Land Transport and Related Matters Bill

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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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.