Land Transport and Related Matters Bill

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, 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, 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, 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): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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, 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): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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 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, 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.

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): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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, 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 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): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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, 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, 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, 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.