. And I think we are responsible for providing bus journeys free of charge to senior citizens.

Sir, in London, citizens over the age of 66 enjoy free travel on public transport, except during morning peak hours. Over there, they call it the "Freedom Pass". We should provide a similar service for our senior citizens and give them a "Merdeka Pass" to travel freely on our public transport.

(In English): Mr Speaker, this Bill is an opportunity to consider how different modes of mobility may necessitate the long-term transformation of our last mile connectivity infrastructure. The mobility devices that we are discussing today are here to stay. Ultimately, if pedestrian safety is our concern, this is best achieved by segregating pedestrian traffic from motor-powered mobility devices.

We can achieve this by moving more decisively towards a more coherent and integrated network of dedicated cycling paths that are clearly separated from pedestrian footpaths, wherever possible and then confining the use of mobility devices to these cycling paths. Currently, this is not possible in many neighbourhoods where cycling paths share space with pedestrian footpaths.

Mr Speaker, other dense cities across the world have shown that this is possible. It requires us to fundamentally rethink how we allocate existing road space, rather than incrementally increasing cycling and non-pedestrian infrastructure at the margins. Since we expect private vehicle growth to be capped as car-lite policies take effect, the Government should seriously reconsider reclaiming road space currently dedicated to cars, including underutilised lanes and on-street parking – and repurposing them for cycling and walking infrastructure. In this way, we also make space for the safe use of mobility devices.

Mr Speaker, I believe we need to address the underlying problems and develop a more compassionate vision of mobility in Singapore. We must address the structural gaps that drive people to rely on mobility devices in the first place. This means investing in better neighbourhood connectivity, more responsive public transport planning and infrastructure that reflects and facilitates how people actually move around their communities. Sir, notwithstanding these concerns, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

3.24 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Mr Speaker, PMAs are wonderful inventions that are meant to give independence, dignity and an opportunity to earn a livelihood to seniors and people with mobility challenges. Unfortunately, self-regulation by users is weak.

Over the past few years, misuse of PMAs have resulted in nuisance to pedestrians, injuries and even deaths to PMA users. They have also caused severe negative externalities including fires that result in property damage and loss of lives. It is finally time to reset the original intent of PMAs. The Bill's amendments to tighten PMA users' eligibility, operating rules and specifications are overdue. But better late than never.

The Bill's amendments are well-thought out and eliminate most scenarios of misuse, while preserving as much inclusivity as possible for genuine users. Notwithstanding, I would like to raise a few concerns.

I would like to address concerns of residents below their 70s, who cannot walk well or depend on PMAs for their livelihood, yet are physically unable to use PMDs or PABs. They are also worried that they are unable to get a doctor's letter. While 70 years old may be a reasonable eligible age for automatic eligibility, there are also many instances of younger people who are unable to walk far due to excessive weight or temporary conditions such as gout but are unable to obtain a doctor's certificate of eligibility. I would like to ask if age, rather than need, is a good way to delineate the eligibility?

To be clear, I agree that the inclusion of all seniors above age 70 is an efficient way to implement the policy. What I am worried about is over-exclusion of a specific group; that is, a small group that needs PMAs but may now be excluded. Some of them may even have been using PMAs to earn a livelihood, such as food delivery. And given their physical limitations, it may not be possible for them to switch to using other transport modes like PABs. Also, for those in their 50s and 60s, they may not be able to secure other forms of employment.

While this may be a small group, I hope that LTA will consider extending conditional PMA user eligibility to them if they have not chalked up speeding offences in the past. I do recognise that this is indeed a difficult provision to make in terms of legislation. Mr Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): Although the age of 70 may be considered reasonable for automatic eligibility, there are also many younger individuals who are unable to walk far due to being overweight or having temporary conditions like gout but are unable to obtain a certificate of eligibility from a doctor.

I agree that the inclusion of all senior citizens aged 70 and above is an efficient way to implement the policy, but my concern is the possibility of over-exclusion of a specific group.

There is a small group of individuals who require PMAs but may no longer be eligible. Some of them also use PMAs to earn a living, such as food delivery. Given their physical limitations, it may be difficult for them to switch to other modes of transport such as PABs. Furthermore, for those in their 50s and 60s, they may face difficulties securing other forms of employment.

Although this group is small, I hope that LTA will consider extending conditional PMA user eligibility to them, provided they have no record of prior speeding offences. I do recognise that such provisions are indeed difficult to implement from a legal standpoint.

(In English): Sembawang West constituency happens to have quite a lot of PMAs. Many of them are plying on shared paths with pedestrians. Several residents, especially the more elderly pedestrians, have given feedback that some PMA users are rude and dominate the shared paths, sometimes, in a dangerous way while others blast loud music even late at night.

These bad behaviours cause near-accidents, especially when pedestrians are forced to make way for them. They also cause noise pollution as the loud music reverberates, sometimes, jolting residents resting at home from their sleep. However, the new rules in the Bill's amendments do not address these behaviours and I am concerned that such eligible but errant PMA users may continue to behave like they own the shared paths.

Again, I recognise that it is difficult to use laws to constrain such behaviour, as eligibility criteria should be based on objective need, not social behavioural norms. Yet, the latter are the stuff of our everyday experience in our homes and towns, and they make a big difference between the safe, quiet enjoyment of our space, or an experience of risk, danger and high emotions. In addition to eligibility criteria, can LTA consider a basic workshop or course on responsible use so as to reduce instances of anti-social PMA users? Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Within the Sembawang West constituency, the use of PMAs is quite prevalent, with a considerable portion operating on paths shared with pedestrians. I have received feedback from many residents, particularly the elderly, regarding some PMA users who are rude on shared paths and dominate lanes inappropriately, sometimes, in a dangerous way. There are also users who blast loud music late at night.

These behaviours cause dangerous situations when pedestrians are forced to give way, whilst also generating noise in residential areas that affects residents' rest at home. Although these issues are isolated incidents, their impact on the community's safety and quality of life cannot be overlooked.

However, the current amendments focus primarily on usage eligibility and technical specifications, and do not directly address behavioural issues. I am concerned that some PMA users who meet the eligibility criteria but engage in inappropriate behaviour may continue to use their device improperly on shared paths.

I understand that it is not easy to regulate such social behaviours through legal means. Eligibility for PMA usage should be based on objective need rather than subjective behavioural assessments.

Nevertheless, these behaviours represent real situations that residents face in daily life and directly affect the peace and safety of common spaces. Beyond defining usage eligibility, I would like to ask the Minister whether LTA could consider complementary measures, such as establishing courses or workshops for PMA users to guide them in responsible usage of PMAs, enhance safety awareness and thereby, better safeguard the safety of both pedestrians and users.

(In English): Another concern is related to implementation challenges. The rules will kick in from 1 June 2026. Although PMAs are currently not required to be registered with LTA and hence, we do not know how many PMAs there are nation-wide. PMDs, however, do need to be registered and currently, there are about 5,100 of these.

While we do not know how many PMAs there are, retailers have reported increasing sales of hundreds of PMAs each year. They are everywhere and are mobile. The success of this new rule is highly dependent on the speed and comprehensiveness of enforcement operations.

Enforcement officers are usually stationed at designated locations. The ineligible users will be on alert and will avoid these officers who can be seen from far, even though they may be wearing plain clothes. Some users may be still riding their PMAs late at night, which are hard to see from far. I would like to ask the Ministry, how many enforcement officers and for how long will they be deployed following the 1 June start date.

The second enforcement process is related to oversized PMAs and non-UL2722 compliant e-scooters. Over the past years, I have received many residents' feedback on their neighbours parking or even charging their oversized PMAs or non-UL2722 compliant e-scooters along HDB flats' common corridors. They are not only a source of fire hazard. They can also become obstructions during emergency escape.

The neighbours of these PMAs and e-scooters owners are a useful source of accurate information of where and when these PMAs and e-scooters are parked which would be valuable information source to LTA enforcement officers. May I ask the Ministry if LTA will provide a direct channel perhaps through an app, for residents to provide feedback and photo or video evidence to LTA, so that enforcement officers can act promptly? Also, should the non-compliant PMAs or e-scooters owners refuse to remove them, are LTA enforcement officers vested with the powers to confiscate these items?

Finally, following the roll-out of this new rule, we can expect many non-compliant PMAs and e-scooters may be disposed of as there may not be a viable secondary market locally. Wearing my Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment GPC hat, I hope LTA will set up collection points for these vehicles to be deposited and thereafter, arrange for them to be sold and be used in overseas markets. Alternatively, I urge LTA to arrange for these disposed PMAs and e-scooters to be scrapped and parts be recycled appropriately so that they do not create a new problem for our environment.

This year, Singapore becomes a super-aged society. There will be more seniors who will need PMAs to move around. Let us reset the original intent of PMAs as a mobility aid. Let us protect and support our seniors and those with mobility challenges. Let us put a stop to unnecessary injuries and deaths due to PMA and PMD fires. Let us keep our homes safe for everyone. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill amendments.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will assume the Chair at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.39 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Land Transport and Related Matters Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

4.00 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sengkang is one of Singapore's densest estates and our residents regularly shared with us their transport immobility experiences and challenges while going about their daily lives in the community.

I support the core objectives and the amendments being tabled before us today but would like to seek clarifications relating to how the enforcement of the new regime to regulate the use of PMAs will take place and in particular, how these policies are developed in conjunction with the AMAP.

One of the key questions that I have relates to how authorities propose the enforcement take place against PMA users who are potentially breaching the upcoming rules.

While the amendments introduce the Certificate of Medical Need system, how would trying to catch users without the requisite certification look like in practice? For example, would enforcement officers be required to identify potential rule breakers based on clear rationale? For instance, whether the certificate or the registration mark is visible on the mobility scooter? While circumstances like having multiple people squeezing onto a mobility scooter might be a reasonable means of identification, as it is unlikely that multiple people travelling to the same location may have mobility affecting disabilities, I am concerned that casual, visual perception of able-bodiedness would be used instead.

Complicating this is that I understand that LTA's OneMotoring site listed several exemptions from the Certificate of Medical Need. These include users aged 70 and above, beneficiaries of the Assistive Technology Fund and Seniors Mobility Enabling Fund, and individuals assessed to require assistance with ADL under various assessments. How will enforcement officers thus identify these users and how will we ensure that certified PMA users just trying to move about their everyday lives are not subject to constant interruption or compliance checks?

Having clear published guidelines will also help with public education efforts. This is especially important given that we can see from various news reports that so many of the confrontations between PMA users and pedestrians take place without an enforcement officer present. How can we ensure that vigilante justice will not rear its ugly head with passers-by leaping to hasty or even erroneous conclusions about whether or not a PMA user is indeed eligible? Having spoken to people with disabilities and advocacy groups, it remains common in our society to visually perceive able-bodiedness, including in the national press. We must avoid such stigma being perpetuated inadvertently.

In view of the concerns above, can the Government share how it proposes to address with them with a view to ensure that misconceptions about what disability means, visible or hidden, affecting young or old are not further entrenched?

Mr Deputy Speaker, a further concern raised was that it appears that enforcement of the new rules may be given inadequate time to come in. Four months. There are only four months until mid-2026.

The Disabled People's Association highlighted this point in their comments on this Bill, stating that a one- to two-year implementation period would be more comparable to other laws, such as the Workplace Fairness Act. With the new regulations adding quite a few requirements to the already extensive rules on active mobility, I believe it would be fair to give users more time to get used to the regime and to ensure compliance with it.

Lastly, I have some comments on AMAP, which developed the review of regulations for PMAs that forms this Bill.

I note that in the report, while there is consideration of other legislation in other jurisdictions, I could not find much direct analysis or assessment of the available scientific literature on the issue of PMAs, particularly in relation to road safety, for instance, on the recommendation of reducing the speed limit to six kilometres per hour from the current 10 kilometres per hour. Can the Minister of State share what is the actual data used to determine how reducing the speed limit to six kilometres an hour is significantly more likely to reduce the risk of serious injury, affect reflex time and prevent more accidents to begin with?

My colleague from Hougang single member constituency, Dennis Tan, had earlier and also during the 2024 Committee of Supply, raised concerns too that the proposed six kilometre per hour speed limit appears to be tied to the average walking speed. This may be too slow and end up increasing the journey time for users and those who are reliant on it to move beyond their immediate neighbourhoods and also may have actual financial impact on those who rely on PMAs for their livelihoods. Could the Minister of State thus provide more specific details about how the new speed limit was arrived at?

This is a similar issue with other reports, like the Panel's Review of Active Mobility Regulations for safer path sharing, which introduced the 10 kilometre per hour speed limit on footpaths, which I understand is based largely on work with focus groups.

While such focus groups are important for understanding these issues in Singapore's urban and cultural context, we must also engage with the research material, given that we regulate primarily for safety rather than more subjective concerns. We should understand how the science factors into these recommendations and I ask whether the panel should be updated to include more representation from academia.

In conclusion, while I support the Bill in principle, I hope that some of the issues I raised will be taken to account to inform enforcement. I also hope that future reviews of regulations would be driven primarily by research and that this research is communicated together with any proposed new regulations.

PMAs are useful to persons with disabilities and seniors by supporting their mobility in our communities and neighbourhoods, and can be important tools for removing barriers to accessing public transport. They bring significant co-benefits in the form of promoting connections within the community, sociability, improving health and offering mobility, all with much lower carbon emissions than cars. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.

4.07 pm

Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill 2026. This is a timely and necessary Bill that strengthens our transport regulatory framework amid evolving user behaviours, new mobility devices and rapid technological change.

The amendments relating to PMAs and PMDs, ERP 2.0 and road safety reflect a forward-looking effort to keep our public spaces safe and our system trusted. I would like to offer a few suggestions that I hope can further enhance public safety while preserving fairness and accessibility.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in the weeks leading up to today's Second Reading of the Bill, me and my colleagues on the ground sat at common spaces in the Jurong Spring-Gek Poh Constituency, and just in a few evenings, we observed multiple near-misses involving PMAs: pedestrians stepping aside at the last minute, seniors hesitating before crossing paths, parents instinctively pulling their children closer.

These encounters may not make the headlines, but they shape how safe residents feel in our estates. And when it comes to our common spaces and roads, safety cannot be optional.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, PMAs are now a permanent part of our mobility landscape, particularly for seniors, persons with disabilities, delivery riders and those making short, everyday trips. At the same time, misuse and unsafe behaviour remain deep concerns. Most users are responsible, but it only takes a few unsafe acts to undermine public trust and confidence for everyone. These affect not just riders, but pedestrians, families and entire communities.

First, while the Bill rightly strengthens the enforcement tools and registration requirements, I suggest that we consider a more graduated and targeted approach to penalties, especially for repeat offenders who knowingly disregard safety rules. This is really not about being harsh but rather being clear, consistent and protective, particularly for those who are vulnerable.

Second, to complement device identification, I propose we could explore a simple and visible rider identification system, especially for mobility devices issued for medical needs. This would help enforcement officers act with confidence, while reassuring the public that these devices are being used legitimately.

Third, PMD-related fires remain deeply worrying. Many arise from uncertified batteries, unsafe modifications or prolonged overnight charging at unsuitable locations. I encourage the introduction of national charging-safety guidelines, covering approved chargers, safe charging durations, designated charging zones and clear prohibitions against corridor charging.

Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the healthcare implications of the proposed Certificate of Medical Need. As a practising doctor, I support the intent to ensure that mobility devices and scooters are meant for those who need it and are directed to those who genuinely require them. This protects public safety and preserves trust in the system.

Not too long ago, a Member in this House spoke about the effects of sarcopenia and aged-related muscle loss. If our seniors and individuals who are actually physically able to walk end up using these devices, they could inadvertently lose their muscle mass and increase the risk of frailty in our community.

However, we should be mindful of the practical impact on healthcare professionals and patients, especially those with temporary mobility limitations, such as individuals recovering from surgery, fractures, strokes or acute illnesses. Clear guidance on who can certify, streamlined criteria and digital or time-limited certification pathways will be important to avoid unnecessary clinic congestion, administrative burden on doctors and healthcare professionals alike, as well as delays for patients who genuinely need short-term mobility support.

I understand that MOH and LTA have issued a circular pertaining to the guidelines to this effect, and I am also happy to note that exceptions are given to those aged above 70 and those already on assistance programmes related to mobility. After all, a safety framework works best when it protects patients without overwhelming clinics. I encourage closer collaboration with healthcare providers as this framework is implemented.

Next, on the ERP 2.0 and the trust-based enforcement that ensues.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the move to decriminalise ERP non-payment. This reflects a mature regulatory approach that recognises that most cases of non-payment are due to administrative oversight rather than intentional evasion. With the new penalty model, the Government reinforces trust with motorists while maintaining accountability.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, moving on to road safety. If there is one area where we should continue to strengthen our approach, it is in addressing dangerous, negligent or reckless driving that results in serious injury or even loss of life. The data is indeed concerning. In 2024, Singapore recorded 7,049 traffic accidents involving injuries, with more than 100 fatalities. Speeding violations continued to rise. So, too, drink-driving arrests. We have also seen cases where fatal outcomes arising from negligence or excessive speed resulted in sentences that, while legally consistent, have left the public uneasy.

I, therefore, urge the Ministry to consider a comprehensive review of sentencing frameworks, particularly for causing death by dangerous or drink-driving. When harm is irreversible, our sentencing framework must reflect that gravity. A calibrated approach would reinforce our national commitment to safety.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a strong and forward-looking update to our land transport laws. It tightens PMA regulation, introduces a trust-based approach to ERP 2.0 and modernises enforcement in meaningful ways.

The suggestions that I have raised on calibrated deterrence, visible identification, charging safety and healthcare-sensitive certification are offered in the spirit of strengthening safety while ensuring fairness and compassion. With these observations, I support the Bill and look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

4.15 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek clarifications on two aspects of the Bill.

First, to MOT on the keeping of unsafe devices under the Small Motorised Vehicle Safety Act, and secondly, to MHA on the proposed outsourcing of traffic violations processing under the Road Traffic Act.

On the new offence of possession of unsafe devices, Part 6 of the Bill will introduce a new offence of keeping an unsafe AMD by amending the Small Motorised Vehicle (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 fire subsides, 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 Workers' Party's Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Andre Low, MHA confirmed that AMD fires have been disproportionately fatal. The media release on this Bill by MOT also acknowledged that non-compliant e-scooters pose severe fire risk.

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 thus be useful for 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. This was a point alluded to by the Minister of State in his speech earlier as well. Our Town Council was told that for non-compliant devices parked at common areas, the Town Council should do its own enforcement or review its bylaws, 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 statement earlier also, that under this Bill, the LTA's role will be enlarged in enforcement, in this area. So, Sir, 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?

Sir, next, on the 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.

Sir, 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 the Traffic Police or LTA, which these contractors must adhere to. Could the 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 lodge appeals for offences to be waived or reduced. Although camera-detected violations might seem straightforward 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 appealing 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 judgement and discretion is required, which is better exercised by our public servants in the Police and the LTA.

Fourthly, on viewing of camera footage. So far, the Police have been forthcoming in arranging for the public to view camera footage to confirm if they have indeed committed certain traffic offences. Will the contractors similarly make such arrangements when requested?

So, Sir, in summary, while I support the Bill, I look forward to the clarifications from the two Ministries.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.

4.20 pm

Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, between July and October last year, I walked through the aftermath of three major fires in Toa Payoh Central. I stood alongside neighbours during chaotic moments of evacuation, offering immediate aid and a listening ear.

In one of these fires, we faced the ultimate tragedy – the loss of two of our own residents. Post fires, residents shared insecurities of living in their own homes. One major concern involved living near neighbours with AMDs.

Since debates commenced in this House in September, I have asked seven Parliamentary Questions on AMD safety, six Parliamentary Questions on electrical battery safety and three Parliamentary Questions on fire safety. I filed a total of 16 questions across MOT, MHA and MTI, because one fire is a fire too many, especially in what is supposed to be a safe abode. And it is given this context that I respond to the Bill.

I rise in support of the Bill and commend its decisive measures to improve the safety of our public paths and roads for all. In particular, it addresses common concerns of Singaporeans about the misuse of PMAs. By strengthening enforcement powers against AMDs, the Bill ensures safer roads, fairer usage of transport infrastructure and more sustainable mobility for all. To better aid enforcement and implementation of the Bill, and to support vulnerable demographics that may be impacted, I would like to raise four points of clarification for the Ministry's consideration.

First, there is a need to complement the implementation of the new regulations with community education to avoid inadvertent violations by genuine PMA users, particularly on the new rules regarding medical certification and registration. Some users, such as the elderly, are already not familiar with existing regulations. For instance, the AMAP noted during their focused group discussions, that several participants were confused about the distinction between PMAs and PMDs. This points to a potential gap between legislative intent and user awareness. Thus, changes brought about in this Bill must be communicated effectively to ensure compliance.

In addition, some of the changes introduced requires active steps to be taken by existing PMA users, such as visiting their healthcare provider for a certification that they are eligible to use or registering and obtaining an identification mark for their PMA. Genuine users have raised concerns and questions as to what this will entail. The Disabled People's Association has recommended that the Ministry optimise inclusivity and ease the process for obtaining medical certification and registration for genuine users, such as by: (a) ensuring that grants or subsidies be established to cover any potential costs of certification and registration; (b) clarifying that the relevant "certification" needed does not require a formal medical diagnosis, but simply documentation from an assessor noting the need for the use of a PMA; and (c) ensuring that "medical need" to ride a PMA is assessed on a broad and inclusive basis.

I would like to ask the Minister, what specific plans will be put in place to ensure the proper dissemination of information to existing PMA users, such as the elderly and the disabled? How can these groups, particularly the elderly, be supported in navigating changes such as obtaining medical certification and registering their PMAs, in time before the enforcement of the new rules? I would like to highlight that the Disabled People's Association has published a very comprehensive commentary on the Bill and I hope that the Ministry will consider their perspective for genuine users of PMAs.

My second question relates to the disposal of non-compliant PMAs. The Bill introduces new size and design requirements of a PMA, such as requiring it to only have one seat and to not exceed the maximum dimensions stated. I note that the Bill will also make it illegal to keep unsafe devices at home and those who currently possess non-compliant PMAs will have to dispose of it.

I would like to ask the Minister for clarifications on the disposal process, especially for some owners who may fear reproach or penalties and instead discreetly dump it. When the Government introduced regulations against PMDs in 2019, LTA worked with e-waste recyclers to set up designated disposal points across HDB estates, which facilitated the disposal of PMDs at no cost to existing owners. Moreover, to incentivise early disposal, registered owners who stepped forward for disposal qualified for an early disposal incentive. Separately, weeks before etomidate was classified as a Class C illegal drug, the "Bin the Vape" Campaign offered a form of amnesty period – voluntary, no-questions-asked disposal of vape devices and related products.

I would like to ask whether the Ministry will consider setting up similar initiatives this year in partnership with agencies like HDB, Town Council and People's Association for the disposal of non-compliant AMDs.

My third point relates to the enforcement and implementation of speed limits. A key development in this Bill lowering of the speed limit from 10 kilometres per hour to six kilometres per hour for PMAs. I support this move, as it better reflects the intended use of PMAs to replace walking for users with mobility challenges.

For vehicles on the road, there are cameras to track when vehicles go past the speed limit. Will the Ministry also install similar cameras along walkways and shared paths to ensure that errant PMAs are properly fined for speeding offences? While members of the public may report incidents of errant device users on public paths to LTA, it is more often difficult to do so practically. Similar to how the Police and NEA has volunteers with enforcement powers, will the Ministry consider empowering LTA volunteers instead to check on PMA licences?

Enforcement of the new rules should not just focus on the behaviour of PMA users in our communities, but actions should also be considered to be taken against retailers and sellers of these non-compliant PMAs and illegal PMDs. In this vein, I would like to clarify whether the Ministry will move beyond physical patrols to collaborating with community marketplaces, like Carousell, to automatically flag and delist these devices, and whether a proactive social media monitoring unit or public whistle-blowing mechanism will be established to identify users and retailers of modified devices.

How does the Ministry intend to address the issue of platform workers who currently use PMAs for food delivery, who are concerned that the lowered speed limit would affect the number of deliveries they can make and their livelihoods directly? Platform workers are a valued part of the Singapore workforce, many of them work tirelessly to make ends meet. Does the Ministry have plans to work together with platform operators like Grab and Foodpanda, to introduce initiatives that will ease the burden of the impact of new regulations on their livelihoods?

My fourth point relates to fire safety. The disproportionate fire risk and danger of AMDs is widely recognised, with data shared by MHA revealing that while such devices accounted for less than 5% of residential fires in the past five years, they caused more than 25% of fatalities.

I note that the bulk of these fires occurred from devices that were illegally modified, or those that were not tested and certified. This highlights the significance of robust fire safety standards and enforcement measures. To this end, LTA has implemented a series of regulations, such as the UL2272 standard and periodic inspections every two years for PMDs and the EN15194 standard for PABs. These comprehensive measures have undoubtedly prevented many fires and greatly improved the safety of AMDs.

In my Parliamentary Question filed on 23 September last year on having PMAs to undergo periodic inspections, the reply noted that there are currently no commonly recognised international fire safety standards for PMAs. However, the fire risk posed by PMAs is no less serious than that posed by PMDs and PABs. Furthermore, PMAs are used by individuals like seniors with walking difficulties, who may not be able to escape to safety without substantial assistance in the event of a fire. For this vulnerable demographic, fire regulations should be even more stringent, as commensurate with the increased vulnerabilities of the persons involved.

Considering the potentially long wait for an internationally recognised fire standard for PMAs to be established, I call upon the Ministry to strengthen fire regulations for PMAs with periodic inspections.

Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support this Bill and look forward to the implementation on 1 June 2026.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

4.30 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill which seeks to improve the safe usage of transportation modes on our roads and footpaths as well as the storage within our homes and neighbourhoods.

Transport safety does not begin only at home. It does start the moment we step on the road too. It begins at home with our families, our neighbours and the choices we make in shared spaces.

Electric-powered PMDs have gained popularity as an affordable and efficient means of travel for many. However, these devices also pose higher fire risks in our homes and neighbourhoods. As such, fires are often more severe and more likely to result in serious injuries and fatalities.

This is why Singapore has placed strong emphasis on the use of PMDs that comply with UL2272 fire safety standards. Even so, improper use of unsafe charging practices can still pose significant risk to device owners, family members, neighbours and of course, our firefighters. A firefighter once shared with me that the e-scooter battery fires are unlike the typical fires that they face. They can reignite, generate intense heat and spread rapidly, especially in confined spaces. The most distressing moments are when families are trapped behind close doors while corridors are filled with toxic smoke from burning lithium ion batteries. I, the,refore commend our Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officers for continuously upskilling our firefighters to respond to fires involving PMDs.

But at the same time, prevention must remain our first line of defence. In this regard, I support the move to go beyond banning the use of non-UL2272-certified e-scooters on public paths and roads and to make it an offence to keep such devices.

I urge all owners to check their devices and to use only UL2272-certified models to protect the safety of themselves and their loved ones. And in a neighbourhood where we all live together, it is especially important that we remain vigilant and support each other in such a manner.

Mr Speaker, the use of AMDs on public paths has been a challenging issue in many neighbourhoods. In land scarce Singapore, pedestrians and device users must share our limited space. When accidents occur, the consequences can be serious, especially for elderly pedestrians who often sustain even more severe injuries and take much longer to recover. I recall when I was a grassroots leader in Pasir Ris many years ago, I was distraught at the thought and sight of an elderly lady being hit by an e-scooter. That memory is still fresh in my mind and I do not want that to occur anymore.

I note that this Bill seeks to strengthen the operating safety of PMAs by reducing the limit from 10 kilometres per hour to six kilometres per hour by January 2029, extending size restrictions, requiring registration and introducing a Certificate of Medical Need for the use of PMDs on public paths.

While these regulatory changes aim to improve pedestrian safety, which I really support, you must recognise that PMDs are medical devices that support persons with mobility impairments too. So, for many PMDs like those in my constituency, which is aged and we have many elderly residents, PMDs are not merely a means of transport but an essential enabler for independence and dignity. They allow my residents to move about in their neighbourhoods, attend medical appointments, purchase daily necessities and manage personal errands independently. I therefore call on the Ministry to implement these regulations in a manner that does not place additional burden or hardships on those with genuine needs. In particular, Sir, I seek clarification on whether assessments for the Certificate of Medical Need can be conducted at polyclinics so as to help manage costs and ensure accessibility.

Sir, this Bill also sends a clear signal on the importance of road safety for all road users. In 2024, speeding violations reached a 10-year high, with the number of cases doubling compared to the previous year. More than 6,000 cases involve lorries and other heavy vehicles. When I was an SCDF officer many years ago, I witnessed an accident where a lorry was hit and the workers who were in the vehicle were thrown all over the road. At the site of that, being a part of the SCDF team, it just reminds me that we cannot allow these things to happen. I really support this part of the Bill.

Sir, I support the increased penalties for breaches involving failure to install speed limiters by the compliance deadline as these are important measures to protect heavy vehicle drivers, the workers conveyed on such vehicles and other road users.

I also welcome the strengthening of penalties for illegal vehicle modifications, including the tampering with speed limiters which undermine the intent of safety regulations. I urge companies to comply fully with the speed limit rules, including early installation ahead of the 1 July 2027 deadline. At the same time, I ask whether the Ministry is studying the challenges companies may face, whether cost, operational or technical to ensure that enforcement is effective and sustainable. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Sir, I recently met a resident who uses a PMA due to permanent mobility constraints. The PMA enables him to leave home independently, buy food, go for medical appointments and manage daily needs without relying entirely on family members. He moves slowly, carefully and complies with regulations. His concern is not about safety, but about access – whether the process and cost of obtaining a Certificate of Medical Need will complicate something that is essential to his daily life.

Sir, safety is not merely a matter of regulations. It is a matter of shared values and responsibility.

Safety begins at home. When mobility devices are not safely stored or charged, the risk falls not only on one individual but on the entire family as well as neighbours around them. Fire and smoke know no boundaries of housing units.

On the issue of PMAs, we must be clear that these devices are medical necessities for individuals with mobility constraints. For them, PMAs are not a luxury. Rather, it is a device for independent living, for mobility and for continuing to contribute to as a member of society.

Many PMA users are also our platform workers. They leave early in the morning and return late at night, not by choice, but out of their duty to support their families. This kind of work is employment with dignity; livelihood earned through one's own effort.

As a labour movement, NTUC takes seriously the impact of implementing these regulations on our workers' daily lives. Through continuous engagement on the ground, NTUC and workers' associations, such as the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA), have met delivery workers at their workplaces, where they rest, where they work, listening directly to concerns and worries they have about income, compliance costs and changes to their work routines.

Their feedback will form the basis for ongoing discussions with platform operators and relevant agencies, so that safety can be enhanced without sacrificing livelihoods. Fair safety is safety that takes into account the reality of workers' lives.

Sir, in conclusion, this Bill requires us to find a balance between safety and social justice. Protecting lives, without denying the dignity of work and the right to earn a living. When we care for the most vulnerable, the families, the senior citizens, persons with disabilities and workers, we are building a society that is safer, more humane and more resilient. I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Haresh Singaraju.

4.40 pm

Dr Haresh Singaraju (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an omnibus Bill that amends six Acts. I rise to speak on the Certificate of Medical Need for driving or riding mobility vehicles.

I am a family physician. I run a polyclinic. Some of our residents need mobility scooters. My team and I know who they are. The ah ma with severe arthritis. Her knees have given way, but her spirit has not. She still wants to go to the market, she still wants to choose her vegetables. The uncle who has lost his leg to diabetes. He is not asking for pity, he is asking to get around. The pakcik recovering from stroke. Six months ago he was walking, now he is learning to live differently. These are the people this provision is meant to protect.

I support this Bill. I have three points. The first two are practical, the third is a reflection.

First, guide residents to their primary provider. The Bill requires a Certificate of Medical Need, but it does not specify which doctor should assess. This matters. A certificate is only as good as the assessment behind it and an assessment is only as good as the information available to the assessor. When a resident needs a Certificate of Medical Need, my advice is simple: see their regular doctor, their family physician, their enrolled Healthier SG clinic. Why? Because they know the resident. They have the medical history. They have watched the residents' mobility change over time. They understand the home environment, the daily routine, their goals, their values. That is the doctor best place to certify need.

I therefore ask that public messaging reinforces this clearly, not just see a doctor, but see your doctor. And for those who do not yet have a regular doctor to enrol into Healthier SG, start building their relationship. It will serve them well, not just for this, but for their health over the long term. Right doctor, right records, right outcome.

For those already using scooters and unsure if they qualify, we should encourage them to have an honest conversation with their doctor. For some, this may be the first medical review in years. Conditions change, some may have improved, some may benefit from intervention. This is not just certification, it is an opportunity for care. And for those who may not qualify, our role is to help them understand their options, including alternatives that may serve them better.

Second, the guidelines are sound, but refinement will be needed. Mr Speaker, I have read the guidelines. These were developed after consulting 11 professional bodies. The guidelines give us a foundation. We are not starting from zero, but clinical practice will surface grey zones conditions that do not fit neatly. Residents whose function fluctuates, residents whose needs are hard to access in a clinic room.

Consider the resident in her 60s who can walk but has fallen three times this year. She is not immobile, but is she safe? These are the cases that do not fit neatly into "yes" or "no". Without clear guidance, different doctors may reach different conclusions and residents may learn to shop around. Consistency protects both the resident and the system. For some of these cases, we welcome the option to tap on our occupational therapists. They assess function where it matters: in the home, on the path, in real life. That said, we will need supplementary guidance over time, learning from real cases, refining our approach.

I ask that the Ministry gathers feedback after roll-out and convenes sessions where practitioners can learn from case studies. The Singapore Medical Association's guidelines on medical assessment of fitness to drive is a good model. It matured over years, it is now a trusted reference. I note that the "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) clarifies that assessors acting in good faith will not be second guessed. We welcome that assurance. These consultations may be difficult, especially when a resident wants a scooter but does not qualify.

But this is not new to us, we navigate these conversations every day. I encourage my fellow clinicians to approach these assessments with confidence. These are opportunities for meaningful conversation to understand our residents' needs, review their conditions and help them move forward safely.

Third, a reflection on the system. Mobility scooters have been around for years. They serve those who needed them, often under funding safeguards that ensured appropriate use. But as these devices became commercially available, usage grew far beyond the intended population. And now, we respond with certification, with healthcare as gatekeepers.

I understand why this response is necessary and I credit the Ministry for consulting the professional bodies and developing guidelines before roll-out. But I ask the Government: how did we get here, reacting downstream instead of having built in safeguards upstream from the start?

Healthcare will do her part for public safety and the public good. We always have. But let me name what such a reactive policy costs. Ideal implementation in healthcare takes time. In the meantime, there will be workarounds, goodwill, clinicians doing what needs to be done. This is added to existing responsibilities. Workarounds in our systems, goodwill is not infrastructure.

The question now is: how do we avoid being here again? This is not the first time across-Ministry policy has landed at healthcare door. It will not be the last.

So, I say this: continue to consult healthcare at design. We know what good design looks like, driving licensed medical assessments where verification is needed before you drive, work permit medical examinations where clearance is needed before the permit, disabled parking labels, where need is verified upfront. These systems work because they are tied upstream with verification built in from the start.

For mobility scooters, the gap was the commercial market. When devices became available commercially, there was no equivalent gate. I am glad to note that mobility vehicles will now need to be registered with LTA. Pegged with healthcare certificate or medical need, this creates a system that is tight at entry. This is good design and I welcome it. Prevention is better than cure. This is true in medicine. It is true in policy too.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I return to where I started – the ah ma, the uncle, the pakcik. Let us set up this policy well for them. The assessors, let us continue refining our guidelines and supporting our clinicians and occupational therapists to do their work with confidence and let us learn from this for what may come next.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.

4.47 pm

Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill.

Mobility is freedom. Thus, I appreciate Minister of State Baey's acknowledgment of the Bill's attempt to balance access and safety. Both access and safety are critical for this freedom that mobility offers us. Under this Bill, pedestrians have freedom from injury and neighbours, freedom from PMD-related fires. And the gracious use of our transport system helps to increase this sense of freedom.

Recently, I met with parents of young children together with my fellow Group Representation Constituency MP Cai Yinzhou, to hear about their struggles on commuting, whether it is carrying strollers onto public buses or whether they are fearful of sharing paths with fast-moving personal mobility devices. As a mother myself who takes public transport, I completely understand the struggle.

Singapore's transport infrastructure is a shared space. It is built on a social compact and understanding that we move through the city as members of one community, not merely as separate individuals seeking to reach our destinations. This is where graciousness comes in. We need to show grace, patience and kindness to one another as we travel together. This Bill addresses three critical areas where that graciousness is tested.

Firstly, on disabled persons and mobility aids. The amendments to mobility scooters and PMAs do not punish disabled persons. They protect them and they protect our shared spaces. The issue is misused. Able-bodied individuals operating mobility devices unsuitable for pedestrian paths have created genuine hazards for the elderly and young children.

The measures proposed – requiring medical certification, reducing speed limits and establishing device registration – serve to ensure that those with genuine needs can move safely and with dignity. When someone who cannot walk risks collision because an able-bodied person misuses a scooter, this affects the community. When an oversized device occupies space meant for a young child, the dignity of the disabled user is compromised alongside the safety of others.

Good regulation is an expression of grace toward all, including our disabled citizens. It communicates that all our needs are real, that our dignity is protected and those around us will be safer when sharing space with us. This Bill affirms that commitment.

Secondly, on accountability for heavy vehicles and PMDs without UL2272 certification, which are illegal on our roads, but can still be kept in our homes. The speed limiter, amendments for lorries between 3.5 and 12 tonnes will reduce road fatalities and protect our communities. The substantially increased penalties for illegal alteration of motorised vehicles, up to $10,000 for individuals and $40,000 for corporates, send a clearer signal on the non-negotiable ability of safety.

The same can be said for PMDs without UL2272, which remain fire hazards. Seventy-two percent of AMD-related fires in the last three years were related to non-compliant devices, and I am glad that we are removing those safety hazards from our homes.

Thirdly, regarding the ERP 2.0 system and the decriminalisation of charges. This change reflects a mature, refined approach to accountability. Vehicle owners will face real consequences, helping us to ensure compliance without the bluntness of criminal prosecution. If vehicle owners do not pay what they owe, they would not be able to renew their road tax or sell their vehicle until the payments are settled.

These measures protect the community by ensuring that those who use our roads do so responsibly and the enforcement mechanisms serve the broader good.

These three areas share a common thread. They are all expressions of a single principle: when we use shared transport infrastructure, we do so as members of a community, not in isolation. That community comprises the elderly gentleman on a mobility scooter, the young mother with a child, or a lorry driver navigating a residential area, the casual road user and all of us who depend on moving safely through Singapore. Graciousness does not mean the absence of rules. Graciousness means rules that protect the vulnerable while serving the legitimate needs of all.

As this Bill moves towards debate and implementation, I wish to invite all members of our community to consider two commitments. First, a commitment to graciousness towards the young, disabled and elderly persons on our transport systems – the people whom we should be looking out for. They deserve safe and dignified passage. This is not charity. It is recognition of the equal standing in our community. They deserve the same freedoms that we enjoy, the same access to the transport infrastructure that we use and the same dignity as we commute together.

One of my volunteers also shared about a time when he was unable to enter a lift after waiting 15 minutes even though he had a young child in a stroller with him. This was because the lift was full of able-bodied commuters. He eventually had to take the escalator even though it posed a safety risk. Can we do better for such commuters?

I encourage members of the public to show graciousness towards them and others like them to understand that the disabled person on a mobility scooter, navigating a crowded path, or an elderly uncle lumbering on a public sidewalk are not obstacles to go around, but people exercising their right to move independently.

Second commitment regarding noise levels from PMAs using paths near residential areas. I have received several complaints from residents about PMA users who play music very loudly throughout the day, disrupting online meetings, children's naps and our residents' rest. As our city becomes busier, the noise in our environment, where the buses, trains, stations or footpaths has deteriorated. This is not merely aesthetic. Noise is a form of pollution that affects the well-being of all commuters, particularly the elderly and those with sensory sensitivities. Transport operators and enforcement officers should be empowered to enforce reasonable conduct standards. Commuters can be mindful that personal music, loud phone conversations and unnecessary noise in public are intrusions on the shared space.

This is graciousness in its most equal form, the recognition that the time another person spent on public transport is as valuable as your own and that you have an obligation to protect their experience of that journey, that our homes and communities are places of rest and should be safe from noise and disruption.

Accordingly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House. May we move forward with the understanding that a gracious transport system is one that accommodates all of our citizens, young and old, disabled and able-bodied, with equal care for their safety and dignity.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

4.55 pm

Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill and its intent to improve safety on our public paths, reduce fire risks from unsafe devices and strengthen accountability in the personal mobility space.

I will be addressing the active mobility provisions in my clarification and I would like to frame my comments around three topics: first, users and their caregivers; second, consistent enforcement; and lastly, device safety, storage and the role of our community.

The certificate of medical need is well-intentioned. It ensures PMAs are used appropriately and by those who genuinely need them. But on the ground, situations are rarely black and white.

A resident in my Naval Base constituency is medically weak due to multiple complications and relies on her husband to accompany her on her PMD. In another case, a couple shared that the wife would ride the PMD after the husband completes his dialysis as he is too weak to do so himself. They are concerned that such arrangements may now face penalties under the new framework.

Under the existing Active Mobility Act 2017, a "mobility scooter" is defined to mean a vehicle that has a seat and is designed to carry a single individual. Arguably, it does not extend to a scooter that is designed for two persons, for example, where a caregiver rides the scooter with an incapacitated pillion rider.

Clause 2(g) of the amendment Bill introduces certain amendments to the definition of a "mobility scooter", which emphasises that the mobility scooter should only have a "single seat behind the footboard".

However, clause 2(h) of the amendment Bill introduces a new definition of "mobility vehicles" to include "any other motor vehicle designed to carry an individual who is unable to walk or has difficulty in walking and prescribed for the purpose of this definition".

In addition, clause 16 of the Amendment Bill introduces a new section 23I, which, in subsection (2), creates an exception to the offence of driving or riding a mobility vehicle without a certificate of medical need in circumstances prescribed in regulations.

Taken together, these provisions leave open the possibility that certain vehicles, such as the two-seater vehicles that I have mentioned as an example, being prescribed as mobility vehicles and permitted for use under certain circumstances. Would the Ministry further study such practical needs when developing the subsidiary legislation?

There may be circumstances where it may be necessary or convenient for an incapacitated individual and his caregiver to use a two-seater vehicle for legitimate mobility purposes, for example, if the individual is exhausted from dialysis or otherwise temporarily incapacitated from operating the vehicle.

While enforcers may exercise discretion, policy clarity gives confidence to families and certainty to enforcement officers.

In addition, I would like to ask: one, how does the Ministry to balance the risk of "assessor shopping" with the provision of avenues for applicants to seek a second opinion in good faith? Two, what are the proposed timelines from application to clinical assessment and issuance of the certificate? And three, how will the Ministry ensure that fees are affordable? For example, would individuals with permanent and irreversible medical conditions be granted certificates with an indefinite validity period to minimise the inconvenience of periodic renewals?

Sir, in addition to permanent conditions, we also see many time-bound mobility issues in our community. Residents recovering from surgery, fractures, stroke, chemotherapy or dialysis may only need a mobility scooter for a few weeks or months, not permanently. In this regard, I note that clause 16 of the Amendment Bill introduces a new section 23K of the Active Mobility Act, which contemplates that each certificate will have a validity period. So, I would like to ask: will the framework allow for short-duration certificates and can validity periods be proportionate to medical need, instead of a fixed renewal cycle?

Ultimately, clarity on the form of the certificates would be helpful as this avoids over-medicalising temporary conditions and repeated clinic visits for residents who are already unwell.

The reduction of the PMA speed limit from 10 kilometres per hours to six kilometres per hour is sensible. Lower speeds do reduce injury severity. Furthermore, PMAs will now be required to carry registration marks which allow for enforcement. But enforcement consistency and deterrence matter. Recently, LTA installed a temporary enforcement camera right outside Canberra Primary School. Parents welcomed it. School leaders supported it. However, residents were surprised when it was removed after just three weeks.

So, I would like to ask, can LTA publish clearer criteria on where cameras are likely be deployed, for how long and what conditions trigger removal or extension?

Visibility of such cameras builds trust and acts as an effective deterrent and assures road users that we are doing our best to keep our roads and pathways safe for all. My suggestion is to consider permanent cameras at school zones, downward slopes and high foot-traffic areas; temporary cameras to rotate between key junctions and supported by roving enforcement elsewhere.

While PMDs are still in its nascency in Singapore, it is consistency in enforcement that will likely change behaviour.

Should there be a lack of resources or funding for such permanent cameras, could we also explore a co-funding model between local Town Councils and LTA for estates which want to participate in enforcement?

Making it an offence to keep unsafe devices is necessary. Fire risks are real, and we have seen tragic consequences. Under the Active Mobility Act, there is already provision for authorised officers and public path wardens, including volunteers. Enforcement exists today, but residents' feedback that coverage and visibility can feel uneven, especially at hotspots.

My question is, can MOT and LTA expand the use of this existing framework to educate, identify high-risk devices and prevent incidents early? For example, strengthening public path warden presence, partnering Town Councils and Community Emergency and Engagement (C2E) Committees and empowering our Active Mobility Community Ambassadors (AMCA).

Today, residents can already report illegal vehicle parking through OneMotoring. So, I would like to suggest for MOT to explore a similar structured reporting channel, perhaps through OneService, for PMD and PMA issues. For example, uploading your photo, tagging your location and simple categorisation. This will allow for faster response, active community eyes on the ground and early detection of unsafe devices. It strengthens safety without over-reliance on enforcement alone.

MHA shared recently that in the past three years, 77, or 72%, of the AMD-related fires in HDB estates involved PMDs and PABs which were either non-UL2272 compliant or non-EN15194 compliant; or had been modified, rendering them non-compliant. This means that a significant 28% or more than one in four AMD-related fires involved compliant devices. As the Government has noted previously, although AMD-related fires form a small proportion of fires in HDB estates, such fires are typically more severe and more likely to result in fatalities and injuries.

While registration and the requirement for devices to be UL2272-compliant are useful in reducing the risk of fires, they do not adequately address the fire risk of compliant devices. How can the Government reduce the threat to safety and property, given that more than one in four fires are caused by these compliant devices? I encourage the agencies to conduct a feasibility study and share the study with public on allowing these devices to be parked at HDB Multi-storey Car Park (MSCP) as an option and to build fire-resistant charging infrastructure in MSCPs for users to charge their PMDs and PMA batteries. Alternatively, we could consider sandboxes in MSCPs where usage is low.

This idea is not plucked out from thin air. I deal with batteries on a daily basis and last Saturday, also had a chat with a retailer on the sideline of our fire safety talk. Similarly, they agreed that with three to four connectors head and three to four voltages, the permutation is not that many for such a sandbox to be deployed quickly. In Mandarin, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to briefly present my views in Mandarin. This amendment Bill is heading in the right direction, but the real key lies in how to implement the policy effectively.

First, on Certificate of Medical Need. This system is heading in the right direction, but real life is often more complex than legal provisions. In the community, there are many elderly people who are temporarily weak after dialysis, chemotherapy or surgery, and need family members or caregivers to assist them in using mobility aids. I hope the policy can provide clear guidance so that caregivers do not have to worry about enforcement risks in reasonable circumstances.

At the same time, we also see many residents who are only temporarily mobility-impaired, such as after surgery or fracture. I hope the system can allow short-term or time-limited medical certificates, whilst for permanent medical conditions, consideration could be given to longer validity periods which needs less frequent updating, to reduce the burden of repeated medical consultations for patients.

Second, regarding speed limits and enforcement consistency. Reducing the speed limit for mobility aids to six kilometres per hour is reasonable, but the key to truly changing behaviour lies in consistent and sustained enforcement. Taking school areas as an example, if enforcement is only short-term, it easily creates a mentality of "things will be fine once the attention dies down". I hope the authorities can clearly explain the deployment principles for speed cameras and consider establishing permanent enforcement points at high-risk locations, with roving enforcement in other areas, to give the public a stable sense of security.

Third, regarding registration and fire safety. The registration system is important, but for many elderly people, digital processes are not user-friendly. If registration responsibility could be moved forward to points of sale, ensuring compliance from the source, this would both reduce pressure on the elderly and lower subsequent enforcement costs.

Regarding fire prevention, even compliant equipment still poses certain risks. I hope the Government can study setting up fire-resistant charging or parking solutions in HDB multi-storey car parks and, through pilot testing, further reduce threats to residents' lives and property.

Mr Deputy Speaker, laws are only the start. Implementation is the key. As long as the policy can truly accommodate family needs, be feasible for businesses and allow community participation, this Bill can achieve a better balance between safety and inclusiveness.

(In English): Sir, this Bill sets the right direction. But laws succeed only when families feel supported, users and companies can comply and communities feel safe. My intent today is to help make this policy work better on the ground. I look forward to the Minister's clarifications and how we can refine implementation together.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.

5.10 pm

Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare that I am a registered member of the Allied Health Professions Council, and my work involves accessing, treating and educating on disability.

This Land Transport and Related Matters Bill is important for its impact on safeguarding lives and preparing our transport system for the future. Speeding remains one of the leading causes of fatal crashes. The mandatory speed limiter regime is necessary.

I commend EnterpriseSG for stepping in with support, covering 50% of eligible costs for small and medium enterprises through the Productivity Solutions Grant. Yet, as of early January, more than 140 lorry owners had not complied. This is not a trivial figure. It points to real challenges in implementation.

I would like to ask if the Government has identified the obstacles faced by these lorry owners. Where genuine difficulties exist, can more assistance be rendered? Safety should never be compromised because of affordability or administrative hurdles.

Mr Deputy Speaker, fire tragedies involving AMDs have been unfolding in our estates, sometimes right at the doorsteps of our neighbours. Between 2022 and 2025, over 70% of such fires involved uncertified or illegally modified devices.

The Bill rightly prohibits even the possession of non-UL2272 e-scooters. Yet, enforcement will be the true test. With thousands of devices in circulation and illegal spare parts easily available online, accountability must extend beyond users to the platforms that enable such risks.

The question before us is this: how can enforcement be scaled sustainably across our estates? How can agencies work with communities to build awareness and vigilance? And how can we ensure that online marketplaces take responsibility, so that unsafe devices are not just removed from our paths but from our homes altogether?

PMAs are essential for those with genuine walking difficulties. But misuse by otherwise mobile individuals can create new problems. Over-reliance on mobility scooters may lead to muscle wasting, loss of balance and reduced independence. Instead of preserving mobility, unnecessary use can erode it.

This is why the prescription requirement, through a Certificate of Medical Need issued by doctors or occupational therapists, is so important. It ensures that PMAs remain tools of necessity, not convenience, protecting both the safety of our shared paths and the health of our residents.

The reduction of PMA speed limits from 10 kilometres per hour to six – the pace of brisk walking – is a welcome move. It directly addresses concerns in towns with young children and seniors. Dimension limits of 120 centimetres by 70 centimetres, harmonised with public transport standards, will prevent oversized devices from dominating shared paths.

Yet, enforcement on the ground remains the challenge. In Tengah, residents have raised concerns about riders whizzing past pedestrians, with near-miss collisions involving young children along Plantation Plaza's retail street. With our ageing population, we can expect more PMAs on our paths too.

Doctors provide the vital role of diagnosis, ensuring medical conditions are properly identified. Physiotherapists, however, are the movement experts, the mobility experts. They specialise in biomechanics, gait analysis and functional rehabilitation. As part of their work, they prescribe wheelchairs and mobility aids for persons with disabilities, and they work daily with patients to help restore movement – to stand, to walk and to carry out their ADLs with dignity and independence.

For residents already under physiotherapy care, requiring a separate doctor consultation for certification may create duplication and inconvenience. Could the Minister of State explain the rationale for excluding physiotherapists from issuing Certificates of Medical Need, particularly for patients already under their care? The exclusion warrants reconsideration. For continuity of care, patients already receiving physiotherapy should not require separate consultations solely for certification purposes. Doctors diagnose, but physiotherapists help people move again – to stand, to walk and to live.

Additionally, while these measures improve safety, infrastructure remains a concern. Shared paths of two metres are dwarfed by roads spanning 18 metres. If active mobility is to grow, will the Government commit to expanding pedestrian‑only path infrastructure proportionately? Safety is not just about rules; it is also about space.

ERP 2.0 represents a fairer, usage-based model, charging only for actual road use. That principle is sound. But fairness must be felt across income groups and vehicle types. How will lower‑income families who rely on private‑hire vehicles for essential transport be protected from disproportionate burdens under future distance‑based models?

And while decriminalising missed payments is sensible, shifting liability from drivers to vehicle owners may create complications for shared vehicles. How will these be addressed?

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill advances safety and modernisation on our roads. It is a step forward. But as always, the true measure lies in implementation, in enforcement, in fairness and in infrastructure. I support the Bill and I look forward to the Minister's clarifications.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.17 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill's objectives to enhance safety for all path users and road users. However, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister of State on several implementation matters that will affect our residents and businesses.

First, medical certification for PMAs. The new regulation requiring valid medical certification for mobility scooters is necessary. It addresses legitimate public concerns about misuse by able-bodied individuals and preserves these devices for those with genuine mobility challenges.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

However, I ask the Minister of State to consider a special category of users who may fall into a grey area. They are delivery riders who may not meet strict medical certification criteria but have genuine mobility problems that make cycling or walking long distances very difficult.

In 2019, when e-scooters were banned from footpaths, approximately 7,000 delivery riders were affected. Recognising the impact on livelihoods, the Government provided a $7 million transition assistance package. Today, delivery platforms acknowledge that a portion of their riders rely on PMAs. The Government had expressed its commitment to inclusivity for riders with mobility challenges.

Would the Minister of State clarify if there will be transition support for affected riders? What constitutes mobility issues sufficient for certification? Must it be a diagnosed medical condition, or can occupational factors be considered? For riders performing physically demanding work who experience joint pain or fatigue but lack formal diagnoses, is there recourse?

Second, dimension limits, speed limits and enforcement. I fully support the new dimension limits and speed limits for PMAs. These measures harmonise public path and public transport regulations while addressing safety concerns, particularly for seniors and young children. However, enforcement effectiveness remains a question.

Residents have shared that despite numerous feedback, uncertified and modified PMAs continue to be out and about. Could the Minister of State define what "good enforcement" will look like? Will LTA expand mobile closed-circuit television (CCTV) deployment beyond the current hotspot rotation? Will plainclothes operations increase in frequency and coverage? Public feedback suggests enforcement officers may be too conspicuous. Will LTA adopt more covert tactics to deter violations effectively? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Residents have shared that despite feedback, uncertified and modified PMAs continue to be out and about. Could the Minister of State explain what "good enforcement" will look like? Will LTA expand CCTV deployment beyond the current hotspot rotation?

Will plainclothes officers’ operations increase in frequency and coverage? Public feedback suggests enforcement officers may be too conspicuous. Will LTA adopt more covert tactics to deter violations effectively?

(In English): Third, ban on keeping non-UL2272 e-scooters. Prohibiting the possession of non-compliant e-scooters will greatly enhance fire safety in our residential estates. However, enforcement of this "keeping" offence raises practical questions. How will authorities detect possession within private homes without infringing on privacy?

Could the Government consider leveraging existing home visit programs? Officers are currently already doing inspections. With appropriate legislative amendments and officer training, could these existing touchpoints be utilised to identify non-compliant e-scooters during routine visits? This would expand enforcement capacity without creating a separate inspection regime. What safeguards will be implemented to protect residents' privacy while ensuring fire safety compliance? Will there be disposal programmes to encourage voluntary surrender?

Fourth, speed limiters for heavy vehicles. I am gratified that the Government has decided to introduce a series of firm measures for speed limiters for heavy vehicles. These include increasing penalties for violations, including tampering. Since 2017, I had asked for speed limiters for motor vehicles in this House a few times. I hope we will be able to progress to higher-risk passenger cars to improve safety on our roads too.

Finally, may I ask about speed limiters for foreign heavy vehicles on our roads? What are the regulations and enforcement measures for them?

In conclusion, I seek the Minister's assurance that all these measures will be implemented with adequate support, clear timelines and proportionate enforcement. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jackson Lam.

5.24 pm

Mr Jackson Lam (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill. I do so not only as a Member of this House, but as someone like many Singaporeans who uses our transport system every day – walking through neighbourhoods, sharing footpaths and relying on our roads and common spaces to feel safe and predictable.

Transport policy may be debated here, but its impact is felt outside this Chamber. It is felt on our footpaths, in lift lobbies and in the confidence that people have when they move around their neighbourhoods. In that sense, this Bill is not just technical or administrative. It is about how we update our rules to reflect how people live today, while continuing to keep everyone safe and included.

Over the past years, many Members would have seen reports of mobility devices colliding with pedestrians, or fires linked to unsafe or modified devices stored in residential blocks. These incidents are unsettling. Not because mobility aids are the problem – they are not. But because they show that our rules have not fully kept up with how these devices are being used and sometimes misused, in shared public spaces.

Mobility devices today are more powerful and more widely available than before. If used properly, they make a real difference to people's lives. If used irresponsibly or without safeguards, they can pose risks to others. This Bill is timely in addressing that gap.

The clearer definitions of mobility vehicles, together with mandatory registration and the requirement for a Certificate of Medical Need for certain devices, strike a careful balance. They recognise that many seniors and persons with disabilities, these devices are not conveniences. They are essential tools that allow people to remain independent, mobile and connected to the community.

At the same time, the Bill reinforces an important principle: our footpaths and common spaces are shared. As devices become faster or heavier, greater responsibility must follow. Clear rules protect pedestrians, but they also protect responsible users who rely on these devices and do not want to be unfairly judged because of the actions of a few.

When I speak with residents, the concern is rarely about seniors who truly need these aids. More often, it is about uncertainty. People ask: what is allowed? What is safe? And if something goes wrong, who is accountable? When there is uncertainty, trust in shared spaces begins to erode. This Bill provides much-needed clarity.

That said, rules alone are not enough. Implementation will matter just as much. Seniors navigating medical assessments, online systems or registration processes should not feel anxious or overwhelmed. I encourage the Ministry to continue pairing regulation with strong outreach through community centres, healthcare providers and grassroots organisations, especially during the transition period. Compliance should come from understanding and support, not fear.

I also welcome the Bill's focus on upstream responsibility, particularly the stronger controls on the sale, advertisement and possession of unsafe or non-compliant devices. Too often, enforcement falls mainly on end-users, even when powerful devices are marketed without proper safeguards or clear information. This does not feel fair. By placing clearer responsibility on sellers and platforms, the Bill improves accountability and sends a clear message that safety must be built in from the start.

Related to this are the provisions dealing with unsafe devices, including those that are modified or uncertified. Many of us will recall reports of fires in residential blocks linked to such devices. These incidents are frightening because they do not affect just one household. They put neighbours, families and the entire block at risk.

The introduction of an offence for keeping unsafe devices, even when they are not actively used, reflects an important reality that risks often arise long before an incident occurs. At the same time, I welcome the reasonable-excuse safeguards and transitional arrangements. These ensure enforcement remains proportionate and humane. Clear public education will be essential so that people understand what is expected of them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill also addresses road safety more broadly, particularly through amendments to the Road Traffic Act. I welcome the clarification that mandatory disqualification periods are minimum periods, restoring the original legislative intent following recent judicial interpretation. Too often, attention comes only after something bad happen – when lives are lost or permanently changed. Clearer statutory guidance strengthens deterrence, while still allowing Judges the discretion to respond fairly to the seriousness of each case.

The enhanced speed limiter regime for heavy vehicles is also timely. When safeguards are bypassed, the harm caused can be severe and irreversible. Tightening these controls reflects lessons learned through experience and reinforces our commitment to road safety.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on a broader theme that runs through this Bill – trust in systems, especially as Singapore relies more heavily on automation and digital enforcement.

From speed cameras to electronic charging systems, technology now plays a central role in transport management. The Bill updates evidentiary and enforcement provisions to reflect this reality. But even as systems become more efficient, it is important that people continue to have access to clear explanations and meaningful recourse. Systems must not only work well, they must also be fair, transparent and understandable.

Singapore has always done well because people trust that our systems are designed with care, applied proportionately and corrected when they fall short. This Bill helps to maintain that trust by modernising our laws while keeping people at the centre.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is not about regulation for its own sake. It is about responding responsibly to technological, demographic and social change. It seeks to protect seniors, support mobility, improve safety and modernise enforcement, without losing sight of fairness and common sense. With careful implementation and continued engagement, the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill 2026 will strengthen, not just our transport system, but also the confidence Singaporeans place in it. I therefore support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

5.32 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to make amendments to various pieces of legislation to empower LTA to improve active mobility and vehicular safety and to enable the transition to the ERP 2.0 system.

However, I have some questions and suggestions.

Sir, firstly, I support the Bill's proposal to strengthen the regulation of PMAs. Preventing the misuse of PMAs by seemingly able-bodied individuals, tackling speeding and restricting the use of overly large devices, are good proposals by the AMAP and I am glad that the Government has adopted these recommendations.

We must not compromise the safety of other path users, especially seniors and young children, when allowing AMDs to share our paths. Beyond the measures proposed, I would like to urge the Government to do more to tackle the occurrences of fires caused by these AMDs.

In my Radin Mas constituency, I have seen our fair share of fires caused by PMDs. I understand that some of these fires were due to the use of unapproved PMDs, or in some cases, modifications to battery packs to improve the devices' range. In addition to endangering themselves, the owners of unapproved or illegally modified devices can cause harm to their neighbours in the event that these devices catch fire. Electrical fires can spread far more rapidly and the damage to surrounding HDB flats also tend to be more excessive.

Sir, the Bill proposes to make it an offence to keep non-UL2272 certified e-scooters. I would like to ask if the same certification standard applies to all other forms of AMDs. According to a 2024 research article published in the Journal of Burn Care and Research, burn injuries related to lithium-ion batteries from PMDs can often be more severe than other types of burns, due to the thermal runway caused by such electrical fires.

The British Safety Council has also issued a warning that, once a chemical reaction causes thermal runway, the lithium-ion batteries found in these PMDs could spontaneously ignite and such fires are hard to extinguish.

Members may also remember the unfortunate 2021 incident, where a man died after his modified PMD burst into flames while he was inside a lift. This means that we do not need to be charging the batteries for them to catch fire. We must therefore do all we can to prevent people from possessing devices that have been illegally modified, due to the risk of devastating electrical fires that can result in the unfortunate loss of lives.

Sir, I support the provisions in the Bill related to Singapore's transition to the ERP 2.0 system.

I would like to ask if the Minister could provide greater clarity on when the existing ERP gantries would be removed. I note that LTA had previously said that these gantries would be progressively removed once ERP 2.0 begins and I am wondering if the Minister could provide more information on the timeline.

Workers who travel extensively on our roads for their livelihoods, are rightfully concerned about the impact of distance-based congestion pricing that would be enabled by the ERP 2.0 system. I urge the Ministry to consider in its implementation the disproportionate impact that distance-based congestion pricing would have on these workers and their livelihoods.

Sir, the Bill also proposes that vehicle owners, instead of drivers, will be responsible for unpaid ERP charges. Those with outstanding payments would be unable to transact with LTA on some essential services, such as road tax renewal, until the missed ERP charges are settled. I think this is a sound move.

However, in the event where the vehicle owner fails to renew his road tax due to outstanding ERP payments, and the driver, who is an employee, is unaware of this and drives the vehicle, who would be liable for the resulting offence? Should we therefore align the current framework to also hold the vehicle owner liable, instead of the driver?

Mr Speaker, the proposals under the Bill are timely in enhancing the safety of our roads and in reducing disamenities to other users who share our roads. I support the proposal to increase penalties for several road traffic offences, such as the illegal alteration of motor vehicles and taking to task those who allow illegal modifications to take place within their premises.

I also support the proposal to increase penalties for keeping or using unregistered or deregistered vehicles. Absent from the stipulated vehicle inspections, these unregistered or deregistered vehicles can pose a safety risk to other road users.

I would therefore like to ask how many cases did the Police investigate regarding the use of unregistered or deregistered vehicles on our roads in the past three years and how do we intend to do better enforcement to catch the users of such non-registered vehicles? Can the ERP 2.0 system be used to monitor and locate these vehicles? And if so, would the Police be able to use this system, so that they can take prompt enforcement actions?

Mr Speaker, thus far, I have spoken about my support for the Bill and how I think that the measures would improve the safety of our shared paths and our roads. I therefore thank the two Ministries – MOT and MHA – for working on this comprehensive Bill to make our roads and shared paths safer for everyone.

However, in my view, this omnibus Bill was a missed opportunity to strengthen legislation to improve workers' safety. Sir, if you would indulge me, I would like to once again raise the plight of workers transported at the back of lorries.

We have seen numerous traffic accidents involving workers being transported at the back of lorries happen over the years. More recently, an accident on 28 January 2026, that was just last week, involving a lorry along Orchard Road, resulted in 12 workers being sent to the hospital. Thankfully, there were no fatalities.

Accidents like this remind us time and time again that more needs to be done to improve the safety of workers being transported at the back of lorries. NTUC and the Migrant Worker Centre have previously called for clearer restrictions on the co-mingling of workers with goods. Carrying passengers alongside goods and machinery is dangerous. When loads are not properly secured, workers face the risk of being struck or crushed during collisions or sudden braking. This is a foreseeable and preventable risk and the co-mingling of goods and passengers should be prohibited by law.

Ideally, we should use proper transportation, such as buses, to transport our workers to and from their worksites. In the meantime, we should, at the very least, mandate seat belts to protect passengers from being flung out of the vehicle in the event of an accident.

Sir, I have been raising these key points about workers' safety and workers' transportation over the years, and I will continue to do so at every opportunity. I therefore urge the Government to adopt these proposals because the lives of every worker matters.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Bill makes important legislative amendments to strengthen the safety of our active mobility landscape, helps reduce the risk of non-compliant devices catching fires within our homes and is timely in aiding our transition to the new ERP 2.0 system.

I hope that the Government could consider my proposals to strengthen enforcement against unsafe deregistered vehicles from plying our roads and to improve the safety of workers, currently being transported at the back of lorries. Sir, notwithstanding that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Gho Sze Kee.

5.42 pm

Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, the biggest part of this Bill is about making our roads, public paths and neighbourhood, safer. Public safety is of utmost importance and I welcome and support the Bill. Some of the measures introduced in this Bill, I feel are long overdue. There are, however, a few points I would like to raise.

Firstly, speed limits. So, the Bill will cap PMAs at six kilometres per hour on public paths. That is only about brisk walking speed. While I share the same reservations with my Parliamentary colleagues, that this may penalise some PMA users, specifically those who make use of their device to make a living as platform delivery workers, I can understand this from a perspective of public policy.

While we have restrained that one group of people with real medical needs to this relaxed pace, I must note that on our shared paths, bicycles, PMDs and PABs are still allowed to go 25 kilometres per hour, and I wonder why. I had raised a Parliamentary question on this issue previously and had an exchange with the hon Minister of State for Transport before. I remember, I noted in that exchange that 25 kilometres per hour is essentially a fit person running at full throttle or sprinting all out. To give a more easily perceived perspective, that is about a 100-metre sprint in 14.4 seconds.

Mr Speaker, both yourself and the hon Minister of State for Transport acknowledged then that speed was beyond the both of you. Indeed, I doubt that there is anyone in this House who could have done so. And I know that there are some very fit Members in this House. And this reinforces my point – 25 kilometres per hour is a very fast speed on our shared paths. The momentum of a person holding down at this speed on our shared paths, whether he be on two legs or a bicycle, or even a PMD, has the potential to make any accidents a serious and even a very deadly one.

Someone dashing and crashing into you at 25 kilometres per hour is no joking matter. This is an issue in my ward, and I have received many residents feedback on speeding bicycles and SMVs in the Tanjong Rhu area. Our shared paths are used by many of our elderly residents, young children and even pets.

Mr Speaker, I credit the progressive steps taken by LTA previously, including the banning of PMD and PABs from footpaths, and lowering bicycle speeds from five to 10 kilometres per hour. It did much to improve public safety. But in the same interest of public safety, I must also call on LTA to review the speed limit for these devices on our shared paths.

Next, I turn to enforcement. I am glad to know that expanded powers that will be given to LTA officers under this new Bill.

Currently, the active mobility act allows LTA enforcement officers to enter and inspect business premises suspected of committing offences, such as illegally modifying devices and selling non-compliant devices, and to seize such devices. But yet, I cannot help but note that majority of the AMD-related fires occurred not in commercial and business premises but private residential homes. With this Bill, mere possession of non-UL2272 PMDs will also be an offence.

I would like to clarify with the Minister of Sate if the intent of this portion of the amendment was also informed by fire safety considerations in private homes and, if so, how does the Ministry plan to exercise enforcement in this context?

Mr Speaker, any piece of legislation without effective enforcement is meaningless and becomes a mere suggestion. Allow me to share a quote from Cesare Beccaria, one of the founding figures of modern criminology and criminal law, "Crimes are more effectively prevented by certainty than severity of punishment." While I am in no way equating possession of an illegal modified PMD to say rape and robbery, this truism is universally applicable. Punishment and sanctions are only half of the deterrence, and the other half is the certainty of getting caught.

I commend the LTA wardens that I and my activists work at the Tanjong Rhu bridge. They are excellent at their job. But the problem we have with bicycles and PMDs persist despite their efforts. Simply put, they could not be everywhere all the time.

Errant PMDs and PABs are still a sight in our neighbourhoods, especially at night. For this Bill to be meaningful and to make our shared spaces safer, the enforcement efforts must be sustained, persistent and adequately resourced. But I do not think that enforcement alone is enough to comprehensively address this issue. While enforcement is critical, we must also examine why risky behaviour persists. Why do so many still obtain illegal devices, modify them and travel at unsafe speeds on our public paths?

So far, most of our previous efforts at addressing this problem have been focused on enforcement and the throttling of the supply of equipment. We have not quite succeeded, otherwise we would not be here debating this Bill. But it is certainly not for lack of trying. I believe we did not succeed because we have never really addressed the root of what drives such unsafe behaviour. It is time that we address the elephant in the room.

Mr Speaker, for many PMD and PAB users, their devices are not simply a means of commute but a tool to make a living. Indeed, I believe performing platform delivery is the primary reason why people acquire these devices. For these users, public and personal safety becomes not just an issue of personal responsibility but also systemic pressures.

In reality, platform riders operate under constant time pressures driven by targets, bonuses and performance-based incentives. Earnings are linked to the number of orders completed, delivery speed and acceptance rates. It also rises non-linearly, with significant jumps once certain quotas are met. Platform riders are under pressure to hit these time limited quotas to substantially boost their earnings. For many of them, the only path to a viable income is by hitting these targets. This pressure cooker environment in which riders are driven to move faster and faster, under such models, speed and output are rewarded while safety is left to individual discretion.

A device illegally and unsafely modified to go faster translates directly into faster deliveries, shorter turnaround times and more completed orders and higher earnings. In this context, risky behaviour may not be explicitly encouraged, but it is effectively incentivised. All this represents a challenging dynamic. The Government enacts and enforces rules to protect public safety, including the safety of the rider themselves, yet the riders run the risk and bear the effect of these rules. The Government gets the blame for trying to keep everyone safe, meanwhile platform companies reap the rewards.

Mr Speaker, this must change. Public safety cannot be the Government's concern alone. It is time to hold platform companies more accountable for the safety of their workers and the communities that they serve. Without the delivery platform stepping up and taking greater responsibility, the powerful motivation and incentive to unsafe behaviour will always be present. The problem of errant AMDs on our public spaces will remain intractable.

I am particularly pleased to note that sections 23E and 23J of the Bill, which will hold platform companies responsible for their workers using a mobility vehicle without a valid Certificate of Medical Need. It seems we have finally started to address the elephant in the room. But there is so much more that the platforms can do and should do.

It is clear that the platforms already have the technological means to flag unsafe behaviour. We know that platforms can and do track riders in real time and track distance travelled. Simple matrix, such as distance over time and turnaround time between delivery and pick-up, can easily flag excessive speed or unsafe behaviour. These simple measures could address much of the problem and platforms clearly have the means to significantly improve safety for both their riders and the public.

Mr Speaker, delivery platforms must recognise that they also have a civic duty. They are stakeholders in the communities that they operate in. We must recognise that safety on the roads and public paths is a shared responsibility.

While the Government can make and enforce rules, platforms should ensure that their operational models do not systematically reward unsafe riding at the expense of public safety. Their systems should protect their workers from unreasonable pressure and protect the public from unnecessary risk. At the same time, this must not become an excuse for platforms to shift responsibility or cost onto their workers.

Our delivery workers deserve to be compensated fairly and sustainably. For their efforts, a system that pressurises riders to take risks just to earn a decent income is neither fair nor acceptable and I am glad to hear from the hon Member Ms Yeo Wan Ling that the NDCA is in discussion with such delivery platforms for a fairer deal.

I look forward to hearing more about the outcome. Our delivery workers should not have to choose between earning a viable living and obeying the law and everyone deserves safety on our roads and public paths. We all deserve to return home safely to our loved ones at the end of the day.

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang.

5.53 pm

Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, in preparation for today's debate, I partnered the Institute of Policy Studies to convene a "Citizens Reflections" session with my residents in Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru. I hoped that through the session, my residents would develop a deeper understanding of our Parliamentary proceedings and a stronger sense of engagement viz these debates.

Hence, after the Bill was tabled in Parliament for the First Reading in January, I met residents who responded to an open call for a full-day session on 17 January where we had robust and enriching discussions on the active mobility segments of the Bill. Following the session, the participants spent an additional week to co-develop a close to 60-page report synthesising our discussion and I will highlight the key points in the report in my speech today.

Mr Speaker, my residents took many positives from the proposed changes in the Bill. At they same time, they also raised several practical considerations and suggestions that were all people-centred, focused on the needs of fellow citizens with mobility challenges. I will cover four key areas today.

First, the introduction of the medical certificate requirement for the driving or riding of mobility vehicles on public paths. We agree that this is reasonable to ensure that the use and the space associated with the use of mobility vehicles is safeguarded for those amongst us with genuine mobility challenges, and coupled with the other specifications on size and speed, this will curb the misuse of such mobility vehicles, which endangers the safety of all path users, especially pedestrians. However, we would like to seek clarification from the Ministry. Will the Government consider providing subsidies for those in need to cover the cost of the clinical assessment?

In addition, there were concerns that different medical practitioners may have differing practices in ascertaining the need, so how will MOH ensure standardised clinical practice? Will there be training for practitioners? Because on the one hand, we want to ensure that those with genuine mobility challenges are able to get the certification with minimum hassle. But on the other hand, we also hope that in making the assessments, our practitioners do not inadvertently encourage the over-reliance on the mobility vehicles for those who are still able to move about relatively independently.

Second, the introduction of the need to register mobility vehicles. We agree that this facilitates greater accountability and can help with enforcement as, currently, the lack of identification marks constrains enforcement even when offences may be detected by the Active Mobility Enforcement Cameras. However, we would like to highlight that this may not fully address the challenge of enforcing against those who do not register and therefore, continue to run around without identification marks on their mobility vehicles. So, therefore, despite the changes in the legislation, adequate presence on the ground continues to remain critical to enforcing against this group.

At the same time, while we acknowledge the potential benefits of registration, several residents asked if the need to register would be too onerous for those with genuine medical need given that they would already have had to obtain the medical certificate and many of whom may be facing financial challenges. Will the Government be able to streamline the process to minimise the hassle for these persons and will the Government also consider the provision of subsidies or grants to cover the registration and associated fees for those among them that face financial challenges?

We would also like to highlight one particular provision in the Act and seek clarification. Specifically, why is an additional identification mark required at the registered responsible person's expense when there will already be a registration mark issued by LTA? What information will be placed on the marks? Several of my residents were particularly concerned about this. Will there be any personal data and privacy concerns as the marks may allow the public to identify people with mobility challenges based on the marks on the mobility vehicle alone even if nobody is using the vehicle?

Finally, we would also like to understand how the registration framework will cover vehicles which are shared amongst families, rented commercially and transferred or sold. Will these modes still be allowed, as these could be more cost-effective options for those in need?

Third, the introduction of greater platform operator responsibilities. As a good number of mobility vehicle users we encounter on the paths are delivery workers, we support these changes. The secondary level of oversight placed on platform operators will complement the medical certificate requirement. However, we hope that these additional responsibilities do not lead to platform operators deciding to deprioritise or stop onboarding mobility vehicle users onto their platforms. In fact, with the lower allowable speeds of such vehicles, it is even more important that our platform operators continue to support those with mobility challenges as they seek to earn a livelihood.

In this regard, I was very glad to hear Ms Yeo Wan Ling's update that the platform workers have been working very closely with NDCA and the union to ensure that this is done. In addition, though, will the Government consider a seamless digital link between LTA's register and the platform operator systems to facilitate automatic verification so that there is less doubt in between the processes?

Fourth, the new rules on the selling and advertising of mobility vehicles. We support commercial regulation as this helps to ensure upstream accountability. We note, however, that the current Bill does not extend to regulating against the advertising of illegal repairs and modifications to mobility vehicles. I repeat that. It is the advertising of these illegal repairs. Is this an area that the Ministry intends to cover? And finally, given that the intent is for mobility vehicles to only be used by those with mobility challenges, did the Ministry consider centralising the supply through healthcare institutions only, for example?

Finally, I would just want to make a quick point on the six-kilometre-per-hour speed limit. I support the reduction to six kilometres per hour, similar to Members like Mr Ng Shi Xuan. I believe it is reasonable and sensible. And, in fact, it is not only Singapore that believes so. A quick check online will show that while there is not a single global standard on what the speed should be, many jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, including France, certain jurisdictions in Australia, in fact, Slovenia as well, recently ruled a new six-kilometre-per-hour for the use of mobility aids on pathways. And I think many of the jurisdictions have all considered that this is based on the fact that it is a brisk walking speed. So, that is, I believe a scientific consideration in the ascertainment of what the speed is.

But the positive effect of all the changes we have in this Bill will only be felt by our residents on the ground if there is effective enforcement. And I think that is something that all Members so far have raised as of critical input to the Bill.

So, Mr Speaker, in closing, I would like to acknowledge the valuable input and perspectives of my residents on the Bill once again and I look forward to engaging them on more Bills, especially those under the Ministries that I am a GPC Member of – the Ministry of National Development, and the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment – as well as those impacting our built environment in general, such as this Bill, because it affects all of us. Notwithstanding the points I have raised, I support the Bill.

6.02 pm

Mr Speaker: Acting Minister for Transport.

Resumption of Debate on Question [3 February 2026],

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time." – [Acting Minister for Transport].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.

3.02 pm

Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Speaker, I rise as the first speaker today to continue this debate on the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill.

Yesterday's debate covered a wide range of issues – from safety to enforcement and lived experience. I hope to build on those contributions, beginning with my experience with enforcement on the ground before turning to specific provisions of the Bill.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I witnessed a joint enforcement operation conducted by the Traffic Police, the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) in the northeastern part of Singapore in Tampines East and Changi. The operation took place between 2.00 am and 5.00 am.

While most Singaporeans were asleep, officers were out on the roads, conducting checks, managing risks and keeping our communities safe. I and, I am sure, hon Member Dr Charlene Chen, would like to place on record our appreciation for these officers who work late nights, often unseen, so that our roads are safe.

After I shared a short post about the experience, intended mainly for my residents, I was struck by the response from across Singapore, with many asking for more of such enforcements in their own neighbourhoods. That reaction is telling. Singaporeans care deeply about road safety, public order and fair enforcement and they expect these to be applied consistently.

It is in this context that the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill is timely. The Bill strengthens enforcement, clarifies powers and responds to realities on the ground. I support its intent and direction. I will touch on four areas: illegal vehicle modifications, Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) reforms, active mobility and speed limiters for lorries. Across all four, the common thread is simple: rules must be clear, enforceable, credible and implementation is fair.

I begin with illegal vehicle modifications. Clause 52 strengthens penalties for unauthorised modifications and this is necessary. Excessively loud exhausts and unsafe aftermarket parts are not minor lifestyle choices. They create safety risks, public nuisance and enforcement challenges. And in Changi, residents regularly tell me how late-night noise from illegally modified vehicles disrupts sleep, affecting the elderly, young children and working adults.

By raising penalties to fines of up to $20,000 and/or imprisonment, the Bill sends a clear message – personal preference cannot come at the expense of public safety and community well-being.

This need to align policy with reality also applies to ERP 2.0. I welcome the move to decriminalise missed ERP charges and treat them as administrative matters. In an automated system, this avoids unnecessary criminalisation for what are often genuine technical lapses.

At the same time, accountability should be fair. Holding vehicle owners liable in all cases may not reflect actual usage, particularly in legitimate shared-use contexts such as large families. A more nuanced approach could better align responsibility with behaviour.

Trust also depends on reliability. A motorcyclist in my constituency experienced a faulty On-Board Unit (OBU) that was initially eligible for a replacement. However, after a minor hairline crack was detected, he was required to bear the full replacement cost despite no major accident or misuse. This raises questions about durability standards, especially in Singapore's climate.

Beyond enforcement, OBUs can also enhance safety. Existing alerts on bus lanes and speed limits are useful. The Ministry could also explore further features such as alerts for flood-prone roads during heavy rain to support drivers.

Mr Speaker, nowhere is the gap between rules and lived experience more visible than on our shared paths. Last December, a 71-year-old resident, Mrs Malar Singam, was knocked down by a power-assisted bicycle (PAB) near Pasir Ris Mall. She suffered serious injuries, required jaw reconstruction surgery and continues to undergo follow-up care with the dentist and speech therapists. She is still unable to consume solids.

I want to be clear. This incident involved a PAB, even though this Bill focuses on personal mobility aids (PMAs). I raise it not to conflate device types but to highlight a fundamental reality – on shared paths, pedestrians bear the greatest risk when this risk is mismanaged.

Following the incident, Mr Frank Singam, Malar's husband, conducted a ground-up public survey which attracted over 600 responses. The aim was not to centre in one case but to see if it reflected a broader pattern. The findings are clear. More than half feel unsafe walking. Over three quarters have experienced or witnessed unsafe incidents. There is strong rejection of fast-moving devices on pavements and an overwhelming view that pedestrian safety must come first.

What is striking is that respondents are not calling for extreme measures. They are just asking for three things: clear prioritisation of pedestrians, proper enforcement of existing rules and alignment between policy intent and daily experience. This Bill moves us in that direction.

Clause 16 introduces a Certificate of Medical Need for PMA users, which is an important safeguard. To work well, the process must be clear, accessible and affordable. Excessive or opaque cost or administrative burden risks penalising genuine users. A transparent appeal mechanism is also important, especially for temporary or borderline conditions. Safeguards should protect the vulnerable and not overwhelm them.

Speed limits on shared paths matter only if they are enforced. Public concern is less about the precise number – whether it is 10 or six – and more about excessive speed in crowded, high-risk areas. Any speed limit, no matter how well designed, is meaningless if it is not enforced.

Several hon Members yesterday suggested permanent enforcement measures such as fixed cameras near schools, bus stops and high-traffic pedestrian areas. These are all sensible suggestions. Visible, location-focused enforcement supported by design-based speed calming is how speed limits move from policy intent to real safety. Without enforcement, speed limits are just suggestions.

Enforcement aside, it is also meaningless and unfair to users of PMAs who do not have speedometers for their own awareness of the speed they are going at in the first place.

As enforcement tightens, we should also support compliance. This Bill makes it an offence to keep non-compliant devices. I hope we can consider transitional measures such as buy-back or trade-in schemes that could help users shift to compliant devices, particularly where earlier purchases were made in good faith.

Fire safety related to PMD- and PMA-charging remains a serious concern. Designated charging and parking areas under residential blocks, also suggested by many hon Members yesterday, could reduce unsafe home charging while improving orderliness in shared spaces.

Finally, Mr Speaker, on speed limiters for lorries. I had raised this issue through a Parliamentary Question in November 2025 and I thank the Minister for Home Affairs for his response. I support the safety intent behind this requirement, but at the same time, I wish to share feedback from a resident of mine who is also a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) operator.

She highlighted that further differentiation of speed limits by vehicle class could allow some more operational flexibility, especially for lower-weight lorries, specifically for those between 3,500 and 5,000 kilogrammes maximum laden weight, whose drivers often face punishing work schedules or reactive work orders. Uptake also remains a concern. A more targeted outreach and hands-on installation support could help smaller operators comply.

On subsidies for encouraging installations, I would also like to point out that the Productivity Solutions Grant should be meant for genuine productivity uplift and not regulatory compliance like this one. Using productivity grants for mandatory requirements risks diluting their purpose.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the above suggestions and clarifications, I support this Bill because it strengthens safety while reflecting realities on the ground. At its heart, it challenges all of us to improve safety without making daily life harder for those already trying to comply and do the right thing. I look forward to the Ministry's response. And to Mrs Malar Singam, I wish you a smoother path to full recovery.

Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.

3.11 pm

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first begin by saying that I am speaking in support of the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill.

Specifically, I welcome the Bill's active mobility provisions with respect to those on mobility devices and e-scooters. This is because in my role as a Member of Parliament (MP), I have received multiple emails from different Clementi residents about personal mobility devices (PMDs) travelling too fast on walkways, near misses and the anxiety this causes for pedestrians, especially for our seniors and our young children.

Furthermore, other residents in Clementi have also shared with me their concerns seeing seemingly able-bodied users riding oversized devices and also clarifying with me, asking whether it is all right to have more than one passenger on the same device. I am certain that I am not the only MP in this House who has received such feedback.

At the heart of this feedback, I can understand the anxiety and concern for the wider community. But beyond supporting this Bill, I have three broad clarifications and concerns.

The first is on how do we ensure a high compliance with this new regulation.

While the intent of the Bill is definitely a positive one, it is worth noting that for someone who wants to be able to ride a mobility scooter, there are a few hurdles for them to cross. On this note, I am glad that seniors aged 70 and above will be exempted from the medical certification requirement. However, for those that are not exempted, such as those who are slightly below 70, the first hurdle that they would have to clear is having a valid Certificate of Medical Need to use a mobility scooter on public paths.

The fact that time and effort is required to make an appointment, to find a doctor or occupational therapist who could assess and issue the certification; then, they have to pay for the consultation. These are hurdles that individuals who need mobility scooters have to cross. If this process is not implemented well, it may deter people who genuinely need a mobility scooter.

Medical certification aside, individuals who need a mobility scooter will also need to cross another hurdle, which is registering and waiting for the approval of their PMA. In the event that the individual is still using a non-UL2272 e-scooter, time and resources will be required to find a compliant e-scooter.

My main point is this: if we put ourselves in the user journey, it appears that there are a few hurdles that they will have to go through. Furthermore, if you happen to be a senior who is just slightly below 70 years old, and happen to be not fluent in English and perhaps not great at navigating the online space to register your mobility scooter, your user journey will end up to be significantly longer than expected as you have to rely on the goodwill of others to help you through this process.

Hence, I hope that the implementation of this Bill will take into account these anticipated challenges and hopefully, prioritise the user experience by keeping the process as straightforward and simple as possible. For instance, information should be made accessible. It should not only be made available in English, but in all other official languages.

Beyond the digital space and in light of the target population that I have just mentioned, there is a need to roll out information on this policy shift using physical materials placed at face-to-face touchpoints such as our polyclinics, community centres or even general practitioner (GP) clinics.

I know we are serious about implementing this, but I hope that we will be able to reduce the friction involved in navigating the compliance process. At the end of day, we want to ensure that our vulnerable populations who need the mobility scooters will not be deterred by the process.

Against this backdrop, I am also heartened to know that the Bill also states that LTA has the power to provide financial incentives, support, grants, aid and assistance. With this in mind, the Government should consider how financial support and aid will be operationalised in the active mobility compliance context. For example, whether there will be means-tested assistance and transitional support for those who are moving from non-compliant devices?

In this regard, would the Ministry of Transport (MOT) or LTA be able to share details on when and who can qualify for such financial assistance and the extent of financial assistance so that those who need this more will have this assurance that we are designing this with them in mind?

Beyond financial means, allow me to speak further a little bit about the medical certification. As we move towards mandatory data sharing for National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system, will LTA consider working with the Ministry of Health (MOH) on how medical certification for mobility scooter can be generated based on previous records so that it reduces the friction or the need to see a physical doctor?

Presently, the use of NEHR is only limited to specific purposes or circumstances. MOH should also perhaps consider allowing NEHR access to streamline the certification of need. And what this means is that for our seniors, they can just go to the Active Ageing Centre, find a staff who can help them to navigate through the process, generate the medical certification that they need if they have already met the criteria.

At the heart of it, we want to make compliance smooth, not difficult. If the perceived expected costs incurred in terms of time and effort are too significant, compliance will be challenging.

Second, allow me to speak on matters pertaining to enforcement. In order to ensure that compliance within speed limits and good behaviour with mobility vehicles on footpaths, the certainty of enforcement plays an important role. If not, to the mobility vehicle user, this new speed limit is really nothing more than just head knowledge and may not be taken into heart.

Against this backdrop, I wonder how can we ensure enforcement will be more effective. While I think we can deploy manpower to deter mobility vehicle users from speeding in this interim period, I wonder, will LTA consider a technology-enabled enforcement solution, especially at high-traffic nodes at our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and also mall linkways. This could include targeted pilots using speed detection sensors, camera-supported enforcement and other pragmatic tools. It could involve working closely with Home Team technology partners, including the Home Team Science and Technology Agency so that detection and responses can become faster and more consistent.

A good thing is this: in Singapore, we fortunately have a strong foundation to build on. For instance, given our extensive Police Camera (PolCam) network deployed across neighbourhoods and transport nodes, this raises a practical question of whether we can leverage on the camera infrastructure and analytics to identify wrong behaviour more quickly, such as speeding of mobility vehicles or even pillion riders on mobility scooters, so that we can ensure enforcement can be carried out more swiftly.

Beyond enforcement, our behaviour is also shaped by our infrastructure. Just as vehicles drive on roads, where we often have speed limits to remind us drivers of what are the permissible speeds, could we also do something similar for our mobility vehicle users? The broader question is really how do we ensure that the education of this new speed limit is not just one-off, but repeated periodically and ingrained into our behaviour?

Finally, I would also need to put out this point that we need to assure and secure the trust and acceptance of users who depend on these mobility devices. Because for many of these residents, mobility vehicles are not a lifestyle choice. This is a lifeline. If the new regulatory regime is perceived as one that is making daily living more difficult, more stigmatising, more uncertain, then compliance will be a lot harder and the policy intent may not be fully achieved.

In one of my recent house visits, two of my residents who are wheelchair-bound and they use mobility vehicles to get around, raised a valid concern and I hope the Ministry can give some assurance to this. One of these residents mentioned to me saying that if she were to be travelling at six kilometres per hour upslope, their fear is that they will roll backwards given the slower speed. From a layman’s perspective as she was sharing that during my house visit, I could understand why she raised this concern, because it is quite easy to conflate two concepts, power and velocity, together.

So, what I then did was I raised this concern with my volunteers at my Meet-the-People Session and my Clementi running group. We sat down together using concepts we learnt from physics and engineering, we drew a free body diagram to simulate whether this concern is valid. Using our very simple physics model, the motors of the mobility vehicle must be able to overcome the downhill component gravity of mg sin θ. Our back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a 90-kilogramme system on a typical 4.8-degree ramp, 158 watts is needed to maintain at six kilometres per hour.

Let me just say this: I fully acknowledge that this is a simplified model. The point is not about academic precision. The point is about perception. For many users, this fear is real: will I roll backwards at a slower speed? It would be helpful if LTA could also provide reassurance in terms of public communication that devices designed for public paths will not roll backwards on typical gradients, even at lower speeds.

Another concern is the issue of being unfairly judged or confronted. Some have shared that they fear being stopped or challenged in public, not because they have done anything wrong, but because they “do not look disabled”.

This has been highlighted by disability advocates and rightly so because disability comes in many forms. For instance, some users can still walk a short distance but rely on mobility aid intermittently.

If the new regime unintentionally results in more public suspicion or harassment of legitimate users, it will undermine social trust. I therefore hope LTA’s communications will be clear that the intent is to prevent unsafe misuse, not to encourage policing by all of us and by the public, and that enforcement will be guided by training and clear protocols.

Mr Speaker, all these concerns that I raised today really do sound operational, but they go at the heart of public acceptance. Ultimately, this Bill is more than just enforcement, it is about how we live together in a dense, compact city with shared spaces.

A "we first" transport culture must mean that pedestrians feel safe. It also means that legitimate mobility aid users also feel respected and supported. Our safety rules must not only be stated but enforced consistently, supported with the right resources and technology, applied with fairness so that vulnerable users are not priced out of mobility.

Mr Speaker, in closing, this Bill advances a simple "we first" principle in my opinion: those who operate powered devices and vehicles hold greater capacity to cause harm and with that capacity comes greater responsibility.

Mr Speaker: Mr Hoe, we have some students from St Hilda's Secondary School and from their looks I think your calculations are correct. Ms Lee Hui Ying.

3.24 pm

Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill. This introduces new and important regulations. It is so important that despite my broken voice today, I wish to share my thoughts, my residents' thoughts on this Bill to ensure safer paths for all.

The growth in the use of PMAs in Singapore shows how our city has evolved – from an ageing population with greater needs for independence to a broader expectation that our public spaces accommodate different forms of mobility.

But as PMAs become a common sight, it is our duty to strike the right balance of safety, clarity and responsibility between the different users of our public paths. On this Bill, I have a few clarifications regarding the enforceability and impact of these new measures.

First, focusing on the most impacted group: the PMA users. From June this year, users must have the Certificate of Medical Need to own a PMA, which can only be obtained after completing the Assessment for Mobility Scooter (AMS) from doctors or occupational therapists. Given that these PMA users would need the vehicle for basic mobility, the AMS should and must remain affordable for all.

Will MOT be coordinating with MOH and the Ministry of Social and Family Development to ensure accessibility and affordability of these services by public and private GPs and occupational therapists that can offer AMS for existing and also new PMA users? Will there be a fee cap to avoid opportunistic price hiking to obtain the AMS?

As users’ medical conditions change over time, it is important to ensure PMA users continue to be fit to operate PMAs to reduce the likelihood of accidents. Assessment to Own does not mean Assessment to Operate. I have seen some PMA users, while medically allowed to own a PMA, may not have the ability to safely operate their devices and this jeopardises other path users. PMA users should meet baseline requirements of eyesight, dexterity and mental state to safely operate their devices.

I would like to ask if the AMS will include an assessment test to determine if the patient is able to safely operate a PMA? This may also change with time if health conditions worsen or simply from ageing. Will there be a validity of each AMS to ensure continued assessment on safe riding of PMAs? For example, a reassessment once every three years for those with severe chronic conditions.

Second, the effectiveness of the regulations in making our footpaths and roads safer for everyone. From 2023 to Q3 2025, MOT said there were around 710 reported accidents involving PMAs, PMDs or PABs that resulted in injuries. And approximately 590 were on the roads and 120 were off-road, inclusive of public paths. There may have been much much more accidents that went unreported.

The new regulations aim to reduce accidents involving pedestrians due to reckless speeding on footpaths and shared paths. However, the prevalence of motorised PMA users might make it difficult to enforce penalties against many cases, with some riders who decide to hit and run after the collision to avoid punishment.

So, enforcement is extremely key here. Most will comply but there may still be recalcitrant users who disregard the rules. Can the Ministry consider establishing a demerit system for PMA users to deter repeat offenders who fail to consider the safety of others? Will there be physical features installed, similar to red light cameras on the roads, on shared paths to track speed limits?

There are still some confusion on regulations surrounding active mobility vehicles such as the speed limit and which paths or roads each vehicle is allowed to ride on. Just as we are getting used to the terms of PMA, PMD and PAB, we are now hearing new terms from the Ministry – motorised vehicles, motorised wheelchairs, motorised scooters. Will the Ministry consider increasing better and fuller public communications efforts, such as placing visible signages on speed limits and designating which vehicles are allowed on footpaths, shared paths and roads? This will reduce the number of accidents due to some riders and pedestrians who unintentionally use the wrong paths.

Additionally, which I think has been highlighted in this Chamber by some Members, there are other factors other than speed that pose safety risks and public disturbance.

Sometimes, you hear them before you see them. Some active mobility users play loud music on their devices, almost like a mobile disco blasting through the Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks and footpaths. And sometimes, during wee hours of the night. Will the Ministry look into restricting the playing of loud music on such devices to minimise disturbance and to show consideration for the community?

Third, some delivery riders switched to PMAs after PMDs were banned from footpaths in 2019. The new regulations on speed limit and vehicle registration are likely to result in loss of income for many delivery riders who depend on the device for their livelihoods. So, the transition support is crucial.

Has the Ministry consulted with major food delivery platforms on changes in compensation structures or job allocations due to the new regulations? This could include allocating shorter distance deliveries to more PMA delivery riders to mitigate potential fall in earnings. Or will there be career transition assistance for those who wish to switch out of their delivery jobs?

Additionally, delivery riders who switch to PABs or PMDs would not be able to legally ride on pedestrian paths, making it challenging for them to complete their deliveries in HDB estates. So, those who do so illegally might pose an even greater risk to pedestrians due to the higher speed limit. Therefore, could the Minister or the Ministry share on plans to improve last mile connectivity by increasing the accessibility of shared paths network within the HDB estates? Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the use of Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs) has become increasingly common, and we have a responsibility to balance the safety, responsibility and clarity for all users on public paths. I hope MOT can further clarify the impact of this Bill on PMA users, road users and food delivery workers, as well as how the new measures can be enforced.

Firstly, starting from June this year, mobility scooter users must obtain medical certification after completing relevant assessments by doctors or occupational therapists before they can own a mobility scooter. These users often depend on assistive devices for basic mobility, so this assessment must be affordable for them.

Will the MOT coordinate with MOH and the MSF to ensure that existing and new mobility scooter users can easily access assessment services provided by doctors and occupational therapists at affordable prices? Will the authorities set a fee cap for this service to avoid opportunistic price hiking?

Furthermore, the health condition of PMA users changes over time. They must be fit enough to operate mobility aids to reduce the likelihood of accidents. Even if they are assessed to own, does not mean they have the ability to operate. Therefore, users must meet basic requirements for vision, dexterity and mental state to safely operate assistive devices.

Will the assessment for mobility scooters include evaluating whether patients can safely operate the assistive device? Considering changes in their health conditions and the effects of ageing, will assessments have time limits for safety purposes? For example, patients with serious chronic conditions might undergo reassessment every three years?

Secondly, regarding effective enforcement of regulations. I believe most users will comply with regulations, but for those bad actors who repeatedly ignore advice, will the MOT consider implementing a demerit point system as a deterrent to ensure others' safety? Will the authorities consider installing speed detectors on footpaths, similar to enhanced speed cameras and traffic cameras on roads?

Thirdly, regarding the livelihoods of food delivery workers. In 2019, after PMDs were banned from footpaths, some delivery workers switched to using PMAs. The new speed and registration regulations will likely cause delivery workers, who depend on these devices for livelihoods, to lose their income.

During the transition period, they desperately need additional support. Will delivery workers who want to change careers receive employment assistance? Delivery workers who switch to PABs and PMDs will not be able to use pedestrian-only paths, causing difficulties when delivering in HDB estates. Can the Minister reveal what plans there are to improve the convenience and connectivity network of shared paths in HDB estates?

With our rapidly ageing population, mobility aids will only become more prevalent. I hope this Bill can ensure that all Singaporeans can use our roads safely and conveniently.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I fully support the Bill. With the increasing prevalence of PMA use in our ageing population, I hope that this Bill enables safer and more accessible roads and paths for all Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

3.35 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking on this Bill on behalf of Yio Chu Kang, a constituency with a significant and growing senior population. Many of my residents rely on PMAs to move around their estates safely and independently. For them, these devices are not a convenience, but an essential part of daily life.

My residents want safer paths and fewer fires in our HDB blocks, but they also want a transport environment that is safe and inclusive. I support the Ministry's intent to tighten regulations, but legislation is only as effective as its implementation. When we move from policy papers to the pavements in our estates, the "how" becomes just as important as the "what". With that in mind, I would like to raise four clarifications on the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point concerns the new requirement for a Certificate of Medical Need. We all agree with the intent. We have witnessed seemingly young and able-bodied individuals speeding on mobility scooters, treating them as casual transport. This endangers pedestrians and undermines confidence in genuine PMA use.

However, for many of my elderly residents, a mobility scooter is a lifeline. It is the difference between being confined at home and being able to buy groceries or meet friends. While I note the exemptions for seniors aged 70 and above, and for subsidy recipients, I am concerned about what I term as the "sandwich class" of disability. These are residents in their 50s or 60s who may not meet a strict clinical definition of being unable to walk, but who suffer from chronic pain, arthritis or joint degeneration. They may manage short distances within their flats but cannot walk several hundred metres to essential amenities.

At the same time, mobility needs are not always permanent. Some residents may require PMAs immediately after surgery or injury but later recover sufficiently. This raises important questions about how "temporary" medical need is defined and managed in a way that is fair, clear and not open to abuse.

I seek three clarifications.

First, will there be a fast-track or temporary certification process for residents who need a PMA after surgery or injury, ensuring rehabilitation does not become a compliance case? Related to this, how will the system manage the point at which a temporary medical need ends? Will they be assigned a deadline where they are expected to stop using the PMA? Must they undergo reassessment if their mobility issues persist beyond the expected recovery period, in order to continue using it?

Second, with the rollout starting in mid-2026, I worry about bottlenecks at polyclinics. Can the Minister assure us that residents will not be left house-bound while waiting for certification? During the initial rollout, will enforcement officers prioritise helping residents comply rather than penalising them?

Third, regarding digital inclusion, how does a non-tech-savvy senior who falls just below the age exemption prove their status? If verification relies on digital platforms, we risk creating anxiety. Simple, physical proof options still remain essential.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns the mandatory registration of mobility vehicles.

I acknowledge the Ministry's efforts to reduce compliance burden through retailer-led registration for new devices and a phased transition for existing users. Registration strengthens accountability and accountability is necessary. However, residents fear that honest mistakes may be treated as offences. Section 28I creates an offence for using an unregistered vehicle and section 28M makes the register prima facie evidence. I have four questions.

First, if a retailer makes a registration error, will the resident using the device in good faith bear the penalty? How can such errors be resolved simply, especially for seniors who may not have full documentation? Second, can the Minister clarify the costs involved? For low-income seniors, even modest fees can be a barrier. Will subsidies or waivers be considered? Third, are there implications for public rental tenants regarding insurance or tenancy rules? We must ensure registration does not disadvantage vulnerable residents. Fourth, with rules phasing in until 2029, how will residents be clearly and repeatedly informed of what applies at each stage?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point concerns the new offence to keep unsafe PMA devices. This is a necessary shift. Many fires occur while devices are being charged at home. However, we must distinguish between willful offenders and residents who simply do not know how to dispose of old devices. I have four suggestions.

First, unsafe devices need a "safe exit". If disposal is difficult, residents will hide these devices, keeping the risk inside the home. Any disposal framework should focus squarely on safe and accessible removal of unsafe devices.

Second, we must be practical. Seniors cannot transport heavy devices to distant e-waste points. Town Council-level collection drives and bulky-item removal services will be essential and has to be supported by sustained public education.

Third, online sales remain a weak link. A suggestion is to have all PMA device listings and categories to come with an advisory on compliant models and make it a reportable offence if the seller mislabels an illegal or modified vehicle as one that is compliant. Also, how will the agency combat sales through messaging platforms, like Telegram?

Fourth, will the Ministry work with the Ministry of National Development to designate charging or parking spaces in suitable locations, such as void decks? This could minimise the risk of PMAs being parked or charged in corridors or lift lobbies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth point concerns delivery riders, platform responsibility and enforcement. Residents are frustrated by fast-moving riders, but they want calmer paths, not just more summonses. Rider behaviour is shaped by platform incentives. I support deeming platform operators as employers for liability, but liability alone may not change behaviour. I seek five clarifications.

First, how do we prevent contractual distancing, where platforms shift blame to riders without changing operational pressures? Second, why does the Bill not explicitly require training or delivery-time management, including algorithmic changes that do not reward speed at the expense of safety? Third, will success be measured by reduced accidents and complaints, or simply by enforcement numbers? Fourth, will enforcement data be used to redesign recurring conflict hotspots in estates? And fifth, will platforms share anonymised data to support safer estate planning?

More broadly, I must raise a concern about enforcement. Many of these rules are sound on paper, but enforcement on the ground may be inconsistent and unpredictable. Errant users learn when and where to avoid officers. Only when enforcement is visible, consistent and credible will behaviour truly change. Otherwise, even well-designed laws risk becoming paper tigers.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me end with a moment that many of my residents will recognise from lived experience. On 4 November 2025, close to midnight, a fire broke out in the lift lobby of Block 641 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4, involving a PMD. About 200 of my residents were evacuated. Four were taken to hospital. Electrical supply was disrupted and lifts were damaged. These disruptions were avoidable and they underline why prevention and enforcement matter.

In such incidents, it is not just the user who pays the price. Entire blocks are disrupted. Neighbouring units suffer damage. Some families even lose beloved pets, or in the worst case scenario, their loved ones.

This brings us to the heart of this Bill. On the Certificate of Medical Need, safety must never come at the cost of dignity. On mandatory registration, accountability must be paired with fairness. On unsafe devices, fire risks must be removed, not hidden. And on delivery riders and enforcement, safety must be real on the ground, not just written in law.

This Bill matters because safety is not an abstract concept. It is not a statistic. It is the quiet confidence of a senior walking home. It is the assurance that a charging device will not put homes and livelihoods at risk. It is the belief that shared spaces belong to all of us and must protect the most vulnerable amongst us.

My residents are not asking for perfection. They are asking for reassurance. They are asking for rules that are firm, but fair. For systems that protect, not intimidate. For enforcement that is real, consistent and visible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill gives us the tools. But laws alone do not make communities safe. The choices we make in implementation do. If we choose compassion alongside enforcement, clarity alongside regulation and care alongside accountability, the measure of this Bill will not be found in the number of offences recorded. It will be found in fewer fires; in safer footpaths; in the vulnerable amongst us, who can move through their estates without fear.

And for residents in Yio Chu Kang and for all Singaporeans across this island, that is not just good policy. It is the kind of society we are building together. With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.

3.46 pm

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill. I focus my remarks on one central issue: how technology can allow us to manage traffic more intelligently, beyond relying primarily on pricing. Singapore is land scarce. Our road network cannot expand indefinitely and there are many competing demands on land – we need more housing, more parks, more cycling paths and so forth.

For decades, ERP has been one of our levers for managing congestion. ERP has been effective. But as technology advances, the question is no longer how much we price road usage, but how intelligently we manage traffic as an integrated system.

ERP 2.0 is often framed as a pricing upgrade, but this framing understates its broader potential. At its core, ERP 2.0 is also a data and sensing platform. The new OBUs generate richer, more granular and real-time data – both for motorists and the LTA.

This creates an opportunity to move beyond passive congestion pricing towards active traffic management. Internationally, cities are already using real-time flow data to dynamically manage their road networks.

In London, for example, the Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique (SCOOT) system uses live data from sensors and cameras to adjust traffic light timings. This increases green time in congested corridors and eases bottlenecks without expanding road usage. Drawing on such precedents, ERP 2.0 data can be integrated with adaptive traffic signal systems, incident responses and corridor-level optimisation. Real-time congestion data can enable more responsive traffic light timings, improve directional flow during peak periods and allow faster interventions at known choke points.

Beyond day-to-day operations, ERP 2.0 data also offers a powerful planning tool. Instead of expanding roads broadly, planners and engineers can use longitudinal flow data to identify where capacity is genuinely constrained and where it is under-utilised. Such data can show which junctions, rather than entire corridors, are the true bottlenecks; and which lanes are consistently under-used and could be reallocated to other users, such as pedestrians and cyclists.

This enables a shift from broad-based expansion to targeted, data-driven interventions, where minor redesigns, signal adjustments or directional changes could outperform the construction of new roads.

Mr Speaker, it is also important to emphasise that ERP 2.0 should not be perceived as a system that only impacts private motorists. The same flow data can also be used to improve outcomes for public transport users, particularly bus commuters.

ERP 2.0 data can support bus lane prioritisation, by identifying corridors where buses experience the most delays; better route design, based on actual congestion and demand patterns; transfer optimisation, improving coordination between bus services and MRT nodes; last mile connectivity planning, by highlighting short but congested links that disproportionately affect bus reliability.

By embedding these insights into planning and operations, ERP 2.0 can directly enhance bus punctuality, reliability and journey times – strengthening public transport as an attractive and dependable choice.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister what ERP 2.0 data is already integrated today, and how it will be used in the medium and longer term to support smarter traffic management, such as adaptive signals, incident response and bus operations, beyond pricing alone?

Turning to virtual gantries and network effects. The shift to virtual gantries under ERP 2.0 offers flexibility and reduces physical clutter. However, international experience suggests that flexibility must be accompanied by clear principles and guardrails.

Mr Speaker, as we move towards virtual gantries, some of my Zhenghua residents are concerned that it may become easier to introduce more pricing points across the island. It is, therefore, important to consider the overall impact of more granular road pricing and to ensure that flexibility does not create uncertainty for motorists or lead to higher costs without real congestion benefits. So, may I ask the Minister whether there will be clear limits and transparent criteria for adjusting ERP 2.0 pricing zones, and regular public updates on congestion and travel times to ensure that flexibility delivers real improvements on the ground?

Turning to user experience of OBUs. Early feedback on OBUs has raised concerns around aesthetics, usability and power consumption. Specific vehicle types or older car models face technical difficulties powering the OBU, given that it requires more energy than the previous In-vehicle Unit (IU). Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister whether there will be carve-outs for vehicle types that face technical installation challenges, and if so, how would such users be made to pay ERP 2.0?

With regard to user experience issues, other cities have addressed similar challenges through iterative design improvements and structured feedback loops. In Seoul, for instance, smart mobility systems were rolled out alongside continuous refinements, with user satisfaction explicitly tracked as a performance indicator.

To that end, may I ask the Minister how is LTA is incorporating user feedback to refine the OBU experience? And beyond familiarity over time, what new features are planned to ensure ERP 2.0 becomes genuinely more intuitive and useful for motorists?

Turning to active mobility, the Bill strengthens penalties and enforcement powers, particularly for PMAs. This is important for safety, but enforcement capacity must be sustainable.

Cities, such as Paris and Amsterdam, increasingly rely on camera-based and automated enforcement to ensure consistent compliance without excessive manpower demands. Camera-based enforcement enables round-the-clock monitoring, unlike manpower-based enforcement, which relies on occasional checks and predictable hotspots due to inherent resource constraints.

Leveraging technology in this way allows enforcement to scale with usage while maintaining fairness and predictability. Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister what cameras are currently used for active mobility enforcement, how much manpower is presently deployed for this purpose and the associated man-hour labour costs of such enforcements?

Further, with the expansion of rules and enforcements introduced by this Bill, what are the projected manpower requirements and costs going forward and what immediate plans are in place to scale up automated enforcement to manage these constraints?

On the requirement for medical certification for PMA users, this is welcomed. From time to time, my residents in Zhenghua have been asking me whether certain types of PMA users should, in fact, be using PMAs, as some appear young and healthy. A certifiable medical requirement helps remove such suspicions and ambiguity. This is essential to foster trust and social acceptance within our community.

At the same time, I wish to raise an issue of equity and access. Some PMA users come from lower-income households and even small administrative costs can become a barrier. To ensure this does not unintentionally exclude those who need mobility support the most, can the Ministry regularly publish a clear list of clinics offering certification and update together with indicative fees, to enhance transparency and keep the process affordable and fair?

Mr Speaker, this Bill offers us an opportunity to move beyond a narrow conception of ERP as simply a pricing mechanism, towards a smarter, integrated mobility system. One that uses data to optimise traffic flow, guide infrastructure planning, improve public transport reliability and enhance user experience.

Cities around the world show that pricing works best when paired with real-time traffic management, adaptive control and thoughtful use of data. I hope Singapore will continue to lead in this space, not just by pricing roads efficiently, but by managing them intelligently.

Mr Speaker, as I conclude, I wish to stress that the concerns raised today in this debate are not abstract policy observations. They are the lived realities and anxieties of residents, workers, caregivers and persons with mobility challenges whom we meet on the ground every day. These views reflect a consolidated position of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport and fellow People's Action Party Members, shaped through extensive discussions within the Committee, engagements with Members and most importantly, direct feedback from residents across our constituencies who will feel the full impact of this Bill.

Taken together, the GPC's views rest on three clear and urgent concerns. First, Members strongly support safety as the central objective of this Bill. Safer paths, safer roads and safer homes are not optional – they are essential. Residents want assurance that injuries, misuse, fires and unsafe modifications linked to increasingly powerful devices will be decisively addressed. At the same time, they expect safety measures, such as speed limiters, tougher penalties for dangerous alterations and smarter traffic management systems to deliver real, visible improvements on the ground, not just rules on paper.

Second, while Members support the introduction of a Certificate of Medical Need to curb abuse, we must be clear-eyed about who we may have left behind. For many genuine users, those with temporary injuries, functional mobility challenges, caregiving duties or delivery riders relying on mobility aids for their livelihood, the Bill is not theoretical. It affects whether they can move, work or live with dignity. The GPC therefore urges that implementation be flexible, affordable and clearly communicated, so that administrative complexities, cost or narrow definitions do not unintentionally exclude or penalise those who depend on these devices the most.

Third, Members emphasise the success of this Bill will ultimately be judged on enforcement. Residents are asking for enforcement that is consistent, credible and fair – not sporadic crackdowns or uneven treatment. This means sustained enforcement on the ground, better use of technology and clear accountability for platforms and marketplaces that profit from the usage and sales of these devices. At the same time, the GPC calls for a sensible transition period, one that prioritises education and understanding, and exercises discretion where users are acting in good faith and adjusting to new rules.

Mr Speaker, these are calls to make it work for people it most directly affects. The GPC supports the intent of the Bill. We offer these views to ensure that implementation is firm yet fair, strong yet compassionate, so that safety is enhanced without losing sight of inclusivity and lived realities.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

3.58 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their interest and support for the Bill. Please allow me to address their comments on the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)-related amendments.

Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked about the regulatory and enforcement approach for foreign-registered heavy vehicles, vis-à-vis Singapore-registered heavy vehicles. Speed limiters are employed upstream to reduce the speeding risk before the offence occurs. In 2024, the speed limiter regime was expanded to include lorries with a maximum laden weight of between 3,501 kilogrammes and 12,000 kilogrammes.

Singapore-registered heavy vehicles account for the bulk of daily heavy vehicle traffic on our roads. Installing speed limiters for these vehicles would therefore reduce the road safety risks associated with heavy vehicles very significantly.

We also recognise the need to address the safety risks associated with foreign-registered heavy vehicles. We require them to comply with our road traffic laws and regulations, and we conduct on-road enforcement on them. Foreign vehicles that commit speeding offences will be dealt with in accordance with the law. We do not require them to install speed limiters, because they also ply in other jurisdictions with different speed limits from Singapore.

It is worth noting that, since Singapore-registered lorries are already required to install speed limiters and, therefore, will be unable to speed, this allows the Traffic Police to focus speeding enforcement on all other vehicles on our roads, including foreign-registered heavy vehicles.

To Ms Joan Pereira’s question on installing speed limiters for "higher-risk passenger cars", speed limiters are currently required for heavy vehicles as part of a targeted, risk-based approach. These vehicles pose higher risks due to their size, weight and operating characteristics. But the risks associated with passenger cars, on the other hand, arise primarily from driver behaviour, rather than vehicle attributes. These behaviours are more appropriately addressed through public education efforts and deterrent penalties, rather than through speed limiters.

Members also asked about speed limits for heavy vehicles. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked whether the speed differential between passenger vehicles and heavy vehicles gives rise to unsafe driving conditions. Ms Valerie Lee suggested that lighter vehicles with a maximum laden weight of 3,501 to 5,000 kilogrammes should be subject to a higher speed limit of 70 kilometres per hour, instead of the current 60 kilometres per hour. Let me clarify. On expressways, passenger vehicles may travel at speeds of up to 90 kilometres per hour, while heavy vehicles are subject to a vehicular speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour, enforced through speed limiters. But these differing limits should not be seen in isolation. They are paired with lane-discipline requirements, where slower vehicles are required to keep to the left lane, except when overtaking.

The rationale for this framework is road safety. Heavy vehicles differ from passenger vehicles in terms of mass, braking distance, stability and blind spots; and when accidents occur, they can cause disproportionate harm. Speed control is, therefore, a critical safety lever to reduce the risk and severity of accidents involving such vehicles.

To Ms Valerie Lee's suggestion, vehicles with a maximum laden weight of between 3,501 and 5,000 kilogrammes are subject to the same 60 kilometres per hour speed limit as vehicles above 5,000 kilogrammes because they pose similar road safety risks, such as longer braking distances and reduced manoeuvrability at higher speed.

Sir, we are starting to see results from our policy. The number of speeding-related accidents, including fatal ones, involving heavy vehicles has decreased by 28% from 25 cases in 2024 to 18 cases in 2025, as more lorries installed speed limiters last year. We expect these figures to further decrease after all lorries install speed limiters by 1 July 2027.

We also recognise that good lane discipline is essential where there are differences in vehicle speeds. The Traffic Police will continue to educate motorists on the importance of maintaining lane discipline and enforce against violations.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Valerie Lee and Dr Choo Pei Ling asked questions about the compliance burden on businesses and whether assistance is being provided to businesses to facilitate the installation of speed limiters.

To Ms Yeo's query, the speed limiter requirement applies to lorries that continue to operate on Singapore roads. Where a vehicle is earmarked to be scrapped after its statutory installation deadline, the vehicle must be installed with a speed limiter in order to operate on the roads after the deadline. While I appreciate Ms Yeo's suggestion to exercise flexibility for those with firm scrapping plans, we will have to draw the line somewhere and there will always be lorries which are intended to be scrapped after the deadline. We have thus decided to maintain a consistent approach by not extending the deadline for any group. Lorry owners have been given adequate lead time to plan their installation decisions in accordance with their business and operational needs.

On assistance provided to businesses, in this first phase of speed limiter installation, 94% of the lorries that needed to install by 1 January 2026 – or about 2,300 lorries – had completed their installation before the deadline. To support SMEs, Enterprise Singapore has expanded Productivity Solutions Grant support to cover speed limiters for eligible SMEs that install between 1 October 2025 and 31 March 2027. This recognises that speed limiters can also indirectly improve productivity by reducing downtime in the event of accidents.

Beyond this, the Traffic Police has introduced UN ECE R89 as a third approved speed limiter standard. This expands the variety of approved speed limiters available in the market and provides more options for lorry owners looking to install speed limiters. The Traffic Police has also worked with the industry to significantly increase installation capacity, expanding the number of authorised agents more than six-fold since January 2025, to 70 currently. The industry has also been offering on-site installation and bulk discounts to encourage installation.

Turning to the other proposals in the Bill, Mr Jackson Lam asked how fairness and public trust would be maintained in the context of increasingly automated enforcement systems. Ms Sylvia Lim asked for details about the outsourcing arrangement to private sector companies.

Let me first clarify that clauses 74 and 79 of the Bill only allows for the administrative processing of straightforward violations to be carried out by authorised civilians, after an offence has been detected. These amendments do not involve the automation of enforcement decisions. They also do not change the current process for appeals, including the viewing of camera footage upon request, which will continue to be managed by the Traffic Police.

These authorised civilians will assess traffic camera footage to determine if a traffic violation has been disclosed. This is based on an assessment framework provided by Traffic Police. For example, for footage captured by red light cameras, these civilians will view a series of photos to confirm that the vehicle had crossed the stop line after the traffic light had turned red. In short, the authorised civilians will not exercise enforcement discretion. The Traffic Police will continue to be responsible and accountable for enforcement policy and decisions.

We are working out the procurement details and approach. That said, we agree with the Member that any use of automation or outsourcing must be subject to robust safeguards and oversight, to ensure fairness and public confidence in traffic enforcement.

Finally, we thank Dr Hamid Razak for his support for measures to enhance road safety. Let me address Dr Hamid's suggestion to raise penalties and demonstrate stronger deterrence for dangerous and careless driving offences. The Ministry fully agrees with the need for adequate deterrence and appropriate punishment, commensurate with the culpability of the offender and the harm caused through the offending act. The maximum penalties set out in the Road Traffic Act reflect this calibrated approach. Building on this, MHA is working with the Sentencing Advisory Panel, chaired by Justice Tay Yong Kwang, to publish sentencing guidelines for the offences of dangerous and careless driving. The Ministry is studying further measures to shape responsible driving behaviour and improve overall road safety. Further details will be announced when ready.

I thank Members for supporting the Bill. Mr Speaker, I seek to move and will now hand over to the officeholders from MOT to address amendments that are related to MOT.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Baey Yam Keng.

4.09 pm

The Minister of State for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill and their thoughtful questions. Let me first address the specific points that Members raised.

At the outset, I wish to make clear that we are not banning the use of mobility scooters but safeguarding them for those who truly need them. Our intention is not to target any specific group, but to set ground rules that provide clarity and keep our paths safer for all.

Several Members, like Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Choo Pei Ling and Dr Haresh Singaraju spoke about how medical needs will be assessed to allow for the use of mobility scooters. We will need the support of our doctors and occupational therapists (OTs), to assess the medical needs to determine whether a person's medical conditions lead to mobility challenges that require a mobility scooter. MOH has issued guidelines for healthcare professionals to conduct the assessment, including a non-exhaustive list of possible conditions. Some examples include cardiovascular diseases, such as severe heart failure; and musculoskeletal disorders, such as muscular dystrophies and rheumatoid arthritis.

Members including Mr David Hoe, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Dr Hamid Razak asked about the process to obtain a Certificate of Medical Need, validity periods and timelines. For the convenience of users and assessors, both digital and hard copy certificates will be possible. The doctor or OT may fill in a standard online form to submit the data to LTA or issue a hard copy of the standard form. Once the assessor completes the form, the certificate is granted. For the hard copy, the user is encouraged to take a photo and submit it to LTA so that it is stored in LTA's digital registry.

As part of the certification, the doctor or OT will assess and indicate if the user's need for a mobility scooter is long-term or temporary. For the latter, the period that the Certificate is valid will be specified. The Government will maintain a registry of those with valid Certificates of Medical Need and those exempted from the requirement.

Seniors exempted on the basis of age will not be in the registry. I know some seniors may look younger than their age, so if enforcement officers were to ask, their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) year of birth just needs to show that they are 70 years old and above. As an example, for this year, everyone born in and before 1956 are automatically exempted.

Enforcement officers will request the user's particulars to perform a back-end check on the spot. If the certificate has not been submitted online, the user just needs to produce the hard copy form for inspection. Individuals can also check their certification or exemption status on LTA's OneMotoring website.

Dr Choo Pei Ling asked whether physiotherapists can grant the Certificate of Medical Need. We have worked with MOH to determine the groups of assessors for the certificate. Currently, mobility assessment, device prescription and user training are not part of the routine training of a general physiotherapist. Hence, MOH's position is that only doctors and OTs can assess and grant this certificate. MOH will continue to monitor demand if these competencies should be built into training for a wider pool of healthcare professionals.

Members including Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Yip Hon Weng reminded us to streamline processes to minimise the burden on genuine users, particularly persons with disabilities and seniors. We fully agree. Risk-managed exemptions include seniors aged 70 and above, those who have already obtained Government-subsidised mobility scooters and those who have applied for MOH disability schemes to help with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) needs in "mobility" and/or "transferring". We are working to exempt more user groups with other relevant assessments where possible, such as applicants for other disability schemes.

Members including Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Lee Hui Ying also asked about the cost to undergo the Assessment for Mobility Scooter (AMS), if polyclinics will offer the AMS and if subsidies will be extended. For those who need certification, we have engaged the healthcare sector to encourage private GP clinics to offer the AMS. We want it to be widely available and accessible, so that users can have affordable choices. As Dr Haresh Singaraju has emphasised, we encourage users to go to their regular doctor or regular OT, who already understand their medical history, to streamline the assessment process. All doctors, including polyclinic doctors, are allowed to conduct the AMS. However, doctors may decline to assess users who are not their regular patients, depending on the doctor's comfort level to conduct the certification.

Healthcare subsidies will not be accorded for visits made solely to obtain the Certificate of Medical Need. However, as long as the patient is seeking healthcare services from a doctor or OT at public healthcare institutions or community care organisations, and the AMS is conducted as a clinically indicated part of their regular medical care, the overall care episode, including the AMS, can be given healthcare subsidies.

Members, including Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr David Hoe, asked about specific plans to engage existing PMA users on the new rules, especially seniors and persons with disabilities. LTA will continue to work with the Agency for Integrated Care and SG Enable as well as relevant social service agencies, such as SPD, to reach out to seniors and persons with disabilities. LTA's public communications campaign on the new rules will also be rolled out in various languages.

On the ground, enforcement officers will engage and educate PMA users on the upcoming rules. We will also reach out through grassroots channels, and I seek Members' support to raise awareness among your residents.

Members including Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Ms Joan Pereira raised concerns on how the new PMA rules may affect platform delivery workers.

We understand the concern on how the new rules could potentially affect the number of deliveries and thus the earnings of delivery workers. Only workers with mobility needs should use PMAs for their work. Such workers have to abide by the reduced speed limit and dimension limits for everyone's safety. This protects not just other path users but the PMA riders themselves.

By going at a slower speed and using devices that are not oversized, they can navigate crowded paths and complete their deliveries safely. They reduce the risks of serious accidents, which would affect their earning stability.

I thank Ms Yeo Wan Ling for sharing that the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA) will provide financial assistance to help riders comply with the new rules.

For delivery riders without mobility challenges, PMAs are not the right mode of transport for them. They should not misuse PMAs. They can continue their trade by switching to other devices or vehicles before 1 June 2026.

We had engaged the Digital Platforms Industry Association and the NDCA last year. They expressed support for the new PMA rules, including the six kilometres an hour speed limit, in a joint statement. The platforms have committed to be inclusive in allocating jobs and providing earning opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those with mobility challenges who rely on PMAs for their delivery work.

Ms Gho Sze Kee and Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about platforms incentivising faster deliveries that may lead to speeding.

Platform companies are responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of their delivery riders. This includes ensuring that their riders using active mobility devices on public paths have adequate third-party liability insurance coverage during the course of their work.

We will continue to encourage food delivery platforms, rider associations and industry partners to promote safe riding practices and explore what more can be done to deter errant riding behaviour. LTA and the Traffic Police have also conducted campaigns, such as Be Safe, Be Seen, to promote safer riding habits with Grab, and safety talks and training sessions for delivery riders with foodpanda.

Mr David Hoe raised a concern that the reduced speed limit could affect users' ability to travel upslope. Indeed, this was a concern that we had when developing the proposal. So, we spent some time studying the issue. Our studies support the calculations done by Mr Hoe's volunteers – that motorised PMAs will be able to travel upslope along public paths safely with a speed limit of six kilometres per hour. It is the motor power and not the speed that pushes the wheels upslope.

Nonetheless, we understand the worries and LTA will improve awareness to reassure PMA users that six kilometres per hour is safe.

Ms He Ting Ru asked whether scientific literature was considered for the Active Mobility Advisory Panel's (AMAP's) recommendation of the speed limit reduction. Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Fadli Fawzi and Mr Cai Yinzhou raised concerns that the lower speed limit would increase journey times and affect delivery riders' earnings.

In accepting the recommendation to lower the speed limit to six kilometres per hour, our primary consideration was to peg the speed to brisk walking speed since PMAs are a replacement for walking. We acknowledge that the trade-off is that users travel more slowly. This is necessary to protect themselves and other path users.

So, I thank Mr Foo Cexiang for citing the many jurisdictions internationally that use six kilometres per hour as the speed limit for PMAs based on brisk walking speed. On Ms He Ting Ru's suggestion, AMAP already comprises stakeholders across various interest and professional groups as well as academics.

Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Cai Yinzhou asked if users would have sufficient time to comply with the new rules that will come into effect on 1 June 2026. Mr Speaker, it will almost be two years since the proposals were announced in March 2024. We have received strong calls to implement the rules swiftly to improve path safety. Affected stakeholders, including retailers and users, have had time to change to compliant devices before the PMA rules commence on 1 June 2026.

But we will provide more time, until 1 January 2029, for existing mobility scooter users to register their devices and change to devices that comply with the new maximum device speed of six kilometres per hour.

Mr Foo Cexiang and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the cost of registration and how mobility scooters can be transferred or sold.

Retailers need to register the devices to their business before sale or ensure that the device is registered. Ahead of 1 June 2026, LTA will work with retailers to register their existing stock of compliant mobility scooters.

Before the sale of the mobility scooter, retailers will check via OneMotoring website to ensure that the prospective owner is either granted a Certificate of Medical Need or exempted from the requirement. The sale should only be completed upon the successful transfer of ownership.

We will be mindful that the cost of registration should be kept affordable so as not to place an undue burden on genuine users. As a comparison, the current cost of registering PABs is $50.

Dr Hamid Razak suggested markers to visibly identify those with medical need for mobility scooters for ease of enforcement. On the other hand, Mr Foo Cexiang asked if registration and identification marks raised privacy concerns.

We appreciate these concerns and we assure Members that the registration and enforcement processes will be handled sensitively.

The registration system addresses both concerns. Registration and identification marks will display the device's unique identification number rather than personal details of the owner, similar to e-scooters, where it is a sticker. In addition, as a general rule, only individuals granted a Certificate of Medical Need or exempted from the requirement can register mobility scooters.

The registration framework will allow families to share a single mobility scooter.

Registration is for the mobility scooter to ensure device compliance. It is not an offence to ride a mobility scooter that is registered to another person as long as the user is granted a Certificate of Medical Need or exempted. This is no different from how vehicles can be driven by multiple drivers as long as each driver has a valid driving licence and the vehicle is insured accordingly.

Several Members, including Ms Tin Pei Ling, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr David Hoe, raised suggestions to strengthen enforcement of the new PMA rules, including expanding the use of cameras, increasing plainclothes operations and action against non-compliant retailers.

To enforce the PMA rules, LTA has a comprehensive strategy. Active Mobility Enforcement Officers will patrol public paths and conduct checks on user and device compliance. They will be supported by volunteer Active Mobility Community Ambassadors to enhance engagement efforts.

Ms He Ting Ru also expressed concern that enforcement officers will rely on casual visual perception of able-bodiedness. Enforcement officers will be trained to be sensitive in checking for the Certificate of Medical Need.

Public tip-offs on errant users are gathered through LTA's website and social media today, as Members, such as Ms Poh Li San, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Mr Cai Yin Zhou, have suggested. These complement other data sources to identify offence hotspots for targeted enforcement deployments.

Closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) focused on paths are already deployed island-wide to detect and deter offences, such as speeding. Some of the CCTVs are deployed permanently while others are deployed on a roving basis to allow us to respond quickly as new hotspots emerge.

In addition to ground enforcement, LTA conducts targeted operations against retailers who display or sell non-compliant and unregistered devices or offer illegal modification services. Non-compliant devices are seized and enforcement actions taken against offenders.

But we must acknowledge that no matter how many boots we put on the ground, enforcement officers cannot be everywhere, neither is it desirable to foster a culture where correct behaviour is dependent only on enforcement and penalties.

It is better to also focus on education and awareness. This is why LTA works with the community through Active Mobility Community Ambassadors to promote awareness of active mobility rules.

Members, such as Ms Gho Sze Kee, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Valerie Lee, asked about enforcement against unsafe devices. LTA will act on feedback received via official channels and social media, surveillance as well as day-to-day operations. Targeted enforcement checks will also be conducted where e-scooters are commonly used, including areas where such devices may be parked or kept. PMDs verified by LTA as non-UL2272 certified will be seized.

LTA has the responsibility to enforce against such devices. As Ms Sylvia Lim has acknowledged, LTA already conducts enforcement operations at residential areas to seize non-compliant active mobility devices and will continue to do so, working with our partners.

This Bill will allow us to go further. LTA can go beyond seizing the non-compliant device. The individual can also be prosecuted for the offence of keeping the unsafe device. This provides a stronger deterrent against fire hazards.

Mr Cai Yinzhou and Ms Poh Li San asked about the disposal process for non-compliant devices. If needed, owners may utilise designated e-waste recyclers or collection drives organised by ALBA in collaboration with Town Councils.

I thank Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Tin Pei Ling who expressed support for the new offence of keeping unsafe devices. They urged users to check that their devices meet safety standards and dispose of unsafe devices to keep their communities safe. For PMAs, we may not expect to see a large-scale wave of disposals. To meet the new maximum device speed limit, many existing devices can simply be adjusted. Those who do not qualify for a Certificate of Medical Need can resell their devices, provided they are compliant.

Disposal will likely be limited to oversized units or devices that cannot be brought into compliance, such as those with more than one seat, which are considered PMDs, which have their own set of requirements.

Beyond the provisions in this Bill, Members have asked about other measures to reduce the fire risks of active mobility devices. I will touch on these briefly as we plan to address some of these issues in a subsequent Bill later this year.

Dr Hamid Razak asked for national guidelines for safe charging. Mr Cai Yinzhou suggested periodic inspections for PMAs in the absence of a mandated safety standard. While we continue to monitor the development of international standards for PMAs, LTA and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) will remind the public of safe charging and usage practices when using motorised active mobility devices and against using modified second-hand devices and non-original parts.

Today, periodic inspections are required for e-scooters to check that they remain compliant with the UL2272 standard and have not been illegally modified. The benefits of mandating periodic inspections for PMAs solely to check dimensions and speed limits must be weighed against the burden on users.

Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Cai Yinzhou asked how online marketplaces can take responsibility to eliminate unsafe and non-compliant devices. Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested making it an offence for a seller to mislabel a device as compliant. Since we commenced the Active Mobility Act, the sale of active mobility devices and related services are now more common online. LTA actively works with major e-commerce platforms like Carousell, Lazada and Shopee to take down listings of non-compliant devices. We will look at how we can strengthen rules for online sales and advertising in our legislation.

Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their many suggestions and clarifications raised. Due to time constraints, I have not addressed them all, but we will certainly study the points raised and continue to review how we implement the new laws in the Bill, as well as new measures needed.

The proposals before us today represent more than new laws. We want to restore the original purpose of PMAs and ensure that they serve those they were truly intended for and protect all path users at the same time.

With the Certificate of Medical Need, we distinguish genuine users from those who misuse mobility scooters. Through registration of mobility scooters, we create accountability and ensure users purchase compliant devices. By making it illegal to keep unsafe devices, we keep communities safer.

As we conclude this debate, let us return to the fundamental principle that path safety is not merely a regulatory matter. While this Bill covers PMAs and non-UL2272 certified PMDs, it is a collective responsibility by users of all device types and all path users that will define us as a gracious society.

Like Ms Valerie Lee, my heart goes out to Mdm Mala who was hit by a PAB rider. I have met her a few times in Tampines where she is a volunteer. But when I visited her in December at her home in Pasir Ris, she was unable to open her mouth. Since then, her husband has been updating me and I am heartened that she is recovering slowly but steadily, and I wish her well.

Mr Speaker, the ultimate objective of this Bill is to foster a safe environment where gracious path sharing becomes second-nature, where the PMA user will travel at walking speed on a crowded path and instinctively slow down to give way to other users, where residents dispose of unsafe devices rather than endanger their families and neighbours, and where all path users prioritise mutual respect over rushing to their next destination, even when no enforcement officer is present.

It is these actions of the responsible majority that will keep paths safe and inclusive. And all of us can play a part.

Mr Speaker: Acting Minister Jeffery Siow.

4.33 pm

The Acting Minister for Transport (Mr Jeffrey Siow): Mr Speaker, together with my colleagues at MOT and MHA, I would like to first thank fellow Members for their very thoughtful speeches on this Land Transport and Related Matters Bill over the past two days.

There were 24 speeches in total by fellow Members. I confess, my colleagues and I were not expecting this much interest in our Bill. But we are humbled and appreciative, because the speeches reflect how land transport is always top of mind for Singaporeans and there are many stakeholders and many points of view.

We have taken in Members’ feedback and suggestions to the best of our ability. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann and Minister of State Baey Yam Keng have addressed the points raised on enforcement and on active mobility. I will round up the debate on points related to ERP 2.0 and other amendments covered in this Bill.

For other topics that are not within the scope of this Bill, I would like to invite Members to consider filing Parliamentary Questions at future sessions.

Let me start with the comments made by Dr Choo Pei Ling, Ms Valerie Lee and Dr Hamid Razak on the decriminalisation of missed ERP payments. Indeed, most missed ERP payments are due to genuine oversight rather than an intent to avoid payment. This amendment would therefore make the penalties more proportionate to the offence. It is, in Dr Hamid’s words, a more mature regulatory approach.

Dr Choo asked whether shifting the onus for missed ERP payments to vehicle owners instead of the driver would create complications for shared vehicles. LTA has discussed these changes with fleet operators and taxi operators. Today, vehicle owners are already responsible for obligations and fees such as road tax, so putting the responsibility of missed ERP payments on the owner would be consistent. We expect vehicle owners, such as shared fleet owners to establish their own arrangements with the drivers to recover missed ERP payments, if necessary.

Dr Choo, Ms Tin Pei Ling, as well as Mr Melvin Yong also asked about plans for distance-based charging. As I mentioned yesterday, I do not intend to implement distance-based charging immediately. I would like the transition to ERP 2.0 to be as smooth as possible. So, it is best to let the situation stabilise and to have motorists get used to the new system before too many parameters, or new ones, are introduced.

Distance-based charging is still an option for the future. We have to study this further, as there are many trade-offs involved, as many Members have pointed out. But if we decide to implement distance-based charging, motorists will have ample notice.

Our desire to have a smooth transition is also why we are keeping the broad framework for ERP charges for now. I would like to assure Members that ERP rates will continue to be reviewed on a quarterly basis, using ERP 2.0 data, which will now be more accurate and reliable.

The infrastructure light nature of ERP 2.0 does mean that we can more easily adjust locations where we can have road pricing. Therefore, we can react more quickly to mitigate traffic congestion at hotspots, including in areas where it may not be physically possible to add an ERP 1.0 gantry today.

Mr Dennis Tan asked how we will manage ERP 2.0 data. This is a topic we have discussed before and have also discussed the use of Government data during the last Parliament Sitting, when we passed the Public Sector Governance Act.

LTA adheres to all laws and Government-wide standards on data sharing with other agencies and this includes how we will manage ERP 2.0 data. As we have said before, LTA will use vehicle-specific data only for payment, charges and enforcement. And this will include non-payment of ERP charges and cross-border taxi enforcement.

To prevent unauthorised access to the data, there are security measures and safeguards in place. For example, the design of the OBU is in line with the Federal Information Processing Standard level 4 security standard with cryptographic security keys.

Mr Edward Chia spoke extensively on how ERP 2.0 data can result in smarter traffic management and transport planning. My colleagues at LTA strongly agree. LTA is indeed excited by this possibility, and we will use anonymised and aggregated ERP 2.0 data for traffic management and transport planning purposes

For example, we are experimenting with merging or using this data to optimise the traffic light signal system, amongst other use cases that we are exploring. There is certainly great potential to improve traffic management using ERP 2.0 data. As we get better at doing so, it may well be feasible to create more capacity on our roads without taking up more land. Potentially this can allow us to have some future growth in our car population.

As we move closer to completing the transition to ERP 2.0, we are also addressing the final technical difficulties preventing some vehicles from installing OBUs. For instance, some electric vehicle models are unable to provide a constant power supply to the OBU. To overcome this, LTA has developed an External Battery Device to allow for the installation of OBUs for these vehicles. Where technical problems cannot be resolved such as old cars on the Classic or Vintage Vehicle schemes, we will exempt them from the requirement to install an OBU. Owners of such cars will then have to pay a daily flat fee if they use their vehicles on ERP operational days.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, I would like to thank Members once again, especially those from the GPC for Transport for their support and suggestions on this Bill. On safety and enforcement, this House is aligned on the need for deterrence, accountability and proportionality. On active mobility, we want to strike the right balance: to preserve the independence and dignity that PMAs provide for those with genuine needs, but also to act firmly against misuse and dangerous behaviour that puts others in jeopardy.

This Bill gives us the stronger tools to do so, and we will implement them with utmost care and consideration.

Mr Speaker, this Bill covers a range of different amendments, but it is united by one key principle. Mobility brings opportunity, but it must also come with responsibility. With the support of this House, this Bill will allow us to keep our transportation system safe, inclusive and ready for the future. Sir, I seek to move.

4.41 pm

Mr Speaker: Clarification for the Minister, the Senior Minister of State and the Minister of State? Excellent. Looks like the round-up speeches by the three officeholders are very comprehensive.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Jeffery Siow].

Bill considered in Committee.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.43 pm until 5.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.05 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]