Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Minister Sim Ann, you may proceed to resume your speech.

2.03 pm

Ms Sim Ann: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a warm welcome to Her Royal Highness.

We recognise that there may be situations where a person lawfully consumes or administers specified substances for medicinal purposes. The Bill provides a statutory defence where the substance was lawfully consumed by or administered; and the person did not know or have reason to believe that consuming it could impair his or her driving.

However, if the consumption of such substances did in fact impair the driving of the person, then there would continue to be criminal liability, as per the existing law.

The third objective of this Bill is to enhance Traffic Police's ability to detect and enforce against traffic offences, in four areas.

First, clause 14 of the Bill removes the requirement to administer a preliminary breath test, streamlining the drink-driving enforcement process.

Currently, enforcement of drink-driving is a two-stage process. Upon suspicion of drink-driving, an officer administers a preliminary breath test at the roadside. If the result is positive, the driver is arrested and brought to the Police lock-up, where an evidential-grade breath test is administered. This process is operationally onerous and results in a lower alcohol concentration reading when the evidential-grade breath test is carried out at the lock-up. It is also unnecessary as technology has improved over the years and Handheld Breath Analysers can now provide evidential-grade test results.

Clause 14 supports the Traffic Police's use of a Handheld Breath Evidential Analyser, allowing officers to obtain evidential-grade breath test results on the spot that accurately reflects the driver's alcohol level at the time of the offence. The Traffic Police can also conduct its drink driving enforcement operations more efficiently without having to bring the driver to the lock-up.

Second, the Bill aligns the procedure in the RTA for the taking of breath and blood specimens from hospital patients with that of similar provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Currently, under the RTA, before a police officer may require a hospital patient to provide a blood specimen to determine his blood alcohol level, the registered medical practitioner in immediate charge of the patient must first authorise this. While the Act does not prescribe the mode or manner of obtaining the authorisation, in a recent judgement, the District Court held that this authorisation must be express – that is, it cannot be inferred from the doctor's silence or failure to object. In that case, the drink driving suspect was acquitted after the doctor treating him was found not to have explicitly authorised the taking of a blood specimen.

This differs from the process under the Criminal Procedure Code, which governs forensic medical examinations in non-traffic investigative contexts and does not impose similar express authorisation requirement on the treating medical practitioner.

Clause 16 therefore removes the authorisation requirement under the RTA, aligning it with the Criminal Procedure Code provisions. In its place, before taking a blood specimen, the medical practitioner or nurse in immediate charge of the patient must be satisfied that the taking of the specimen will not endanger the individual. The amendment removes the procedural authorisation requirement but does not diminish the medical practitioner's or nurse's duty to assess whether doing so would harm the patient. The safety of the patient remains paramount and continues to be assured with this amendment.

Third, the Bill amends section 65B of the RTA, which sets out the offence of using a mobile communication device while driving.

Currently, an offender must satisfy three elements to be liable for an offence: (a) the driver must hold the mobile communication device in his hand; (b) the driver must operate any communicative or other functions of the device; and (c) the vehicle must be in motion while the driver is holding and operating the device.

The requirement in element (b) – that the driver must operate a function of the device – can only be enforced by a Police officer on the ground who observes the driver operating the device while the vehicle is in motion. This is challenging to enforce practically. More importantly, there should be no need to prove that the driver was operating the device. Unlike other everyday objects, a mobile communication device is ordinarily held to communicate or access information. These are activities which typically require the driver's visual and cognitive attention and divert their attention away from driving. Where the device is handheld, the risk of distraction is further compounded because the driver must hold and support the device, reducing the driver's ability to maintain proper control of the vehicle.

Clause 10 therefore amends section 65B to remove the element stating that the driver must be operating the device. A driver who holds a mobile communication device in his hand while the vehicle is in motion will commit an offence. This amendment also makes clear that it is not an offence if the device is secured in a mount and a driver touches it while driving.

However, where the driver's use of a mounted device distracts the driver or compromises the driver's control of the vehicle, the driver may be liable for offences such as careless or dangerous driving.

Fourth, the Bill supports the Traffic Police's ongoing efforts to leverage technology to scale up enforcement of traffic violations.

Today, when a camera captures a vehicle committing a traffic violation, a Police officer must review the footage to determine whether there is sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed and, if so, require the owner of the vehicle to provide the particulars of the driver at the time of the alleged offence.

Clause 21 introduces a new section 81A, which allows a computer program to assess whether there is sufficient evidence that a traffic offence was committed and if so, automatically issue a notice to require the vehicle owner to provide the particulars of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. This enables the Traffic Police to significantly scale up the enforcement of traffic violations and eliminate manual processes, by using video analytics in traffic enforcement cameras.

The Traffic Police will ensure that only computer programs that have been robustly tested are used for enforcement. The computer program will also be subject to regular audits to ensure its continued accuracy and reliability.

To further safeguard against system errors, the new section allows drivers to apply to revoke the notice if they believe that the relevant vehicle was misidentified or where the alleged offence did not occur. Where such application is made, an officer will manually review the relevant evidence that led to the issuance of the notice.

The Bill also makes two other amendments to streamline and clarify existing provisions.

First, the Bill amends a number of provisions in the RTA to make clear how driving disqualification periods are calculated.

The current legal language in the RTA may give rise to an interpretation that a driving disqualification period runs concurrently with an imprisonment term in certain contexts – meaning an offender effectively serves his disqualification while incarcerated and already unable to drive.

In a case earlier this year, an offender was convicted of drink driving and other unrelated offences. He was not imprisoned for drink driving, but imprisoned for the unrelated offences. The Court of Appeal interpreted section 67(2) of the RTA to mean that the offender's disqualification period should commence on the date of his drink driving conviction, despite the offender being in prison for unrelated offences.

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

This goes against the policy intent for the offender's disqualification period to start only after he has served his imprisonment term, even if the imprisonment is for an offence unrelated to the offence for which the person is disqualified.

To give effect to this policy intent, clauses 3, 7, 8, 11, 22, 23 and 25 make similar amendments respectively to sections 42, 64, 65, 67, 84 and 116 of the RTA, and section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third‑Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960.

Second, clause 24 repeals section 133(2) of the RTA, an administrative requirement that has become obsolete. Section 133(2) of the RTA currently requires Traffic Police to prepare a duplicate of every traffic ticket notice and, if required by a Court, to produce this duplicate to the Court. In practice, this provision is not necessary as the Courts have obtained the information they require without needing this duplicate copy from the Traffic Police.

Sir, to conclude, this Bill introduces significant amendments to the RTA to achieve the three objectives I have laid out.

Alongside these amendments, we announced last week that we will tighten the Driver Improvement Points System, commonly known as the demerit points regime, to be implemented from January 2027. The two key changes are the lowering of the suspension threshold from 24 demerit points to 18 and lengthening the suspension periods for errant drivers who meet this lowered threshold.

Together, these measures are aimed at decisively arresting the increase in traffic fatalities and injuries.

But laws and enforcement alone cannot make our roads safe. Ultimately, it is the choices made by every road user – every driver, motorcyclist, cyclist, and pedestrian – that will determine whether we can reach home safely every day.

We urge all road users to exercise patience and graciousness on the road. When we stay alert, slow down or give way, we protect not just ourselves, but other road users, our families and our loved ones. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Sir, this Bill introduces important changes to make our roads safer. Before I conclude, let me leave motorists with two important messages.

First, if you intend to drink, do not drive. This Bill lowers the prescribed alcohol limits for drink-driving because scientific evidence consistently shows that even small amounts of alcohol can impair a driver's judgement and reaction time. The tightened limits better reflect the point at which impairment begins.

Second, when you drive, keep your attention on the road and do not hold your mobile communication device at any time. Unlike many other distractions, a handheld mobile communication device is designed to capture your attention. Using it requires you to take your eyes off the road, a hand off the wheel and your mind off driving. Even a moment of distraction can lead to devastating consequences. This is why we are strengthening our laws on the use of handheld mobile communication device while driving.

These measures will strengthen our laws and make our roads safer.

But safer roads ultimately depend on every one of us. It is the choices made by every road user – every driver, motorcyclist, cyclist, and pedestrian – that will determine whether we can reach home safely every day. We urge all road users to exercise patience and graciousness on the road. When we stay alert, slow down or give way, we protect not just ourselves, but other road users, our families and our loved ones.

( In English ): Sir, I seek to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

2.17 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. Last year, there had been a spike in both the numbers and seriousness of traffic accidents and this Bill is timely in raising the seriousness of traffic-related offences as well as making them easier to prosecute.

First, there are a range of amendments dealing with penalties for causing death and grievous hurt. One of these is a new offence of dangerous driving to endanger another person on purpose that causes death or grievous hurt. This new offence is understandably a serious one with mandatory imprisonment of up to 15 years.

My question is whether this is necessary as I believe such a person can probably be prosecuted under existing offences where such a person can be charged for intending to cause death or grievous hurt under the Penal Code. The Penal Code covers a whole spectrum of mens rea, from intentional harm to causing it by a rash or negligent act, with different penalties for each. The Jarrett Tee case mentioned by the Minister could, perhaps, have been categorised as intentional causing of grievous hurt since he had asked his passengers if they wanted to see the motorcycle fly. And after the incident, he had said, she deserved it. So, it sounds like this was intention to cause grievous hurt and could alternatively have been brought under that offence.

In this regard, I will be grateful if the Minister can clarify whether there is an envisioned overlap in the current legislation that this needs to fill on the basis that the RTA is not the only legislation that can deal with this situation. If more than one Act might apply in a situation, such as the Penal Code, how would the authorities decide which Act to apply?

There are other amendments that raise the penalties for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt, and I agree with the rationale that grievous hurt can totally ruin a person's life and causing it should be treated with a suitably serious penalty.

Second, I note the offence of handphone driving is now going to be easier to make out. Previously, there were three components that needed to be made out, but now there are only two – that the driver must be holding his mobile phone and the vehicle must be in motion. The requirement for the driver to actually be using the phone has been removed. I note that there is a new section 65B(1B) which provides that, "to avoid doubt…a driver who touches with his or her hand a mobile communication device which is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle, in the manner intended by the manufacturer of the mounting, does not hold the device."

So, this gives some clarity to what many drivers have been doing, which is, using mounted mobile devices while they drive. So, this clearly is not going to be an offence anymore. I think this clarity is helpful, particularly for those in the private hire trade who rely on this for a living. I also agree with the clarification that should their use of the mobile device surmount to carelessness, then they would face potential liability under careless driving.

Next, there is a revision of offences, first of all, in relation to alcohol-related offences, to reduce the level of alcohol required to make out a drunk driving offence, which I completely agree with.

But separately, in relation to offences dealing with impairment for those who drive under the influence of controlled drugs, psychoactive or intoxicating substances, there is no longer a requirement to actually prove impairment nor is there a minimum threshold for the level of these substances found in a person's blood. While I have no objections to these offences being treated more seriously, I do have some concerns about a purely presence-based model without the need to show either intoxication or a suitably high level of concentration. For example, intoxicating substances, include glue, paint and petrol fumes.

Under the Intoxicating Substances Act, an offence is committed if a person inhales these substances for the purpose of causing or inducing himself to be in a state of intoxication. Therefore, if a person inhales these substances without such an intention, such as in the course of work, say working at a petrol station, construction site or factory, they will not commit an offence under the Intoxicating Substances Act.

However, for those people who are exposed to intoxicating substances in the course of work, because of workplace safety requirements, they are unlikely to inhale them in sufficient quantities to get intoxicated though there will probably be some level of these substances in their blood because they will be inhaling it. Would these people now be at risk of committing offences under the RTA since there is now neither a requirement for intoxication nor a requirement for an intoxicating level to be found in the blood? Some of these people may drive as a living, for example, vehicle operators at construction sites, while others may drive cars or motorcycles to work.

Next, on the amendments to do away with a manual review in favour of automated notices, I think this is sensible from the perspective of administrative efficiency and saving resources, and I am grateful for the Minister's clarification that this will only be confined to offences where machines are able to confirm with a high level of certainty that an offence has been committed. The assurance that these offences or these notices will be subject to a human review is also useful, certainly in the beginning when this is being rolled out.

I do have a final clarification of when the disqualification period will run and in particular, those who are suspended will have the disqualification run only from the time they have finished serving a prison sentence, assuming that sentence is for an unrelated offence. I would just like the Minister to clarify what is the policy intent behind this. Because if the idea of a disqualification is to keep the driver off the road for a certain period of time, why does it matter whether a driver is kept off the road because of a prison sentence or for some other reason? If the aim is to keep the person off the road, I think it does not really matter what the reason is.

Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

2.23 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill recognises the seriousness of driving-related offences, especially those that cause grievous hurt or death to innocent members of the public. At the outset, I wish to state clearly that I support the main proposals for change to our Road Traffic laws under this Bill. The data shared by MHA paints a stark picture between 2021 and 2025.

Singapore's traffic fatality rate increased by about 24%, while traffic violations rose by approximately 38%. To arrest this worrying trend, firmer legislative mechanisms are undoubtedly required. I fully support the introduction of penalties for purposeful endangerment, the tightening of legal alcohol limits, the standalone drug driving framework and the transition towards automated enforcement technology. In particular, the creation of a purposeful endangerment framework addresses a critical gap where a driver deliberately uses a vehicle as a dangerous weapon.

As the Ministry has noted, such offenders often cannot be convicted of murder or culpable homicide because of the exceptionally high threshold of proving intention to kill or knowledge that death was likely to result. Instead, they are typically charged with dangerous driving causing death, which currently carries a maximum imprisonment term of eight years for a first-time offender. Elevating the maximum penalty to 15 years, instituting a default lifetime driving disqualification and empowering the Courts to order the forfeiture of the vehicle used in offence are appropriate expressions of deterrence and accountability.

In my speech today, I seek to clarify the understanding and practical enforcement of certain provisions, with particular focus on the evolving definitions surrounding mobile communication devices, digital screens and mounted devices while driving. The Bill amends the offence of using a communication device to simply holding one, thereby allowing Traffic Police officers to enforce the offence without needing to prove active device use.

I welcome the Government's intention to make our roads safer by reducing distractions caused by motorists handling their mobile devices while driving.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we must not underestimate the growing range of digital distractions confronting motorists today. These distractions no longer arise only from handheld phones. They increasingly come from mounted smartphones, wearable devices, large infotainment systems, digital dashboards and other screens embedded within modern vehicles. As vehicles become more technologically advanced, our regulatory frameworks must also continue to keep pace with the changing nature of driver distraction.

Under this Bill, a driver is not regarded as holding a device if the device is mounted in accordance with the mount manufacturer's intended use. While I understand the practical rationale for this exemption, it raises important questions about how the exemption will operate alongside existing road safety rules.

In March 2026, I asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry had conducted or reviewed any local studies on the impact of multiple mounted mobile devices or digital screens on motorist reaction times and overall driving performances. In a written reply, the Minister stated that no such local studies have been conducted. The Ministry instead noted that Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules already makes it an offence to install a visual display unit in the manner that causes distraction or constitutes a safety hazard.

Given the absence of local research, I continue to urge the Ministry to proactively study the effects of screen-based distractions on road safety. In particular, we need empirical evidence on whether multiple mounted devices, large dashboard screens and simultaneous digital interfaces affect driver cognitive load, situation awareness and emergency braking response times. Such data will enable policy makers to calibrate future regulations on a sound evidential basis.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question concerning the interaction between the new mounted device exemption and Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules. Under the Bill, the touching and operation of a properly mounted device will not amount to the offence of holding a communication device. However, the same device could potentially still constitute a visual distraction under Rule 126 depending on how it is installed and used. Can the Minister clarify how these two provisions are intended to interact? What would legally constitute a safe mounting arrangement under the new framework? Would compliance with the mounting requirements under the Bill have any bearing on the assessment of whether a visual display unit creates a distraction under Rule 126?

We must also consider the realities faced by many platform workers. To maximise their earning, some drivers or many drivers simultaneously operate multiple ride hailing or delivery applications, often using several mounted devices within the vehicle. Each additional screen potentially imposes further cognitive demands on the driver and increases the amount of visual attention diverted from the road.

Has the Ministry assessed whether the use of multiple mounted devices contributes significantly to driver distraction? If not, would it consider studying this issue and also to study how safe driving can be enhanced, whether by way of improving vehicle dashboard or device design, hardware or software, particularly given the growing number of drivers who rely on platform work as a source of income, for their safety?

May I also clarify with the Minister for devices of wearable technology, such as smart watches, how would their use while driving constitute an offence under section 65B(1A) or elsewhere in the amended provisions, given their ability to deliver messages, notifications and other distractions directly to motorists while driving?

Beyond mobile phones and wearables, the law must also keep pace with developments in vehicle design itself. Modern infotainment systems have evolved into sophisticated communication and entertainment hubs. Features such as Apple Car Play, Android Auto, allow motorists to send messages, browse media content, interact with navigation systems while their vehicles are in motion. At the same time, many manufacturers have adopted increasingly minimalist cockpit designs, replacing traditional buttons and switches with large touchscreen interfaces. Functions that were once operated instinctively through physical controls are increasingly accessed through digital menus, requiring drivers to glance away from the road even for routine tasks.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, while stronger penalties are necessary, enforcement alone cannot fully address the problem if the design of modern vehicle cockpits is itself becoming a source of distraction.

If we focus solely on penalising distracted driving after it occurs without examining whether certain vehicle designs contribute to driver distraction in the first place, we may be addressing the symptoms rather than the cause.

In the interest of proactive road safety, will MHA work with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to consider standards of governing pre-installed infotainment systems, vehicle mobile application control functions and increasingly screen-dependent cockpit designs? Will the Government look into whether we need to require certain complex touchscreen interactions or app-based functions to be automatically restricted while a vehicle is in motion, in the interest of driving safety?

Around the world, regulators and vehicle-safety bodies are increasingly recognising that road safety depends not merely on how people drive, but also how vehicles are designed to be operated.

In Europe, European New Car Assessment Programme has revised the safety assessment protocols to encourage manufacturers to retain physical controls for key vehicle functions in response to concerns about touchscreen-related driver distraction. Similarly, China has introduced requirement for designated safety-critical vehicle functions to retain dedicated haptic physical controls that can be located and operated by touch alone, reducing the need for drivers to take their eyes off the road.

In the United States (US), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has also issued driver distraction guidelines, recommending that certain visual manual tasks be restricted or locked up while a vehicle is in motion where they may interfere excessively with driver attention.

Against this backdrop, will the LTA consider whether Singapore's vehicle-type approval framework should evolve to better address the risk posed by increasingly large and complex in-vehicle displays? Does the Government agree that safety-critical vehicle controls should remain readily operable, without prolonged visual interaction with digital screens or navigation through multiple layers of menus?

Mr Deputy Speaker, while I believe that we should take a much closer look at the evolving landscape of digital and screen-based distractions, the fundamental reforms contained in this Bill represent a significant and necessary upgrade to our enforcement capabilities.

Indeed, we must send a clear and unequivocal message that irresponsible and dangerous behaviour on our roads will not be tolerated. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the measures in the Bill to strengthen road safety, including introducing the offence of purposefully endangering safety, tightening drink-driving standards and expanding the use of automated enforcement technology.

With technological advancement, the distractions faced by drivers are no longer limited to mobile phones. Many vehicles are equipped with large touchscreens and various digital systems, and drivers can likewise be distracted when operating these devices. I believe that road safety depends not only on how drivers drive, but also on vehicle design.

Therefore, I urge MHA and LTA to study the impact of these new technologies on driving safety and to review vehicle standards when appropriate, so as to ensure that important driving functions do not rely excessively on touchscreens, safeguarding the safety of road users.

I support this Bill.

( In English ): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

2.35 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is ultimately about making sure our roads are safe. The case for action is compelling, traffic fatalities hit a 10-year high is 2025. The rising numbers of traffic accidents resulting in injuries also increased and the number of traffic violations rose too.

Such evidence should be of great concern to drivers who transport people and goods daily, the workers who use our roads for commuting and their families. And the introduction and implementation of stronger laws must be aimed at supporting their safety on our roads.

Clause 6 introduces the new section 63A. It targets drivers who deliberately endanger any other road user. The penalty reaches up to 15 years of imprisonment, caning and lifetime disqualification.

Some road users do not make mistakes. They deliberately use their vehicle to pose a safety risk to another on the road. This Bill recognises that difference, and calls it "purposeful endangerment", and metes out stiff penalties for introducing dangers to our roads. I welcome it.

Clauses 7 and 8 also increase penalties for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt. Some maximum terms nearly double. This should make our roads much safer for workers like our bus captains, taxi and private hire drivers and delivery workers. Our roads are their workplaces and their families just want them to return home safely after work ends.

In July this year, it was reported that the number of work-related traffic fatalities in the first half of 2025 has exceeded last year's total. I find this very concerning. Hence, I would ask the Ministry to commit to a review in a few years. Did identifying this new offence actually shift driver behaviour? Higher numbers of violations in the statute book are not proof of success. Lower fatality and injury numbers on the ground are.

Sir, while I support the new section 63A, I have one clarification for the Minister. Section 63A(6) empowers a District or Magistrate's Court to impose the full penalty. This departs from the usual position under the Criminal Procedure Code. Could the Minister confirm the rationale? And confirm that rights of appeal remain fully preserved?

Sir, I support the tighter alcohol limits and the prohibition against holding a mobile phone while a vehicle is moving. However, compliance begins with communication. Could the Minister share concrete outreach timeline before the commencement? Would the Minister consider a targeted campaign well ahead of the first summons and delivered through the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), the platform operators and the taxi associations?

I have noted the proactive clarification by the Ministry in its media release, that the usage of mounted devices will not be an offence and that drivers may also hold their devices while the vehicle is stationery. This is an important clarification to ease concerns on the ground. Many platform workers receive their in-app notifications on their phone and rely on them for navigation. So, I urge the Ministry to leverage on my proposed campaign to ensure that our platform workers are kept up-to-date.

Sir, the workers most affected by this Bill often lack the human resources support available to most employees.

First, on prescribed medication. Clauses 11 and 13 create a new offence for any specified substance found in a driver's blood. There is a statutory defence. But the burden falls on the driver to prove his use was lawful. I note that doctors and pharmacists do highlight the side effects of prescribed medicines, including when the medications affect a person's fitness to drive and operate machinery. I therefore ask the Ministry to continue to work with pharmacies to highlight when a prescribed medication could affect the driver's fitness and to provide a simple hotline a driver can call to enquire before he starts his shift, and not after he is being arrested?

Second, on the disqualification timing, where disqualification begins after release from prison. I agree with the Ministry that errant and dangerous drivers should be kept away from our roads. However, this poses an adverse impact on breadwinners where driving was part of their job.

I therefore ask that when livelihoods are affected, that the Ministry work with platform operators, our unions and platform work associations, and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) in the outreach and in handling of cases sensitively. In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ministry for its recent efforts to engage unions and platform work associations leaders before revising the Driver Improvement Points System. I am glad that the Ministry addressed the concerns by providing a one-time deduction of demerit points. This will ensure that motorists do not face suspensions or revocations when the revised Driver Improvement Points System becomes effective on 1 January 2027. So, I hope that the Ministry can adopt the same consultative approach to manage the livelihood issues in the transition towards the new compliance measures being debated today.

Sir, clause 21 introduces the new section 81A. It allows a computer program to assess camera footage. That program can then automatically trigger notices to vehicle owners. As enforcement becomes more technology-enabled, Singaporeans must remain confident that technology assists decisions. It does not replace accountability. It is important that section 81A clarifies that this computer program is operated under the Deputy Commissioner of Police's oversight.

And I would like to ask the Minister four questions. First, will the human review safeguard remain permanent, to safeguard accountability even as the confidence in the system continues to grow? Second, will the appeal process remain fast and free-of-charge? Third, will MHA publish annual figures on notices issued, the notices challenged and notices revoked on review? Fourth, how will the Ministry maintain transparency and provide timely information to road users on which offences are being handled by the computer program?

Sir, I would like to highlight a practical question for those who drive for a living. Such a driver will feel the pinch of loss of income if they are unable to drive while their case is under appeal. How will the Ministry handle appeals of those detected by the computer system and resolve them quickly?

Next, on the record-keeping duties for corporate vehicle owners under section 81C. I would like to ask the Ministry if this duty must also be performed by a transport fleet operator and a platform operator, as defined under the Platform Workers Act. If so, I request that the Ministry actively monitor the implementation, for example via account suspensions, and whether those costs are quietly passed down to Platform Workers by way of fare adjustments. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Sir, for many Malay/Muslim drivers and delivery riders, this job is not merely about earning a living. It is an "amanah" or duty.

The duty to transport passengers safely. The duty to deliver goods with care. The duty to return home to one's family each night in good health. These are the values that have long guided our community on the roads.

Viewed through this lens, this Bill is aligned with our principles. It demands accountability from every driver. It imposes heavy penalties on those who wilfully endanger others. I support this.

However, allow me to raise two concerns that better reflect the reality of our community.

First, on the use of mobile phones. For private-hire vehicle drivers, taxi drivers and food delivery riders, the phone is not merely a communication device. It is a work device to determine the next job, the delivery address and the day's earnings. The new regulations must be explained in detail. What constitutes "holding" a phone? When may the phone be touched? When may it not? This clarity is important so that a driver does not lose his licence due to confusion, not negligence.

Second, on medication prescribed by a doctor. Many elderly drivers in our community have diabetes, high blood pressure or heart conditions. They take medication every day in order to continue working and supporting their families. This Bill introduces new offences relating to certain substances in a driver's blood. While legal defences exist, the burden falls on the driver himself. A driver who takes medication as prescribed by his doctor should not face the risk of losing his livelihood because of the very medication that keeps him alive.

I urge the Ministry to work not only with pharmacies and doctors, but also with Malay/Muslim organisations so that this information is presented in plain and simple language, that is conveyed early and to those who are most affected.

Because to a father who supports his family with this income, losing his licence means losing his livelihood. And the loss of his livelihood affects the entire family, including his school-going children. This "amanah" or duty is not only meant for the road. It also applies at home.

( In English ): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill does right on three fronts. It names and significantly penalises deliberate endangerment, it makes standard stricter for every driver and it modernises how we enforce our roads.

And I have three asks. I ask that we: first, communicate the new laws and compliance clearly to the workers most affected before the enforcement begins; to take responsibility for the livelihood risk the Bill creates for compliant drivers and build in the transparency from day one; the implementation to support enforcement technology that we deploy to expand the enforcement power.

Sir, our drivers deserve safer roads as they work to move people and goods across our island. Our commuters deserve safer roads and so, they can arrive at home safely to their families. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

2.47 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government's move to tighten enforcement and penalties for traffic offences under today's Bill is welcomed. These are urgent and lifesaving legislative moves. As MHA itself noted, the road safety situation is worsening significantly, with the traffic fatality rate increasing 24% between 2021 and 2025, while traffic violations rose by about 38%. I also noted that generally, the Singapore situation is also worse than some other comparable cities, with our traffic fatality rate in 2025 at 2.44 per 100,000 population. This is more than 150% higher than in Tokyo and almost double Hong Kong's.

Road-related deaths are a leading non-health related cause of death in Singapore. Perhaps, it will also help to start avoiding using the word "accidents", which may in a way imply inevitability and helplessness, weaken accountability and also reduce needed attention to root causes, which ultimately can be tackled through public policy and infrastructure design.

Broadly speaking, the tools added or amended before this House operate to tackle road traffic incidents via four mechanisms: first, boosting certainty, that is, the chance of getting caught; two, severity of consequences; three, removing the ability to offend; four, norm signalling. Each of these areas have room for improvement or greater clarity, both in the legislation and in the public policy being effected on the ground.

First on enforcement certainty. Clause 10 changes section 65B from an offence requiring both the holding and operation of a mobile communication device to an offence based on holding the device while the vehicle is in motion. This should make the offence more straightforward to enforce. However, the clause also makes clear that merely touching a phone secured in a properly affixed holder does not amount to holding it.

Repeating the call by my colleague, Mr Dennis Tan, could the Minister clarify how the law will address drivers who interacts extensively with a mounted phone or even entertainment system? This could include typing messages, scrolling through social media, watching videos or taking video calls. What rules will apply, where the same activities are carried out through an in-vehicle display, including through systems, such as Apple CarPlay. At what point will such conduct be enforced as careless or dangerous driving under sections 65 or 64?

The other point on enforcement relates to enforcement cameras. While the Bill touches on cameras, my question relates to a broader point. Enforcement camera locations these days are publicly disclosed and flagged out in bright colours, as it was noted that this is important for deterrence. Yet in 2024, the Traffic Police released statistics that showed that motorists would slow down to ensure they are not caught and then go back to speeding again after they have cleared the stretch.

Given that vehicle velocity is the most important determinant of crash deaths, I am concerned that this behaviour not only fails to reduce speeding or dangerous driving. It may instead cause drivers to drive more dangerously when they believe there is no chance of being caught. In this regard, what is the evidence that the current format of disclosed camera and ad hoc Traffic Police enforcement is sufficient to tackle excessive speeds and dangerous driving?

Next, on deterrence and proportionality. Clause 7 raises the imprisonment ceilings for reckless or dangerous driving causing grievous hurt under section 64, including for repeat and serious repeat offenders. It does not raise the corresponding fines. Clause 8, likewise, raises certain additional imprisonment ceilings for serious offenders convicted of careless driving causing grievous hurt while leaving the existing fines unchanged. Could the Minister explain what evidence and methodology used to assess whether the Act's statutory dollar denominated fine limits remain sufficiently deterrent for motorists of very different means? Does MHA examine its sentencing outcomes, repeat offending and the relative burden of fines across offenders' financial circumstances?

While penalties, like jail terms and suspensions, ultimately remove the ability to re-offend, a crime punishment model alone is not enough. We need to bring down offending in the first place by rethinking our road infrastructure. Some positive steps have been taken recently with initiatives to calm traffic, improve pedestrian use and access. Local data backs this up. The Silver Road scheme was found to have resulted in the reduction of incidents involving elderly pedestrians by 80%.

It is worth reiterating that alongside intelligent design with direct input from behavioural signs, traffic calming results in lower speed limits, and lower speed limits result in lower casualties. A pedestrian hit by vehicle travelling at 50 kilometres per hour (km/h) has a 40% chance of dying compared with 13% when the vehicle is travelling at 30 km/h. Recent Meta analysis studies from different cities show that a 30 km/h speed limit in urban areas causes an average 40% reduction in crashes, fatalities and injuries, with added benefits in improving active mobility and health. A 30 km/h speed limit may also not need to mean longer travel times if we design our roads to improve traffic flow by reducing stopping times, allowing closer spacing and making lane merging easier.

In this regard, while we already have the Green Link Determining system determining our traffic light junctions' timings, could we not upgrade this further to improve safety? In order to do so, we also need to pay attention to the end-user experience; that is, to ensure that traffic light timings do not end up making motorists even more impatient and likely to speed. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology mobility initiative study noted that adjusting traffic signals so that only drivers obeying the speed limits will come across green lights was, "99% effective to reliably induce speed reductions," and was such that most drivers do not even notice them. Can the Minister clarify if or how our traffic lights control system takes similar measures into account?

Other traffic calming measures, especially for new roads, should also be rolled out quicker and there should be better centralisation of efforts with input from road users and experts. This would also provide more learning points from where existing roads and Silver Zones can and should be improved.

During our Sengkang Town Hall conversations a couple of years back, residents also shared their candid views and thoughts about already worsening road safety standards and increased congestion. What became clear to many of us then was the sense that relief and deterrence measures were important, but only a part of the puzzle. We wanted to know why motorists were acting the way they did; that is, to get to the root cause of the problem. Why are we speeding more and driving more recklessly? What is the impact on road safety of increased stress, population density and crowding on the way we drive, react and act on our roads? Are there studies looking into this? What does the data show and how do we tackle these root causes of poor road safety beyond throwing more people in jail or impounding vehicles and revoking licences?

Lastly, on new norms. The reduced alcohol limits introduced by clause 19 signal new norms in another way to change the culture of driving in Singapore. The new limits are that permissible alcohol levels are roughly equivalent to 1.5 standard drinks for men and one standard drink for women consumed within three hours of driving. My WP colleague, Mr Andre Low, will speak more on this but hopefully, this is a start to shift the needle away from the attitude that a motorist can drink as long as they can handle their alcohol.

Another new norm we need to move towards is a policy call that introduces a Vision Zero movement for our road safety. This takes a leaf from global aviation industry efforts to eliminate fatalities from incidents and akin to what we are aiming for, for workplace health and safety. Sweden, Norway and Finland work on efforts across policy-makers, enforcement agencies and all sectors of society to find and implement ways to virtually eliminate all traffic fatalities, buttressed by the ultimate belief that loss of life on roads is both preventable and unacceptable.

This is not an easy task, especially as individual failings account for many deaths, but we must work continuously to ensure that our roads and their design keep up with innovation and technology for vehicles, and to more holistically regulate and encourage road safety. After all, Helsinki achieved a full year without road deaths across 2024 and 2025 through lower speed limits, safer street designs, strong enforcement and improved pedestrian infrastructure. It is time for us to set our own North Star in our own attempt to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.

2.57 pm

Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

As an orthopaedic surgeon, I have had to treat many victims of road traffic accidents. The public often remembers the headlines, the collisions, the fatalities, the Court cases. But in hospitals and in the emergency rooms, we remember something very different. We remember the young motorcyclist who survives but spends months in rehabilitation, recovering from multiple fractures and repeated surgeries. We remember the pedestrian who never walks independently again. We remember the father who can no longer work because of chronic pain; the mother who has to become both a caregiver and a breadwinner; and the child whose life quietly changes because someone else's momentary lapse became a lifelong consequence.

These are the stories that seldom make the news, but they are the very reasons that this House is debating this Bill today.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, road safety is therefore not simply about preventing deaths. It is also about preventing lifelong disability, protecting livelihoods and keeping families together. The objective of this Bill is therefore not simply to punish more drivers. It is really to prevent more victims.

For me, this Bill rests on a very simple but important principle: that road safety succeeds when our laws are fair, firm and practical.

Today, I would like to make three points: first, protecting lives; second, protecting livelihoods; and third, protecting public trust.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my first point is about protecting lives. I support the direction of this Bill. In particular, I welcome the introduction of the new offence of purposeful endangerment using a motor vehicle under the proposed section 63A. It recognises that there is a clear distinction between negligence and intent.

Most road accidents arise from human error, but this amendment addresses something different – intentional harm. Where a vehicle is deliberately used to endanger another person's life, society is dealing with something fundamentally different. A motor vehicle is no longer simply a mode of transport. It becomes a weapon. And the law should recognise that distinction, and I am pleased that this Bill does so too.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I also support the amendment relating to mobile phones. The Bill removes the need to prove that the driver was operating a phone. Simply holding a phone while driving will now constitute an offence while making clear that touching a phone that is mounted does not do so. This is both sensible and practical. Drivers should not be holding a mobile phone while their vehicle is in motion. Our eyes belong on the road and our hands belong on the wheel. Because every distracted glance lasts only a few seconds, but as mentioned earlier, the consequences for some can be a lifetime.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as doctors, we often say that prevention is better than cure. The same principle applies to road safety. The safest accident is the one that does not happen at all. Every dangerous driver deterred before causing harm means one fewer patient in our emergency departments. One fewer family receiving devastating news. And one fewer life permanently altered. That is why I support this Bill. Not because it supports stronger penalties. But because it has the potential to prevent greater tragedy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my second point is about protecting livelihoods. I support giving the Traffic Police stronger powers to intervene where there are reasonable grounds that a driver poses an ongoing danger to other road users. If there is a genuine risk to public safety, early intervention is the right thing to do.

However, I would like to seek some clarification from the Minister on how these powers will be exercised in practice.

For many Singaporeans, a driving licence is not simply a licence. It is a livelihood. Taxi drivers. Private-hire drivers. Delivery drivers. Commercial drivers. Many of them spend 10 to 12 hours on the road daily. Their licence essentially pays the mortgage, puts food on the table and pays their children's school fees. For many of these Singaporeans, suspension of a driving licence means suspension of their income.

Public safety must always come first. There can be no compromise on that. But equality, procedural fairness is essential.

Could the Minister therefore elaborate on the safeguards that will ensure that these suspension powers remain proportionate, transparent and timely? Could the Minister also assure our professional drivers that appeals involving the livelihoods will be dealt expeditiously? Where investigations ultimately exonerate a driver, what are the mechanisms that exist to minimise unnecessary disruption to their livelihoods?

Strong laws command respect. Fair processes build trust. We need both because road safety succeeds only when our laws are not only firm, but also when they are fair.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my final point is about protecting public trust. People accept tough laws and they accept them when they can understand them better. If we want safer roads tomorrow, we must educate our road users today better.

Mr Deputy Speaker, much of our discussion today has centred on stronger penalties. That is understandable. Penalties change behaviour through fear but education changes behaviour through intentional choice. Could the Minister explain how the changes to the law today and the principles behind these changes be weaved into public educational and communication, including across our schools?

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the greater use of technology in strengthening enforcement. Technology allows us to intervene earlier, apply the law more consistently and improves objectivity. But I hope we will go one step further. Technology should not merely catch bad behaviour. It should also encourage good behaviour. Technology should become a partnership in prevention, not just merely a tool for punishment. Perhaps, currently installed cameras and prospectively installed cameras can pick up near misses and such near misses be shared with these drivers to show them what could have been a fatality or something consequential. Because ultimately, no camera, no sensor, no piece of legislation can replace personal responsibility.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if this Bill prevents one child from losing a parent, one family from losing its breadwinner and one young motorcyclist from becoming the next patient, then this House would have done something worthwhile today. With that, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Andre Low.

3.04 pm

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, e very road user makes a simple assumption. That the people around them will exercise basic care. The motorcyclist riding home after work, the parent driving a child to school and the pedestrian at a crossing all rely on it.

When someone drives after drinking or taking intoxicating drugs that trust is broken. The risk is borne not only by the driver but by everyone around them. A collision can take seconds. Its consequences can last for decades. A life may be lost. A serious injury can change what a person is able to do, how a family lives and what their future looks like forever.

And that is why there is often a palpable sense of public anger when someone who did nothing wrong is killed or permanently injured in an avoidable collision. That anger is often justified. Our task as Parliamentarians is not to amplify that anger but to tap into it, so that it can inform our work to reduce the chances of the next tragedy.

The law cannot undo irreversible harm, but it can set clearer boundaries, support effective enforcement and make dangerous choices far less likely. My comments today will focus on the changes concerning drink and drug driving and the evidence on which these offences will be enforced.

Let me begin with alcohol. The message should be simple. If you are driving, do not drink. The legal limit should not be mistaken for permissive drinking allowance.

The Bill lowers the prescribed breath alcohol limit from 35 to 15 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath and the blood alcohol limit from 80 to 30 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. This is a substantial change intended to shift behaviour as much as enforcement. I support that direction.

I ask the Minister to explain the evidence supporting the precise limits of 15 microgrammes and 30 milligrammes that we have chosen, including the relationship between these levels and the risk of impaired driving. I also asked how the new limits will be communicated to the public.

MHA's safest advice in their press release is that drivers should not drink at all. Public messaging should reinforce that norm rather than invite motorists to guess at how much they might be able to consume without crossing the line. That message must be matched by an enforcement people can trust.

The Bill will also allow evidential breath test to be conducted at or near the place where the requirement is made. MHA intends to use portable handheld breath evidential analysers at the scene.

Faster testing may give a reading closer to the time of the offence, but that roadside reading may also become central evidence in a criminal case. The more consequential the reading, the more important is that the device can withstand scrutiny.

What approval, calibration and maintenance standards will apply and how will measurement uncertainty rounding and device tolerances be treated where a reading is at or very near the legal limit? And where these records are relevant to the prosecution, would the accused be able to obtain the device calibration and operator records needed to test the evidence?

I will move on to drug driving. The need for a clear and defensible legal boundary is even more important for drug driving. Under the present framework, enforcement may require proof that a driver was unfit and incapable of proper control. The Bill creates an additional offence where a controlled drug or psychoactive substance or intoxicating substance is present in the driver's blood, regardless of the quantity detected or whether impairment was observed.

I understand the enforcement problem. Different substances can affect people differently and proving the precise link between a substance and a driver's impairment may be difficult. A presence-based offence gives the law a clearer enforcement line. It also makes the scientific and operational meaning of presence critical. So, I ask: which substances and metabolites will be tested and at what analytical threshold will they count as present?

MHA should publish the relevant detection windows, its treatment of therapeutic use and any reporting or prosecution thresholds before the offence commences. Motorists must know the legal boundary and the Courts must be able to assess the evidence consistently.

The Bill already provides a defence for lawful use, including prescribed medication. The defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities that a substance was lawfully consumed or administered, and that he or she did not know or have reason to believe it would affect proper control of the vehicle.

The existence of that defence is important. Its practical operation is also very much important. In practice, I ask what evidence will ordinarily establish lawful use? Is it a prescription, a dispensing record or medical evidence?

MHA should also explain how the test of reason to believe will apply, where medicine carries only a general warning that it may cause drowsiness and what guidance patients, doctors and pharmacists will receive before commencement of this Act. Once credible medical evidence is produced, the Minister should explain why the defendant should continue to bear the legal burden of proving both parts of the defence.

We should be firm against drug driving without leaving responsible patients to interpret a criminal law boundary from a generic label on the medicine packet.

The same principle should also govern how evidence is collected in hospital. Enforcement must never compromise necessary medical care. The Bill changes the procedure for taking breath and blood specimens from hospital patients and expands the role of nurses. For hospital breath specimens, the person immediately responsible for the patient's care is expressly part of the statutory safety check. The blood specimen provision is framed differently. Will the Minister confirm that the patient treatment remains paramount and that a specimen will not be taken where the clinician responsible for the patient's care believes it would compromise their care or treatment? What training and professional guidance will be given to nurses involved in taking forensic specimens?

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, drink driving and drug driving can cause irreversible harm to people who have no control over the risk they face. Parliament is right to strengthen the law.

Firm enforcement needs more than severe penalties though. It must be grounded in evidence testing that can withstand scrutiny. Clear rules on what constitutes drug presence and practical guidance for people taking lawful medication.

We do owe innocent road users laws that can prevent avoidable harm and ward off the next tragedy. I am glad we are taking these steps and I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.

3.11 pm

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I rise in support of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. At one level, this Bill is about stronger penalties for dangerous driving. But at a deeper level, it is about something more fundamental: trust.

Every day, millions of Singaporeans place their trust in people they have never met. We trust that the driver approaching a pedestrian crossing will slow down. We trust that the motorist beside us is paying attention. We trust that the person behind the wheel has chosen not to drink, not to speed recklessly and not to look at a mobile phone while driving. Dangerous driving is a breach of that shared trust and that is why I support this Bill.

The purpose of stronger penalties is not punishment for its own sake. It is to influence behaviour before harm occurs. Every driver who chooses to slow down because the consequences are more severe represents an accident that does not happened. Every motorist who chooses to keep both eyes on the road because enforcement is more credible represents a family spared unimaginable grief. That is the value of deterrence.

Some may ask whether stronger penalties alone are enough. Of course they are not. But that does not make them any less necessary.

The statistics show why this Bill is timely. Traffic fatalities rose to 147 last year, up from 139 in 2024. Accidents causing injury increased by about 7%. Red-light running accidents rose by more than a quarter. And Singaporeans have been shocked by high profile cases like the June 2024 Central Expressway racing case. Each statistic represents a life altered, a family grieving, or a future forever changed.

I fully support the Bill's central changes, including the new offence of purposeful endangerment and the increased penalties for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt. Where a driver knowingly or deliberately puts another person's life at risk, the law should reflect the full seriousness of that choice. These provisions are proportionate to the harm they address.

I do want to raise one question on the Bill's mobile phone provision, and a separate concern about how, in the context of these tougher penalties, the recently announced revised demerit points regime will affect our private hire and taxi drivers.

First, on mobile phones. Today, prosecutors must prove a driver was actively using a handheld device. This Bill removes that requirement – simply holding a phone while the vehicle is moving will be enough, enforceable by camera or by footage support submitted by members of the public.

I understand the underlying logic: distraction begins before a call connects or a message is typed. But removing the need to prove active use also removes the safeguard that previously separated genuinely risky conduct from momentary, non-distracting contact – a driver silencing a ringing phone, repositioning it on a mount, passing it to a passenger or rerouting using a maps apps after making a wrong turn or running into traffic.

Could the Minister clarify what threshold Traffic Police and the Courts will apply in practice to distinguish these situations, and what checks will be in place around footage submitted by members of the public, given that this offence may now be established without any need to show that the driver was distracted at all?

Second, I want to speak up for our private hire and taxi drivers on the demerit points changes in the context of higher penalties. From January 2027, the threshold before a non-probationary motorist faces suspension will fall from 24 to 18 points. The intent: to get irresponsible motorists off the road sooner.

For most motorists, an occasional suspension is a serious inconvenience. For a private hire or taxi driver, it is their livelihood. A driver who beats a red light while speeding would, under the new regime, be suspended immediately, and for a full-time private hire driver, that suspension is not a pause in convenience, but a pause in income.

I acknowledge that the Ministry has introduced a one-time point adjustment to ease the transition in direct response to concerns raised by vocational drivers and transport unions. This shows that the Ministry is alive to the issue.

But a one-time adjustment addresses the transition. It does not address the ongoing, structurally higher exposure that vocational drivers face every year, simply by virtue of spending far more hours on the road than the average motorist and depending on that same licence for their income.

They would likely also be more susceptible to the new mobile phone rules as they use their mobile phones to confirm rides and receive messages from platform operators.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in my Meet-the-People Sessions in Woodlands, I have seen the anguish and stress on my resident vocational drivers' faces when they come to appeal their demerit points. So, I ask the Minister whether there is a case for more support measures specific to this group, such as reconsidering some variant of the Safe Driving Course in lieu of a portion of suspension time?

I raise this not to weaken the deterrent effect of the new regime but because if we are asking one group of road users to bear a disproportionate livelihood risk in service of a safety goal that we all share, this House should at least examine whether targeted support is warranted, in the same way we have looked at safeguards in other sectors undergoing regulatory tightening.

Singapore's good road safety record has never depended on a single intervention. Good laws, consistent enforcement, safer road design, public education and responsible road users all reinforce each other.

This Bill strengthens one pillar: personal responsibility backed by credible deterrence. I would like to suggest two ways to strengthen it further.

First, technology can make enforcement smarter, not just stricter. Deterrence depends on certainty of detection, not only severity of punishment. The rise in red-light running accidents suggests detection at certain locations remains a live gap.

Could the Minister share how the Traffic Police and LTA are using, or plan to use anonymised traffic data and artificial intelligence- (AI-) assisted analysis to spot emerging hotspots before they produce repeated accidents, and to deploy enforcement dynamically to where the risk is highest? Technology should not replace enforcement judgement. It should make enforcement more targeted and more preventive.

Second, every serious accident should sharpen our understanding, not just our accountability. Each is a tragedy, but also a chance to learn why it happened and whether patterns point to fixes in design, enforcement or education. Could the Minister elaborate on how these lessons are systematically fed back into policy and whether better data capabilities can help us move from responding to accidents towards anticipating them?

Deterrence and learning are about correcting for the minority who put others at risk. But we should not lose sight of the majority who already drive responsibly, day after day. I was glad to see the Traffic Police's own "Reward the Sensible Motorists" initiative, recognising exemplary drivers for safe behaviour. I would ask the Ministry to consider scaling this up and pairing it with the driving data that fleet operators and insurers increasingly hold, so that safe behaviour is recognised systematically, not only symbolically.

Spain's points-based licensing system offers a model worth studying here. Spanish motorists start with 12 points, but a driver who maintains a clean record for three years is credited back up to 15 points – a genuine, earned buffer built directly into the licence, not a separate reward scheme sitting alongside it.

I would ask the Minister whether a similar mechanism, where a sustained period without any offences restores the variable demerit points, could be considered here, either for all drivers, or at minimum for our vocational drivers, who face the sharpest livelihood consequences and have the most to gain from a system that rewards years of safe driving with real headroom, not just a certificate and goody bag. A Bill about deterrence should sit alongside a system that also rewards doing the right things.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our transport landscape is also changing. We have more active seniors, more cyclists, more users of active mobility devices, more delivery riders. The 2025 figures remind us that elderly pedestrians remain disproportionately represented in pedestrian fatalities, while motorcyclists and pillion riders continue to account for more than half of all traffic deaths.

This diversity makes mutual respect on our roads more important than ever. We need to be more careful, more patient. Road safety is not about prioritising one group of users over another, it is about ensuring that everyone on four wheels, two wheels or on foot can reach their destination safely.

Mr Deputy Speaker, ultimately, the success of this Bill will not be measured by how many offences are detected or how many penalties are imposed. If it works, those numbers should eventually fall.

Its success will instead be measured by the family that never receives a late-night phone call, the child who crosses the road safely, the elderly pedestrian who walks to the Active Ageing Centre without incident, the motorcyclist who returns safely to loved ones at the end of the day, and I would add, the private hire driver who can keep earning a living while driving safely.

With the privilege of using our roads comes the responsibility to use them safely. This Bill is not about punishing more drivers. It is about creating fewer victims. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

3.22 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill. I would like to make three points.

First, I would like to clarify the intent of section 63(a), "purposeful endangerment using motor vehicle".

In March, I asked the Ministry whether we needed an offence of vehicular homicide with penalties on par with culpable homicide due to the mens rea hurdle rates of the Penal Code. The reply was that such an offence was being considered and described it in almost the exact terms now before us as section 63(a).

I welcome it, and that is why I would like to understand its boundaries. Its middle limb requires the purpose to endanger "a particular person". In March, the Ministry said it would be "another person" and the Bill's three illustrations are all of one driver against another. So, does section 63(a) apply to these two examples: (a) a driver who drives at a crowd meaning to hurt whoever is in front of his or her car, taking out nobody in particular; (b) a driver who drives at a tree with the intent to kill him or herself. I note that we repealed attempted suicide in 2019.

Second, the ceilings. This Bill raises the penalty for grievous hurt to seven years and leaves killing at eight. This gap of one year seems small, given road deaths last year were the highest in a decade – with 149 in 2025. So, why did the Government choose to retain this eight-year ceiling for causing death?

Third, we will need firmer measures against drivers who are on the road when they should not be there at all. The driver who is caught is banned and the driver who has lost his or her licence and never earned it back.

I have three questions.

First, driving without a valid licence carries up to three years jail. This year, in PP v Eng Kwan Meng Garrick , our High Court set the starting point for a driver who had lost his licence completely and drove anyway, at three weeks. But three weeks under a ceiling of three years tells us the ceiling is actually doing very little work. So, I would like the Government to consider a minimum sentence for this offence. The Government has said that they would work with the Sentencing Advisory Panel on guidelines for drink-driving. Will it do the same here?

Second, forfeiture of the vehicle is mandatory only on a second conviction for driving while disqualified. Would it consider making it mandatory for the first?

Three, our annual Road Traffic Report tells us how many speedsters and drunk drivers we catch, but not how many disqualified or unlicensed drivers. Will the Government publish that number and how many of them go on to re-offend?

I would just like to also put forward my approval and agreement with the Member Mariam Jaafar's earned buffer system. I have had residents with 10-year clean records with a single high demerit point offence, which have endangered their private hire vehicle driving livelihoods. Some consideration of their long-term clean history should be given, so as to better take the circumstances into account.

Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I support the Bill and its aim of making our roads safer. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.

3.25 pm

Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for a very clear explanation of the Bill. And I therefore will not quote any numbers, but I will definitely support the Bill.

I have three points for the Minister to consider.

First, on brake checking. I have personally encountered people brake check in front of me, so it falls under the purposeful endangerment clause. It is scary. I watched a couple of videos online also and it is really, really scary. Using the weaponisation of the vehicle to express your rage or whatever, is really not acceptable as it can cause dangerous accidents.

However, when I look at the penalty, I am not too sure – maybe the Minister can clarify – that if a person or a driver has been identified and there is video evidence to show that this person has done a brake check, will the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who is in charge, do an immediate suspension of the driving licence before the Court proceedings?

My second point is on the issue of riders. We differentiate between motorists and riders, and in this specific case I am referring to cyclists. I do notice that there are a lot of cyclists nowadays on the road and some of them may not be familiar with our highway code. Would the Minister consider passing regulations that ensure that all cyclists or any road users have a knowledge of our highway code? Else, it is quite endangering because they might do things that are not in line with our process, especially if they are from overseas.

The third point is on the automated decision-making process. I really support this, because I personally, and my wife also, we have encountered, when we receive our speed summonses, quite some time after the offence or the speeding has been done. I actually support the speeding cameras being deployed. The issue is not that we want to speed. The issue is that there are some speed cameras, but sometimes they are very difficult to see or observe, or it is new.

So, I think the point is the shaping of behaviour and therefore, the request is to make sure that if there are any speeding cameras, newly installed speeding cameras, that these be prominently displayed and notified to the motorists.

I can understand that using the automated enforcement or decision-making process, we can quickly get it out, get the details out, especially on the car numbers and asking for the details of the drivers that have committed the offence. When the information has been decided and disseminated to the driver that is under the offence, typically we go by mail and that takes about a couple of days. In this instance where there are new speed cameras, people may use the same road a couple of times per day or within the week. And within that week, or before we receive the notice of the offence, we may have committed the offence a couple of times already.

So, maybe one solution is that we do an immediate electronic notice. Another way is if we stick to the mail, then maybe we can consider that for a grace period of a couple of days – could be seven days or five working days – that whatever offence committed will be treated as just one offence. So, that is the grace period for the Minister to consider. Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): I support the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. I have three points to make.

First, regarding the act of malicious or deliberate emergency braking, stronger measures should be taken to clamp down on such behaviour. Not only can such acts lead to serious accidents, but a moving vehicle can undoubtedly become a lethal weapon. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether the Traffic Police can immediately and temporarily suspend the licence of the driver involved when such behaviour occurs, pending the completion of legal proceedings.

Second, on the matter of bicycles. Bicycles are increasingly common on major roads, making road traffic and driving conditions more complex. I would therefore like the Minister to consider whether regulations can be introduced to require all cyclists on public roads to pass an examination on road traffic rules or the Highway Code.

My final point concerns the running of red lights. I support the use of automated decision-making systems to determine whether running a red light constitutes a traffic violation.

What I would like to know is whether, when a new red light or speeding enforcement system is installed at a location, more prominent signage can be put up to alert drivers that speed enforcement is in effect at that location.

Additionally, when a new speed enforcement site is first set up, some drivers may be unaware that enforcement has commenced there. In such cases, could a grace period of a few days be granted after traffic infringement notices are issued to him?

( In English ): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.34 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

ROAD TRAFFIC (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL: Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

3.55 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, while Singapore's roads have long been shared by motorists, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians, the composition of road users has evolved significantly over the past few years.

For example, the rapid expansion of the platform economy has brought about many more delivery riders on our roads, many of whom rely on Power-Assisted Bicycles (PABs). At the same time, our active mobility framework has rightly prioritised pedestrian safety by requiring PABs to use the carriageway instead of footpaths. As a result, our roads now accommodate a broader mix of users travelling at different speeds, operating different types of vehicles and using the roads in very different ways.

This complexity will only increase as autonomous vehicles become part of Singapore's transport network. As interactions between road users become more complex, the margin for error narrows. A single moment of distraction or poor judgement can have far more serious consequences, particularly for vulnerable road users. Our enforcement regime and deterrence framework must therefore evolve alongside these challenges.

Against this backdrop, I support the broad intent of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Strengthening deterrence is therefore both timely and necessary. But lasting improvements in road safety cannot be achieved through harsher penalties alone. Effective deterrence rests on four pillars: a high certainty of detection, proportionate enforcement, timely behavioural intervention and ultimately, a shared sense of responsibility among all who use our roads.

I support the Bill's move towards stronger penalties for irresponsible road behaviour. However, deterrence depends not only on the severity of punishment, but also on the certainty of detection.

Singapore has never shied away from imposing strong penalties where public safety is at stake. But penalties alone cannot deter offences that are inherently difficult to detect. On our roads, many types of dangerous behaviour can last only a few seconds. A driver may glance at a mobile phone, drift briefly into another lane or make an unsafe manoeuvre before correcting it moments later. Such offences are fleeting by nature and difficult to detect consistently through patrols alone. Unless offenders believe that they are likely to be caught, even the harshest of penalties will have limited deterrent effect.

The prohibition against using a mobile phone, as we have heard previously from many speeches, while driving is not new. Parliament first introduced these restrictions more than two decades ago, when mobile phones were primarily used for voice calls and Short Message Service (SMS). Today, the nature of distraction has fundamentally changed. Smartphones are no longer simply communication devices. They are cameras, entertainment platforms, navigation systems, social media platforms and even productivity tools. So, beyond making calls or replying to messages, motorists can now watch videos, browse social media or participate in online meetings even while travelling at speed. The distraction is no longer occasional. It is continuous, immersive and far more dangerous.

If the risk has evolved, then our enforcement methods must evolve as well.

Several jurisdictions have begun leveraging technology to strengthen this deterrence. The state of New South Wales in Australia, for example, has deployed AI-powered roadside cameras to detect motorists using hand-held mobile phones while driving. Importantly, the system does not automate enforcement. Rather, AI identifies only potential offences, which are then reviewed and verified by authorised officers before any enforcement action is taken. This combines the scale and consistency of technology with human judgement and accountability.

In light of this, could the Minister elaborate how Singapore intends to leverage technology to strengthen enforcement against distracted driving? Will Singapore consider wider deployment of automated or automatic detection systems at high-risk locations or along major expressways? Beyond mobile phone offences, are there plans to explore whether similar technologies could detect other unsafe behaviour, such as the failure to wear seat belts, for example?

As enforcement becomes increasingly technology-enabled, robust safeguards will be equally important. Could the Minister clarify the standards governing the collection, retention and verification of digital evidence? How will the accuracy of automated detection systems be validated before enforcement action is taken? What avenues of review will be available to motorists who believe an offence has been wrongly detected? Public confidence in these technologies will depend not only on their effectiveness but also on their transparency, accuracy and accountability.

Technology should not replace Traffic Police officers; it should amplify their effectiveness. By increasing the certainty of detection, it can often deter unsafe behaviour more effectively than increasing penalties alone.

Mr Speaker, while stronger enforcement and greater certainty of detection are necessary, they should not be the end of our response. The ultimate objective of deterrence is not simply to punish unsafe behaviour, but to change it. For motorists who repeatedly commit distracted driving offences, enforcement should be complemented by targeted behavioural interventions.

This is particularly relevant for mobile phone use while driving. Unlike offences arising from excessive speed or inconsiderate driving, distracted driving is often a habitual behaviour. Many motorists do not consciously decide to break the law. Instead, they instinctively glance at a notification, attempt to reply to a message, or check a navigation app without fully appreciating the risks.

Such habits cannot always be corrected through fines and demerit points alone. I therefore encourage the Government to consider introducing a mandatory distracted driving intervention programme for repeat offenders. The programme could focus on behavioural education, hazard perception and the real-life consequences of distracted driving, helping offenders understand that not just that the behaviour is illegal, but also why it is dangerous.

There is also scope to strengthen prevention at the earliest stage of a driver's journey. Driving schools already devote significant attention to vehicle control and traffic rules. Could distracted driving become a compulsory module within the learner driver curriculum before they are granted their driving license and likewise be incorporated into the Driver Improvement Points System courses? Every motorist should demonstrate an understanding of the dangers of distracted driving before obtaining a licence and again, if unsafe habits continue to emerge.

Safer roads are built not only through enforcement, but by changing behaviour. By combining effective deterrence with meaningful education, we can reduce repeat offending and foster a stronger culture of responsible driving.

I would like to speak now, Sir, about calibrating deterrence for vocational drivers. I understand why the Government has recently decided on a reduction in the demerit points threshold for licence suspension and the tougher consequences for repeat offenders. Indeed, stronger deterrence is appropriate for those who repeatedly disregard the rules of the road.

At the same time, Sir, we should recognise that these changes will have a disproportionate impact on vocational drivers, including bus captains, taxi and private hire drivers and those in the delivery and logistics sectors. By the very nature of their work, they spend substantially more time on our roads than the average motorist and are therefore more likely to accumulate demerit points through sheer exposure alone. More importantly, their driving licence is not just the privilege; it is also tied to their livelihood.

I therefore ask whether the Government would consider introducing an early intervention mechanism for vocational drivers. For example, upon reaching nine demerit points, they could be required to attend a mandatory road safety programme focused on defensive driving, hazard awareness and responsible driving behaviour. Upon successful completion of this programme, they could receive a one-time reduction of three demerit points, available once every two years in line with the existing demerit point cycle.

While, Sir, this should not be viewed as either a relaxation of enforcement or a special concession, attendance for this programme would be compulsory and the intervention would occur well before the suspension threshold is reached and the concession is tightly controlled. But more importantly, it creates an opportunity to correct unsafe behaviour before a vocational driver loses his or her licence and their livelihood.

If the objective of the demerit points system is to improve road safety, then timely behavioural intervention is often more effective than waiting until suspension becomes inevitable.

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to say that I support the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and the gradual direction it takes in strengthening road safety. Ultimately, however, no legislation, however comprehensive, can by itself make our roads safer.

Road safety, Sir, is a shared responsibility. It is not just the responsibility of those who drive, nor is it solely the responsibility of the Traffic Police. Whether we drive, ride, cycle, or simply cross the road as pedestrians, every decision we make affects the safety of others. Respect for the rules, consideration for fellow road users and a willingness to exercise patience and responsibility remain the strongest safeguards against accidents and fatalities.

At its heart, road safety has never been about penalties or demerit points. It is about protecting lives. Every accident prevented is potentially a family spared grief. And every journey completed safely reminds us that the choices we make on our roads matter. That, Sir, is ultimately, what this Bill seeks to achieve. I end my speech in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

4.07 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Sir, I stand in full support of the Bill, which essentially makes our road traffic laws stricter to make our roads safer for all road users. Yet, I wish this Bill had gone even further and made our road traffic laws even stricter – in two ways.

First, I wish this Bill had also revised the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death. My starting point is this: the maximum penalty for the new offence of purposeful endangerment causing death or even grievous hurt is 15 years' jail. This brings the new offence on par with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(b) of the Penal Code, even though it could be argued that the offender's state of mind in purposeful endangerment is likely not as egregious and thus, his culpability not as high as in culpable homicide.

Purposefully endangering a person's safety is not quite as egregious as knowing that one's actions are likely to cause death. You could purposefully endanger someone without knowing that you are likely to cause death. Yet the maximum penalty for this new offence of purposeful endangerment on our roads is on par with culpable homicide. And I support it. I support the stricter stance, because it will help to keep our roads safe, and keeping our roads safe for all road users is an urgent task and of paramount importance.

So, this new offence of purposeful endangerment on our roads causing death carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' jail. Yet, the existing offence of dangerous driving causing death still carries a maximum penalty of only eight years – almost half that of the new offence. Even though most offenders who cause death while driving will, I think, continue to be prosecuted under the charge of dangerous driving instead of purposeful endangerment, because it will not be that common, I think, for offenders to have the requisite state of mind for a charge of purposeful endangerment to be brought against them.

Take the horrific case of Jeremiah Ng, who in 2021 treated our roads like an F1 race track, drove at up to 169 km/h on a 60 km/h road – so, more than 100 km/h an hour above the speed limit – lost control when turning at a T-junction and went straight instead, ploughing into multiple cars on the other side of the T-junction, getting a motorcyclist crushed in between two cars and ultimately, causing one death and leaving six others injured. Reckless as Jeremiah Ng was, I do not think his state of mind would have met the threshold for purposeful endangerment if this law had existed then. And so, he would still have been prosecuted under dangerous driving causing death, with a maximum penalty of eight rather than 15 years' jail. And that just does not compute for me. It just does not compute.

Of course, Jeremiah Ng was also prosecuted as a serious offender because he was also drink driving while driving dangerously, so, there was an additional penalty of up to two more years' jail. But had he not been drink driving, the maximum penalty would have been eight years. And for such an egregious case of recklessness and wanton disregard for other road users, eight years' jail feels way too light.

The High Court noted that the "heaviest punishment" for a case like Jeremiah Ng will be the lifelong burden of knowing that his irresponsible and selfish action of dangerous driving while drink driving claimed an innocent life. But while offenders like him may have a lifetime of guilt and remorse, we cannot count on that. Our laws should provide for stronger retributive justice.

And so, I wish this Bill had revised the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death. Using the maximum penalty of 15 years' jail for the new offence of purposeful endangerment as a starting point, I think the discount for dangerous driving causing death, should be no more than 30%. And so, I wish the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death had been revised upwards, to 11 years instead of eight.

Second, I wish this Bill had also harmonised the offence of dangerous driving causing grievous hurt with the offence of dangerous driving causing death – harmonise the two into one offence of dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt. The new offence of purposeful endangerment already includes both death and grievous hurt in one harmonised offence. And the rationale is simple, that whether or not the victim dies, is not within the control of the offender. But his culpability and harm are no less whether the victim dies or not. So, one harmonised offence, to deal with his culpability and harm. I fully agree with this logic. And I think it should be extended to dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt. The culpability and harm from causing grievous hurt by dangerous driving may be not be less than causing death.

This Bill proposes a higher maximum imprisonment penalty for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, but it is still lower than the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death. I wish the Bill had brought the offence of dangerous driving causing grievous hurt on par with the offence of dangerous driving causing death, or indeed, harmonise the two.

Take the case of Yoong Kok Kai, who was heavily drunk, somehow found his way to Tuas Checkpoint, even though he was intending to head north back home. He ran down a safety bollard and gantry at Tuas Checkpoint, and drove into an Auxiliary Police Officer who had tried to take refuge behind the safety bollard and gantry from Yoong's car. The officer survived the horrific accident, but his injuries have left him permanently incapacitated, unable to eat, unable to move, bathe, dress or toilet without help.

Yoong was charged with dangerous driving causing grievous hurt while drink driving. So, it was a serious offence of dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, and that carries a maximum penalty of six years' jail. The High Court Judge sentenced Yoong eventually to five years, close to the maximum. But in his judgment, he also noted, "If anything, I wonder whether the maximum sentences prescribed are fully adequate for the worst type of incidents. That is, however, a matter for the Legislature."

Well, the Bill before the Legislature today provides one response to that, to the High Court Judge's comment, which is to revise the maximum sentence for these worst types of grievous hurt incidents upwards to eight and a half years from six.

My view, as a legislator, is that for the worst type of incidents, where "worst" means surviving may not be better off than death; where "worst" means the grievous injuries caused are no less harmful than outright death, the maximum penalty for grievous hurt ought to be on par with that for death, higher than eight and a half years. Or indeed, we ought to harmonise the offence for grievous hurt and death into one, as the Bill is already proposing for the new offence of purposeful endangerment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the above two points, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.

4.16 pm

Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

Let me begin with the numbers, because they remind us why action cannot wait. Last year, 149 people lost their lives on our roads, the highest number in a decade. Between 2021 and 2025, traffic fatalities increased by 24%, while traffic violations rose by nearly 38%.

But these are not just statistics. They represent parents, children, friends and colleagues who never make it home. Behind every number is a family whose lives changed forever.

A resident once shared something with me that has stayed in my mind. He runs a small logistics company and often reminds his drivers, "The delivery can be late, but you must go home on time."

Mr Speaker, this is exactly what this Bill is about. The message can wait. The delivery can wait. But everyone who uses our roads should be able to return home safely.

I would like to speak today from the perspective of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), such as logistics operators, delivery riders, transport businesses, and food and beverage (F&B) operators. They spend more time on our roads than most Singaporeans and these amendments will have a direct impact on them.

First, I support the new offence of holding a mobile phone while driving. The current law requires authorities to prove that a driver was actively using the phone. That is difficult in practice. Under the Bill, simply holding the phone while the vehicle is moving becomes an offence.

This creates a much clearer rule. Hands on the wheel, phone on the mount. It is easier for motorists to understand and easier for Traffic Police to enforce. Importantly, mounted devices remain allowed and drivers may still use their phones when the vehicle is stationary. This strikes the right balance between road safety and the operational needs of delivery drivers and private hire drivers who depend on navigation for work.

Second, I support the tougher penalties for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt. Some victims survive but suffer lifelong consequences, like brain injuries, paralysis or permanent disability. Their families may spend years providing care. The law should reflect the seriousness of that harm. The increased penalties send a strong message that irresponsible behaviour on our roads carries serious consequences.

Third, I support lowering the legal alcohol limit. Today, the slogan reads: If you drink, do not drive. But I think it should be reversed: If you drive, do not drink. People respond differently to alcohol depending on their body, health and even whether they have eaten. Trying to calculate "how much is still safe" is not a good habit to encourage. The new limits also bring Singapore more in line with other advanced jurisdictions.

Mr Speaker, while I support the Bill, I have three constructive suggestions.

First, introduce a short education-first transition period before full enforcement of the new mobile phone offence. Many delivery riders and drivers have developed habits over many years of checking navigation or delivery applications while driving. Changing habits take time. I hope the Traffic Police can consider an advisory period of several months, where first-time offenders receive warnings and educational materials instead of immediate penalties, except in more serious cases.

During this period, Government agencies can work with platform companies, transport associations and SMEs to publicise the new rules in multiple languages. The objective is not simply to issue fines; it is to change behaviour.

Second, help SMEs make every commercial vehicle mount-ready. Many SME operators told me that this is not as straightforward as it sounds. One delivery van may be shared by three or four drivers across different shifts. Each driver uses a different phone model.

Instead of every business trying to solve the problem individually, perhaps Government could consider working with LTA and industry to develop a universal phone mount suitable for commercial vehicles. Support could also be provided to help SMEs retrofit their existing fleets. In time, such mounts could become standard equipment in newly registered goods vehicles, much like today's in-vehicle units. When every vehicle already has a suitable mount, safe behaviour becomes the easiest behaviour.

Third, partner our F&B sector to educate the public on the new alcohol limits. Many Singaporeans will not know that the legal limit has changed. Rather than expecting customers to interpret technical guidance about standard drinks or alcohol concentration, the message should remain simple as shared earlier: "If you drive, do not drink."

Restaurants, coffee shops and bars can help reinforce this through simple posters, table cards or coasters encouraging customers to take a taxi, use public transport or appoint a designated driver. Road safety is not solely the responsibility of enforcement agencies; businesses can also play an important role.

Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. The Bill rightly prohibits holding a mobile phone while driving. However, what happens if a phone is properly mounted but is playing videos while the vehicle is moving? The driver's hands remain on the wheel, but the driver's attention is no longer fully on the road. Currently, such conduct may only be dealt with under careless or dangerous driving, which still requires proof that the distraction affected the driver's driving. Does the Ministry intend to monitor this issue? Would it consider addressing this potential gap in future so that we do not simply shift the distraction from the driver's hand to the phone mount?

Mr Speaker, every day, Singaporeans drive, ride, cycle and walk on our roads. Road safety depends not only on good laws but also on responsible choices. This Bill strengthens both law and our enforcement. With thoughtful implementation and strong public education, it will also help change behaviour before accidents happen.

Let me end where I began. The delivery can wait, the phone call can wait; but every Singaporean should be able to return home safely. Let me share a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Lastly, road safety ultimately protects each family. Whenever we leave home, we all hope that we and our loved ones will return home safely. Many road accidents happen in a split second. It may be a moment of impulse, looking down at a mobile phone, or thinking that one has not drunk much and should be able to drive.

Therefore, the law must stop dangerous conduct in time and the public must also truly understand the risk. Drivers must focus on driving; riders must pay attention to their surroundings and pedestrians should put down their phones and check the road carefully when crossing.

If each of us exercises a little more vigilance and think more of others, we can reduce injuries that could have been avoided otherwise.

We must remember that while roads can be travelled again, a life once lost cannot be restored. Obeying traffic rules is not merely a matter of complying with the law; it is also about protecting the loved ones waiting for us at home.

( In English ): I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gabriel Lam.

4.26 pm

Mr Gabriel Lam (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. It is a necessary Bill and a timely one. But there is one gap I hope the Ministry will review and one refinement I hope it will consider.

Mr Speaker, our roads are getting more dangerous. Between 2021 and 2025, traffic deaths rose by about 24% and traffic offences by about 38%. The Ministry knows this. This Bill is its response and on the whole, it responds well.

Today, when a driver uses a car to scare or hurt someone on purpose, but we cannot prove intent to kill, the charge is usually dangerous driving causing death, capped at eight years. This Bill creates a new, tougher offence for exactly this conduct: up to 15 years' jail, caning at the Court's discretion, a lifetime driving ban, absent special reasons, and forfeiture of the vehicle.

This is the right message. A car is not a weapon for settling scores. I also support the tougher penalties for dangerous driving causing serious injury, the maximum rising from five years to seven years for a first offence; and from 10 to 13 years for a repeat offence.

Injuries, like brain damage, can leave a victim bedridden for life; the punishment should reflect that. Careless driving causing serious injury is rightly left unchanged, at two years for a first offence and four for a repeat one. The larger increase belongs where the conduct is more dangerous, and the Bill gets that balance right.

I welcome, too, the stricter drink driving limits, breath alcohol falling from 35 to 15 microgrammes, blood-alcohol from 80 to 30 milligrammes, bringing us closer to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.

The new offence for driving with any trace of a controlled drug or intoxicating substance, even absent visible impairment, closes a real gap. And the Bill fixes an old anomaly: a driving ban that used to run down while the offender sat in prison. Now it starts only on release.

Mr Speaker, the second limb of this Bill gives the Traffic Police the tools to work at scale. The Traffic Police processes hundreds of thousands of violations a year, and today an officer must manually review every photo or video before a Notice to Furnish Driver's Particulars can be issued. This Bill changes that: for objectively verifiable technical violations, speeding and red-light offences chief among them, the Traffic Police may use an automated decision-making system to assess the violation and issue the Notice without a human reviewing the footage first.

I do not object to this in principle. But once a Notice reaches a vehicle owner, the obligation on them is serious – 14 days to identify and furnish the driver's particulars or face prosecution themselves. Their only recourse against a mistaken Notice is to apply for revocation, reviewed manually, after the fact.

What the Bill does not do is place any corresponding limit on the Traffic Police's side: how long after an offence is detected the Notice itself may be issued. There is a hard 14-day clock running against the owner. There is no clock at all running against the system that generates the Notice.

This imbalance matters more, not less, precisely because the new system is automated and built for the volume MHA has described. A system built to run at that scale is also one where a processing backlog can build quietly and go unnoticed until it clears, and by the time a Notice for a months-long violation reaches an owner, the means of checking the system's work may already be gone: dashcam footage overwritten on its usual cycle, a fleet's shift roster long since filed away, memories of who was driving that day faded. An owner who would have identified the driver promptly, had the Notice arrived promptly, can still fail the 14-days test simply because the Notice was slow and lose any real ability to catch or contest a mistake.

I would ask the Ministry to close this imbalance directly; prescribing a maximum period – 30 days from detection would be a reasonable starting point, within which a Notice must be issued to the vehicle owner. If a system is fast enough to detect a violation and generate a Notice without manual review, it is fast enough to issue that Notice promptly too. Fairness to owners and the practical ability to verify or contest what the system has decided, both depend on closing this gap.

Mr Speaker, one effect of this Bill deserves attention. When we tighten thresholds – a lower alcohol limit, a new offence for any trace of a controlled substance, wider automated detection – we will catch more people, not just more dangerous people. Some of the newly caught will be genuinely reckless, others will be ordinary drivers who crossed a line that has simply moved, perhaps for the first time in years of otherwise safe driving.

The Bill already accepts that first-time and repeat offenders are different. That is exactly why it sets a lower penalty for a first offence and a higher one for a repeat offence under the grievous hurt provisions.

I ask the Ministry to extend that same thinking to how we respond to first-time offenders at the lower end, not only to how we sentence them.

Concretely, for first-time offenders caught under the newly tightened thresholds, go easy; pair a shorter suspension with mandatory retraining, such as a defensive driving or road safety course, so that the driver leaves with better habits, not merely a served suspension. For repeat offenders, go hard; the escalation the Bill already builds in for repeat conduct is right, and should stay uncompromising. A first-time, lower-culpability offender who completes retraining is less likely to re-offend than one who simply waits out a suspension and returns with the same habits unchanged. A repeat offender has already shown that leniency did not work and deserves the fuller weight of the law.

Mr Speaker, I support the Bill and I urge the Ministry to consider these two refinements: a statutory clock on Notice issuance to match the one already imposed on owners; and a graduated response that goes easy on first-time offenders while going hard on repeat ones. Neither changes the Bill's direction. Both would make it fairer and stronger in its execution.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

4.34 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): While Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates worldwide, our roads are becoming increasingly dangerous. There is a Chinese phrase, "马路如虎口", which means the roads are like the mouths of tigers. Indeed, in the past five years, our roads have become more dangerous as traffic violations rose 38% and fatality rates rose 24%.

We must not allow more innocent lives to be lost due to careless or reckless drivers. Hence, I support the amendments to the Road Traffic Bill, to impose stiffer penalties on dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt, specifically due to drink driving and using mobile communication devices while driving.

Smartphones have become an integral part of our lives because they remove most of the friction from everyday transactions. They have also become a mobile platform for entertainment videos. Many people find it a struggle to leave their phones out of sight or not to use their smartphones for an extended duration of time or for doom scrolling, which to me, is a blight on modern life.

But it is not just bad for our cognitive and social development – it is a dangerous habit for drivers. Instead of focusing their eyes and their minds on the road conditions, their attention is split between operating their cars and operating their smartphones.

Smartphones usage is a common cause of split-second misjudgement and mishandling of vehicles, resulting in accidents. In our densely-populated city-state with millions of road users daily, the probability and risks of one being involved in a serious road accident has been on the rise.

The amendments to the RTA aim to deter the use of mobile communication devices by allowing the Traffic Police to enforce the offence using cameras or based on photographic or videographic evidence submitted by members of the public, which will increase the detection of such offences. So long the driver holds the mobile communication device in his or her hand while the vehicle is in motion, even if the driver is not making a call or typing a message, this would constitute an offence. In contrast, if the device is mounted, it is not an offence.

While the revised definition gives clarity to what constitutes an offence, it may not have necessarily addressed the real cause of distraction to the driver. As a case in point, it is not an uncommon sight for drivers to be watching their Korean or Chinese dramas on their mounted smart devices.

In reality, the driver's attention is clearly divided if his or her attention is on the characters inside the mobile phone screen, rather than on the other vehicles and pedestrians in front of his or her big windscreen. My concern is that instead of curtailing distracting activities related to the use of smart communication devices, the amendments may instead legitimatise the blatant misuse of mounted devices. Can the Minister clarify MHA's position towards such use of mobile devices and if they would constitute an offence?

Over the years, the Traffic Police have installed hundreds of speed cameras, red-light cameras, set up roadblocks and deployed dozens of patrol teams to apprehend drivers who are speeding or drinking under the influence of alcohol. Although resource-intensive, kudos to the hard work of the the Traffic Police officers, they have kept our roads relatively safe over the past decades.

The use of mobile communication devices while driving will be much harder to detect, let alone to apprehend the offenders red-handed with evidence. Many vehicles have sunshades attached onto the windows and drivers may be operating their phones at a position well below eye-level, which makes it even harder to gather evidence.

The amendments would allow the Traffic Police the enforcement of the offence using photographic or videographic evidence submitted by members of the public. However, it would be difficult for the Traffic Police riders or patrol teams to detect someone operating their smart devices, let alone other members of public, unless they are sitting in the same vehicles. Hence, I am concerned over the efficacy of the latest amendments, other than to deter bad behaviour.

My view is that other than stricter penalties, we need to work on three areas, namely instilling awareness, education and leveraging technology.

First of all, we should instill awareness in our young children both in school and at home, to always be vigilant. It is a common sight these days of pedestrians looking down at their mobile phones, wearing headphones and looking completely oblivious to the surroundings, while crossing the roads. These inattentive pedestrians are a hazard if they appear out of nowhere, especially at night at zebra crossings and at traffic lights crossings. We need stronger measures to remind pedestrians not to use their mobile communication devices while crossing roadways.

The Road Safety Park at East Coast Parkway has always been a fun and an effective way for primary school students to learn about traffic rules. However, the roadways these days have become more complicated. Improved traffic lights systems, such as the Red Amber Green turning lights have been deployed in many cross junctions and curb cut crossings have also been added to help pedestrians cross roadways more safely. The Road Safety Park should be revamped to incorporate the latest road safety features. Students attending road safety course should also learn about the dangers of a pedestrian using mobile phones and wearing headphones playing loud music. If these poor habits are not corrected from a young age, it may be a lot harder to convince a teenager to stay vigilant and alert on the roads, until something bad happens.

Secondly, training at driving centres and by private driving instructors must be stepped up to reinforce the "no mobile devices while driving" practice. The driving instructors must set a good example and the use of mobile devices by both instructors and learner-drivers must not be permitted during driving lessons. Also, the curriculum should include a module on examples of past accidents caused by the use of mobile devices, to let learner-drivers understand the extent of harm and damage that can result. Lastly, the basic driving test should also include questions related to the "dos" and "don'ts" of mobile device use while driving.

Thirdly, drivers should leverage on technology to operate their mobile communication devices using voice activated commands. With software enhancements, most devices are now equipped with voice recognition functions, for instance, replying a WhatsApp message using voice instead of typing out the message. In case of an urgent need to make a call or reply to a message, drivers can use voice-activated commands, which will reduce the need to operate their mobile devices with their hands while driving. Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, other than stricter penalties, we need to focus on three areas, namely cultivating awareness, enhancing education and leveraging technology.

These measures should not only be directed at drivers. We should also cultivate awareness in our children from young, both in school and at home, so that they remain vigilant.

It is a common sight these days of pedestrians looking down at their mobile phones, wearing headphones and looking completely oblivious to the surroundings, while crossing the roads.

We need stronger measures to remind pedestrians not to use their mobile communication devices while crossing the road.

As a society, every road user has a responsibility to practice road safety, to keep each other out of harm's way.

We should all take a proactive, preventative approach to minimise road accidents.

Stiffer penalties can only be a deterrent because after an accident occurs, the harm and damage caused cannot be undone.

We do not wish to live in regret that we should have been more vigilant and more careful. Let us continue to remind one another that the roads will always remain dangerous unless every user does his or her part to stay safe.

(In English) : At the end of the day, safe driving boils down to a sense of responsibility and self-discipline. Every driver should understand that their fast-moving vehicle can become a weapon that can destroy life and property. They may also have to serve time in jail and lose their driving licence if found guilty.

As a society, every road user has a responsibility to ensure safe road practices, to keep each other out of harm's way, and we should all take a proactive, preventative approach to minimise road accidents. Stiffer penalties can only be a deterrent because after an accident occurs, the harm and damage cannot be undone. We do not wish to live in regret that we should have been more vigilant and more careful. Let us continue to remind one another the roads will always remain dangerous unless every user does his or her part to stay safe. Mr Speaker, allow me to share a few points in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Bill, to impose stiffer penalties on dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt, specifically due to drink-driving and using mobile communication devices while driving.

Smart phones usage is a common cause of split-second misjudgement and mishandling of vehicles, resulting in accidents.

My view is that other than stricter penalties, we need to work on three areas, namely instilling awareness, education and leveraging technology.

For instance, drivers should leverage technology to operate their mobile phones using voice activated commands. With software enhancements, most devices are now equipped with voice recognition functions, for instance, replying to a message using voice instead of typing out a message. In case of an urgent need to make a call or reply to a message, drivers can use voice-activated commands which will reduce the need to operate their mobile devices with their hands while driving.

At the end of the day, safe driving boils down to a sense of responsibility and self-discipline. Every driver should understand that their fast-moving vehicle is a weapon that can destroy lives and properties. They will also have to serve time in jail and lose their driving license if found guilty.

We do not wish to live in regret that we should have been more vigilant and more careful. Let us continue to remind one another that roads will always remain dangerous unless every user does his or her part.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, after having said all this, I wish to add a radical idea. To focus on punitive measures and detection is akin to filling a leaking bucket. The best and perhaps the only solution is to stow away the smart devices when driving, especially if they are not required for navigation.

There are countries which ban devices for young children because of the damage to their minds. Why do we do less for actions which damage our lives? Mr Speaker, I support the amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yeo.

4.48 pm

Mr Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, I believe the amendments sought to the RTA today seek to achieve three outcomes: first, to make our roads safer for everyone; second, to make the thresholds of our road traffic laws clearer for drivers and riders; third, to allow our enforcement officers to better perform their duties in protecting all road users.

I think, importantly, it is hoped that over time, these amendments will enable all road users to reset driving habits and reshape road behaviours. And if we are able to achieve this, then our roads will be indeed safer for all.

Sir, the increase in traffic fatalities and injuries make this Bill a timely one. I believe we can all agree that road safety affects more than just drivers and riders, whether we are pedestrians, public transport users, riders, cyclists or drivers at any given time.

According to the Police's Annual Road Traffic Situation Report 2025, fatalities on the roads rose from 107 in 2021 to 149 in 2025. The number of people injured on our roads rose from 7,240 to 9,955 in the same period.

What is most concerning is the vulnerability of particular segments of our road users. For example, while motorcycles formed only about 15% of our vehicle population in 2025, motorcyclists and their pillion riders were involved in 54.8% of all traffic accidents and accounted for about 53% of all traffic fatalities – more than half.

Our seniors constitute 12.9% of our population in 2025, yet account for 75% of all pedestrian fatalities. Fatal accidents involving elderly pedestrians more than doubled in one year from 11 in 2024 to 27 in 2025.

We also have recently read reports on the increase in work-related traffic fatalities and injuries. Workers who travel on our roads daily for a living, such as our logistics and platform drivers and riders, face far greater risks due to increased exposure and time spent on the roads. In many instances, they are involved in accidents not of their making but by the actions of other road users.

Safety on our roads is therefore non-negotiable. This Bill will hopefully go some way in addressing this and reducing these risks.

Sir, while the amendments appear on their face to impose stricter requirements on drivers, they will also bring greater clarity as to what constitutes not just safer but responsible driving. In the past, for instance, a driver may attempt to evaluate how much he or she can drink to stay within the legal limit to drive.

However, as we know, the effect of alcohol impairment, varies with gender, age, health and body composition. And with the proposed lower alcohol limit, the message is clearer: "If you drink, don't drive". In fact, the Ministry, in its recent press release, made this statement that there is really no safe number of alcohol drinks before driving.

If this is the position that the Ministry takes, I thought I wanted to ask a question on whether the Minister can share if the Ministry considered a zero-tolerance stance like some jurisdictions have done with regards to alcohol limits and the reasons why the lower thresholds of alcohol limits were selected instead.

For the use of mobile devices, I think it is quite clear. The amendments now clarify that if the vehicle is in motion, a driver should not, at any instance, be holding on to their mobile phones. There will be drivers who will say that they are holding on to their mobile phones is a matter of habit with no intention of use. Others will say it is no difference from holding a cup of coffee while you are driving. But I would say that if this so, then, perhaps, it is a good opportunity to change the habit.

Why are mobile phones more culpable? Holding a mobile phone in one hand inevitably gives rise to the possibility that the driver can and will be distracted by messages, by calls or even the temptation to scroll. With the proposed amendment, the message is now clear. When you drive, you either mount your device safely, integrate it with your vehicle's infotainment system. Otherwise, leave your mobile phone aside.

For driving under the influence of drugs, the Bill seeks to remove the proof of impairment requirement, in cases where drivers are found under the influence of controlled drugs, psychoactive or intoxicating substances. If a person is under such influence still chooses to drive and put other road users in danger, then the driver/rider must surely be taken to task by the law, without the onus being on the authorities to have to prove impairment.

In fact, I would take a further step and ask if the Ministry will consider calibrating the exception for prescription drugs. If a person is unwell and he is prescribed medications by his or her doctor that are not only likely, but it is almost certain to cause drowsiness or impairment, then the safe and responsible thing to do, must surely be – not to drive, not to ride.

Sir, finally on enforcement. Clearer laws are easier to enforce. Our officers no longer need to prove the use of a mobile phone while the vehicle is in operation. They do not need to prove impairment with the presence of controlled substances. This is not a lowering or changing of standards. It is the removal of evidential hurdles that make enforcement challenging. Importantly, it will send an unambiguous and clear signal on where we stand as a society on road safety for all road users.

This Bill is not about new offences, higher thresholds or stiffer penalties. It is about the driver who chooses to leave his or her car behind after a drink or the driver who remains fully focused on driving while leaving his mobile phone properly mounted on the dashboard.

Resetting driving habits and reshaping road behaviours are what this Bill seeks to achieve. And if we succeed, then perhaps, most of the provisions in this Bill may rarely have to be enforced at all.

Sir, safer roads is in everyone's interests. We all want to return home safely to our families every day. Safety on our roads is non-negotiable because behind every traffic fatality is a family for whom an ordinary everyday journey changed lives tragically and irreversibly. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Diana Pang.

4.56 pm

Ms Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Our roads are becoming less safe and I agree our laws must keep pace with changing behaviour and technology. But whenever we expand criminal liability, we must also ensure that the law is clear, proportionate and fair. Dangerous conduct should be punished, but ordinary drivers acting reasonably should not be unintentionally caught by the law.

Today, I wish to speak on three areas: the proposed offence of holding a mobile communication device while driving, the lowering of the drink driving limits and finally, road hogging.

First, holding of mobile communication devices while driving. I welcome the proposed amendment to section 65B. It is sensible that the Bill does not criminalise the holding or the use of a handphone while a vehicle is stationary. Drivers may need to change the Global Positioning System destination, inform someone that they are delayed or deal with an urgent matter before continuing their journey.

However, once the vehicle is moving, this Bill makes the act of physically holding a phone an offence, without needing to prove that the driver was actually using it.

I understand why. It closes an evidential gap and makes enforcement easier. But we must be careful not to replace one problem with another. A phone may slip from its holder or fall near the pedals. A driver may instinctively pick it up, place it somewhere safe without looking at the screen or operating any function on the phone. Should that one-second act alone make the driver a criminal?

I therefore ask the Minister whether section 95 of the Penal Code, which embodies the de minimis principle, will apply in such situations. If a driver handles a phone just for a second, solely to remove an immediate hazard and without causing distraction to himself, will that still amount to an offence?

Motorists should not have to wait until they receive demerit points or face prosecution before discovering where the legal boundary lies. After all, we do not automatically criminalise a driver who briefly picks up a fallen water bottle, wallet or another object. If doing so results in careless or dangerous driving, the driver can already be prosecuted. But simply holding the object, in itself, is not an offence. I therefore hope the Minister can clarify section 95 of the Penal Code will apply in such a situation as I have described.

Next, there is also an issue of consistency. A driver may spend several seconds typing on a mounted phone, entering a destination into a navigation system or repeatedly tapping a touchscreen while the vehicle is moving. That can be equally distracting as holding a phone.

If the intent of the law is to remove distraction for the better of road safety, should we not also consider criminalising the act of operating a mounted device while driving?

A tougher rule for handphone use whilst driving is justified because this is a significant source of distraction. But the law should also distinguish between the deliberate use of a phone, versus a temporary movement of a phone purely for necessity. It should also address the the safety issues of whether a phone is held on one hand versus when it is mounted. Both methods ultimately cause distractions for the driver. I hope the Government can clarify these boundaries so that motorists can understand exactly what the law requires.

Second, drink driving. I fully support stronger action against drink driving. The message should be simple: if you drink, do not drive. Drink driving places innocent lives at risk. We should continue to deter it firmly.

The Bill proposes to reduce the prescribed breath alcohol limit from 35 microgrammes to 15 microgrammes; and the blood alcohol limit from 80 milligrammes to 30 milligrammes. These are substantial reductions. If Parliament lowers the legal threshold by more than half, then the science behind enforcement must be equally robust. The Bill allows the Handheld Breath Evidential Analyser to produce an evidential reading at the roadside instead of requiring a second evidential test at the police lock-up. This improves efficiency. It allows the reading to be taken closer to the time of driving. But convenience must never come at the expense of accuracy.

I therefore ask the Minister how the margin of error for such measurements will be addressed, especially for the readings at or just above the legal limit? Will borderline readings require confirmation, for example, a second test? Will there be prosecutorial discretion shown for measurements that are just slightly above the limit? Will drivers be entitled to a second test if the reading is only marginally above the prescribed limit?

I would also appreciate the clarification on how these devices will be approved and independently validated. Have they been tested under Singapore's operating conditions, including our temperature and humidity? If the accuracy of a device is challenged at trial, will maintenance, calibration and error records be disclosed to the defence?

Public confidence depends not only on tough laws, but also on the confidence that the evidence is accurate. I hope the Government will consider making reliable self-testing devices more accessible to members of public. Consumer breathalysers are already available, but their quality varies greatly. The Government could certify approved models, publish a list of independently tested devices or encourage licensed premises, such as restaurants, bars and clubs, to make certified devices available to all patrons.

These devices should never replace personal responsibility. The safest choice remains not to drive after drinking. But prevention should go hand in hand with enforcement. If we expect motorists to comply with much lower limits, we should also equip them to make responsible decisions before getting behind the wheel.

Finally, I ask the Government has studied the increasing number of gummies, tablets and supplements marketed as helping to reduce breath alcohol readings or break down alcohol more quickly. Whether or not these claims are scientifically valid, they may give certain motorists a false sense of confidence. Clear public guidance will help to ensure that the motorists do not rely on misleading advertisements and instead make responsible action, decision not to drive if in doubt.

Finally, road hogging. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have saved my strongest appeal for last. Every driver in Singapore knows exactly what I am talking about. A driver remains in the rightmost lane despite having ample opportunity to move left. A queue builds behind. Frustration grows. Drivers weave across the lanes, overtaking on the left or follow too closely. Tempers rise.

What begins as inconsiderate behaviour can quickly become a safety issue for everyone. Road hogging does not excuse speeding, tailgating or dangerous driving. Every motorist remains responsible for his own action. But neither should we ignore the conduct that unnecessarily creates congestion, frustration and conflict on our roads.

The speed limit is not a licence to camp in the overtaking lane nor should any driver take it upon himself to decide how fast everyone else behind him should travel. The rightmost lane is for overtaking. Once that manoeuvre is completed, drivers should return to the left whenever it is safe to do so.

I recognise that our existing Road Traffic Rules already require slower vehicles to keep left and prohibit obstructing faster-moving traffic. But the reality is that many motorists either do not understand these rules or simply ignore them. The existing framework has not created sufficient awareness or deterrence.

Road hogging is more than just an annoyance. It contributes to unnecessary lane changing, undertaking, sudden braking, tailgating, road rage and may even delay emergency vehicles trying to get through.

I therefore urge the Government to consider creating a clear standalone offence for persistent road hogging. Such an offence should target drivers who remain unnecessarily in the overtaking lane despite having a safe opportunity to move left, who are not overtaking and who materially obstruct the lawful flow of traffic without reasonable justification.

Enforcement is increasingly feasible through cameras and technology, supported by human review. Objective factors, such as how long the vehicle remained in the overtaking lane, whether it was overtaking, whether the adjacent lane was clear and whether traffic accumulated behind it, could all be considered before prosecution takes place.

Better lane discipline is not about convenience. It is about safety. We need to stop road hogging today to make our roads safer.

Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. But as we strengthen our laws, we must also ensure they remain fair, proportionate and practical. We should draw a clear line between dangerous conduct and momentary acts done in the interest of safety. We should match tougher drink driving laws with reliable science, accurate enforcement and stronger prevention. And we should finally give road hogging the attention it deserves.

Safer roads require drivers who are attentive, sober and considerate. Road safety is not only about how fast we drive. It is also about how responsibly we share the road. With these observations, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.

5.07 pm

Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I see the behavior of some people on the road, a phrase pops into my mind: "You think this is your grandfather's road?" Not everyone in Singapore drives in an unsafe manner, but it takes just one black sheep to endanger all of us.

Every day, hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans entrust their safety to other road users: to the driver in the next lane, to the cyclist ahead, to the stranger crossing the road at dusk. Road safety is, at its heart, a promise we make to one another. We do not know the people we share the road with and yet, we depend entirely on their care for us, as they depend on ours.

This Bill states plainly, that the safety of one Singaporean can never be a lesser priority than the convenience of another.

Let me speak to three aspects of the Bill.

First, clauses 11, 13 and 19 which enact changes to drink driving and drug driving laws. Sir, the Bill lowers the prescribed alcohol limits for driving: the breath alcohol limit falls from 35 to 15 microgrammes; and the blood alcohol limit falls from 80 to 30 milligrammes. It also introduces a new offence for driving with specified controlled or psychoactive substances present in the blood.

Some may ask whether this is too strict a standard. I would ask, strict compared to what? A driver's reaction time is not a matter of personal preference – it is a matter of other people's lives. A car travelling at 60 km/h covers almost 17 metres every second. That is the difference between an elderly pedestrian safely crossing the road, and a family receiving a call no family should ever receive. If a lower limit gives a driver even half a second more clarity, half a second more control, then it has already justified itself.

I support this change because it reflects a simple truth: the right to drive after drinking is not a matter of legal rights, but a risk that other road users were made to bear without their consent. This Bill returns that risk to where it belongs – with the driver who chose to take it.

Second, clause 10 and its enacted changes to mobile phone offences. The Bill removes the requirement that a driver be actively using a mobile device's functions. It will now be an offence simply to hold a mobile communication device while driving. Devices must be properly secured to an approved mount.

Sir, I have heard the argument that this may be an inconvenience to some. But I would gently suggest that we ask a different question: is the two seconds it takes to glance at a screen worth the safety risks it presents? A driver's hands should hold a steering wheel, not a phone. This is not a difficult standard to meet and I believe most Singaporean drivers already meet it. This amendment closes a loophole that allowed a driver to hold a phone at the wheel so long as they claimed that they were not using it.

Third, on clauses 6 to 8, and 21 and its changes to punitive and legal measures. The Bill introduces a new offence of purposeful endangerment using a motor vehicle, with penalties of up to 15 years' imprisonment; it raises maximum sentences for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt; and it empowers the Deputy Commissioner of Police to authorise a computer program to assess camera evidence and issue Notices to vehicle owners for certain strict liability offences.

I support all three changes. A driver who deliberately turns a vehicle into an instrument to frighten or harm another person has stepped outside the ordinary risks of the road and the law is right to treat that conduct with the seriousness it deserves. Likewise, raising sentences for grievous hurt caused by dangerous driving sends an unambiguous signal: carelessness that maims or kills a fellow citizen is not merely a traffic matter – it is a matter of justice.

But, Sir, I wish to speak candidly on the introduction in of an automated decision-making system in clause 81A of the Bill, in the case of enforcement using a computer program.

Technology can help us process the sheer volume of footage and evidence that a modern transport system, like ours, generates and I do not doubt its usefulness. But I would urge this House and the Ministry, to hold firmly to one principle as we proceed: the law exists to serve people, not the other way around. A computer program may assess evidence efficiently, but it cannot exercise judgement, cannot weigh context and cannot look a citizen in the eye.

There is a difference between using technology to assist enforcement and allowing technology to become an arbiter of guilt.

Clause 2.7 of the Infocomm Media Development Authority Model AI Governance Framework posits the guiding principles that AI use in decision-making should be explainable, transparent, fair and human-centric. Will a human being review the assessment made by the system before a Notice is issued? A computer system could make mistakes. How will we ensure that we are not wrongly issuing Notices?

A wrongly issued Notice imposes a heavy burden on those who do not know how to navigate the system or those with less bandwidth in their lives, such as delivery riders, who are already trying to work three jobs at a time. We must never let efficiency become a substitute for justice. It is a tenet of justice that every citizen has a right to be heard by another human being before consequences are imposed on them.

It is for this reason that I am encouraged to see the Bill provide vehicle owners the right to apply for a human review and revocation of an automated Notice. I commend the Ministry for including it.

But, Sir, a safeguard that exists today must not erode over time. I would ask the Ministry for an assurance. This right should not exist only at the Bill's passage, but that it must be actively upheld, resourced and protected against dilution by future policy or operational shifts made without this House's scrutiny.

Whatever tools we adopt to keep our roads safe, the citizen must remain at the centre of our legal system – not the algorithm, not the camera and not the convenience of the system. That principle must be non-negotiable today, and in every year that follows.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are a nation that speaks proudly of our kampong spirit – of neighbours who look out for one another, of a society that prizes kindness, graciousness and mutual regard. I have met so many gracious people in our homes and in our hawker centres. And yet, too often, that kampong spirit disappears the moment we step behind a wheel – the driver who tailgates a slower car; the motorist who refuses to give way to a pedestrian at a crossing; the road user who treats every journey as a race to be won, rather than a space to be shared.

These behaviors are not befitting of who we say we are. Our roads are not separate from our society, but are an extension of it. How we drive is how we treat one another when no one seems to be watching.

This Bill should not just be a set of legal amendments, but a mark of growth for us as a society that wishes to build safer roads and a kinder driving culture. Not only through the force of law, but through kind and socially-responsible decisions each of us makes every day.

Hopefully, in the future, instead of "You think this is your grandfather's road?", we can all say, "This is our road". Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.

5.15 pm

Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. It raises the maximum penalties for careless and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, tightens the prescribed alcohol limits for drink driving and makes clear that when a vehicle is moving, it will be an offence for a driver simply to hold a mobile communication device without the need to prove that the driver was operating it.

I would like to focus on distracted driving and on why this legal change should be complemented by measures that help drivers protect their attention.

Some time ago, my husband became concerned about my safety when I was driving. He helped me activate the "Do Not Disturb While Driving" function on my phone. It was a small intervention. When the phone detects that I may be driving, notifications are silenced and an automatic response can let others know that I am on the road. What struck me was that my husband did not simply tell me to exercise more self-control. He changed the settings around me, so that exercising self-control became easier.

That captures an important psychological reality. Most drivers know that checking a phone while driving is dangerous. Yet knowledge does not always overcome impulse. A notification appears. We tell ourselves that it will take only one second, or that we are good at multi-tasking.

Our devices are very effective at capturing our attention. They create a sense of urgency even when the message itself is not urgent. So, while individual responsibility must remain at the centre of road safety, we should also design systems that make responsible behaviour easier.

The Bill's focus on handheld devices is supported by evidence. The World Health Organization estimates that drivers using mobile phones are approximately four times as likely to be involved in a crash as drivers who are not using a phone. This makes sense when we consider the different ways in which a phone distracts us. There is visual distraction, when our eyes leave the road; physical distraction, when a hand leaves the steering wheel; cognitive distraction, when our mind is occupied by another task; and auditory distraction, when a sound or conversation draws our attention away.

Handheld phone use could potentially involve all four forms of distraction at the same time. This is why removing the need to prove that the driver was actively operating the device is a sensible amendment.

The amendment also makes it easier to enforce the rules, including through cameras, photographic or video evidence submitted by the public. Deterrence depends not only on the severity of a penalty, but also on whether people believe that a violation is likely to be detected.

However, the fact that the Bill does not prohibit mounted devices should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily safe. A mounted device may remove the need to hold the phone, but it does not remove visual or cognitive distraction.

Mounted devices are also necessary for many drivers. Private hire, taxi and delivery drivers rely on phones for navigation and work allocation. The law must draw an enforceable line, but drivers should not mistake that legal line for the boundary between safe and unsafe behaviour. A phone mount is not a licence to multi-task.

At the heart of this issue is the psychology of attention. Human beings have limited attentional capacity. What we casually call multi-tasking is in fact our attention switching rapidly between tasks. During each switch, we may fail to process important information.

I was particularly struck by a recent Straits Times commentary by my colleague, Mr Krishnan Menon, from the Nanyang Centre for Marketing and Technology at the Nanyang Technological University. He highlighted that Singapore recorded 149 road fatalities in 2025, the highest number in a decade, and that "failure to keep a proper lookout" was identified in 52% of accidents.

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

This does not mean that every such accident involved a mobile phone. But it tells us that inattention itself is a major road safety concern. The physical reality is sobering. A vehicle travelling at 90 km/h covers about 25 metres every second. If a driver looks away for just two seconds, the vehicle travels about 50 metres – approximately the length of an Olympic swimming pool – without the driver fully observing what is happening ahead.

Within those two seconds, a pedestrian may step onto the road, a motorcyclist may enter a blind spot, or the vehicle in front may brake. The road does not pause while we answer a message.

Legal sanctions are therefore a critical first step. They establish a norm, strengthen deterrence and give the Traffic Police clearer tools for enforcement.

But research on handheld phone bans is mixed. Some studies find reductions in phone use or crashes after restrictions are introduced. Others find that the effects are stronger in the short term than in the longer term. Some drivers may also try to evade detection by holding their phones lower, causing them to look even further away from the road.

This does not mean that the law is unnecessary. It means that the law is one lever but not the full solution. If the behaviour is driven by habits, impulses and the pressure to remain constantly connected, we must also help drivers establish and sustain safer habits.

I have three suggestions.

First, make attention management part of driver education and continuing education. Learner drivers should understand the four forms of distraction and the limits of multi-tasking. Simulator and hazard-perception exercises can let them experience how easily they miss a hazard while completing a secondary task. Theory and practical tests can also cover mounted devices, navigation and work notifications, and teach drivers to set up their journey before moving off.

We can pair this with simple "if-then" plans. For example, "If I need to change my destination, then I will stop safely before doing so." Such plans turn a general intention into a response prepared before temptation arises.

Safe-driving education should also be refreshed at existing touchpoints, such as vocational-licence renewals, remedial programmes and reinstatement after suspension or disqualification. Managing attention should be treated as a core driving competency, not an optional piece of advice.

Second, use technology and platform design to reduce the demands placed on drivers. New drivers could be prompted to activate "Do Not Disturb While Driving" when they obtain their licences. Similar reminders could appear when motorists activate On-Board Units (OBU) or renew a vocational licence. The OBU could also offer an optional reminder at the start of a journey to activate driving mode or set navigation before moving off. Any prompt should be simple and delivered while the vehicle is stationary, so that an intervention intended to reduce distraction does not itself become another distraction.

We should also work with private hire, taxi and delivery platforms. For these drivers, the phone is a work tool. Platform design and incentive structures should not force them to choose between driving safely and earning a livelihood.

The Government could work with platform operators to minimise the need for interaction while vehicles are moving. This could include simpler displays, voice-guided directions, suppressing non-essential notifications and sufficiently long response windows so drivers can wait until it is safe before responding to job offers. Drivers should not be penalised for putting their safety first.

Many operators and commercial fleets already provide safety guidance and driver training. We should build on these efforts by ensuring that attentive driving and the management of digital distractions are consistently covered.

Third, pilot voluntary feedback and rewards. In a large, randomised trial published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, weekly goals and social competition reduced handheld phone use by about 20% relative to the control group. Some of the improvement continued after the intervention ended.

Singapore has previously introduced telematics-based motor-insurance products, so there is a foundation on which to build. Insurers and fleet operators could pilot voluntary programmes offering drivers private feedback, weekly attentive-driving goals and small rewards for sustained improvement.

Such pilots should be evaluated locally and designed with safeguards for privacy, consent and fairness. At least initially, the data should be used to encourage and reward safer behaviour rather than to penalise drivers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, driving deserves more respect than we sometimes give it. The average car driver controls a machine weighing well over a tonne, often travelling at speeds capable of causing grievous hurt or death. Driving may feel routine, but the responsibility we assume each time we take the wheel is anything but routine.

On the road, no decision affects only ourselves. A passenger places trust in the driver. A pedestrian assumes that an approaching driver is alert. A cyclist or motorcyclist depends on being noticed. Every journey depends on thousands of strangers remaining attentive and making responsible decisions toward one another.

A moment of convenience – a message checked, a destination changed, an impulse indulged – can result in a lifetime of regret.

The Bill sends an important and necessary message: when a vehicle is moving, the phone should not be in the driver's hand. But our wider message must go further. It should not be allowed to take possession of the driver's attention either. When we take the wheel, the attention we give to the road becomes part of the protection we owe one another. With these comments, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

5.27 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a director of a law corporation, whose areas of practice include criminal defence and regulatory matters.

I rise in support of this Bill, and my speech today will focus on specific issues and seek a few clarifications.

Firstly, clause 10 seeks to amend section 65B(1) so that it will be an offence for a driver simply to hold a mobile communication device while the vehicle is in motion on the road or in a public place. The requirement that the driver must also operate any of the device's communicative or other functions will no longer be needed to constitute the offence commonly known as "handphone driving".

It is not contentious that a driver should be punished under the present un-amended section 65B if he or she has used "the mobile communication device's communicative or other functions", since such a driver's attention is clearly divided and distracted from operating the vehicle safely. The present section 65B rightly targets the impermissible policy object, which is the risk, if not the fact of distraction arising from the use of the device.

That said, in a Mothership report dated 10 July 2026, MHA is cited as having clarified, and I quote, that "the acts of eating, drinking or smoking while driving are not offences in and of themselves".

Furthermore, on a close reading of the proposed amendment to section 65B, holding anything other than a "mobile communication device" as defined under section 65B(3) would not constitute an offence.

This brings me to my first clarification. The Ministry has described its approach as a "calibrated" one. Could the Ministry explain how, in the context of the mere physical act of holding an object, it distinguishes between a mobile communication device on the one hand and everything else on the other? More specifically, how does the Ministry justify criminalising the mere act of holding a mobile communication device while driving, but not when a driver performs a more physically engaging activity, such as eating, drinking or smoking, which may likewise distract the driver's concentration on the road.

To be clear, I am not proposing that eating, driving or smoking while driving should be criminalised. However, the Ministry's rationalisation of its calibrated approach should be clarified, especially since Parliament's intent will be examined by the enforcement authorities, legal practitioners and our Courts if the Bill is passed.

My next clarification is whether the Ministry has contemplated specific scenarios in which drivers may inadvertently fall foul of the new section 65B. And if the matter is left to police discretion, how should that discretion be exercised? For example, even when a mobile communication device is properly secured in a mounting affixed in the manner intended by the manufacturer, it is not uncommon for such mounts to become dislodged. This could be due to prolonged exposure to heat from Singapore's tropical climate as such mounts are most commonly affixed to the windshield of a vehicle under direct sunlight or due to hard braking or other maneuver to avoid an accident.

And just as what my fellow Parliamentary colleague, Ms Diana Pang, has shared earlier, it is not a fanciful possibility that a driver may instinctively catch a falling device and at that precise moment, be observed by the Police.

Another plausible scenario involves private hire car or other driving service providers who need to plug in a hands-free earpiece to take a call, especially when it is not practicable for them to use the vehicle's built-in Bluetooth function for privacy reasons or to minimise the disturbance caused to their passenger.

My other clarification under this clause is to seek the rationale behind the Ministry's proposal to remove the "operate" element entirely, rather than, for example, requiring a driver alleged to have committed an offence under the new section 65B to prove on a balance of probabilities that he or she was not operating a device. In my view, the latter would be a more calibrated approach than what is currently proposed.

I now turn to the question of how we can keep rehabilitation and the protection of livelihoods in view as we strengthen our road safety framework.

The passage of this Bill, coupled with the Traffic Police's announcement on 31 July 2026 that it will tighten the Driver Improvement Points System from 1 January 2027, will mean more drivers being caught and sanctioned, and therefore receiving more demerit points.

Just as what my fellow Parliamentary colleague, Ms Poh Li San has shared with this House earlier, as the Chinese saying goes, "马路如虎口". The road is just like a tiger's mouth. This Bill rightly puts road safety first.

Yet, as many of my hon colleagues and I have encountered on a regular basis at our respective Meet-the-People Sessions, we must not forget that many residents rely on their driving licence to earn a living and raise their families. While we strengthen enforcement and enhance penalties for errant road users, I sincerely believe that there must also be room for second chances.

In this vein, I ask whether the Ministry has considered, or will consider, a form of "suspended suspension" for motorists who accumulate the relevant number of demerit points. What I mean is this: especially for private hire car drivers, delivery drivers, passenger-ferrying drivers and others whose livelihoods are wholly dependent on operating a vehicle, could they, instead of or prior to suspension, be placed on a driving performance improvement plan, just like what my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Darryl David, has also suggested in his speech earlier, and/or consider for these drivers to be allowed to provide a sum with sufficient deterrent effect to guarantee good driving behaviour, similar to the concept of a bail?

Save for those disqualified for life, other drivers have the prospect of returning as responsible road users. This proposal, I believe, could rehabilitate these motorists more effectively and more quickly for their personal betterment and for greater utility to the public. These motorists would also realise, if they had not already, the grave consequences of continued errant driving; namely, loss of their driving licence, consequent loss of livelihood, financial hardship for themselves and their families and most importantly, that it is entirely within their control to avoid these outcomes.

The core policy objective of safer roads would remain unchanged. The signal would, if anything, be strengthened; that bad behaviour attracts real consequences. This, to me, is another calibrated approach that would further our goal of improving safety while allowing drivers and perhaps also their families, a second chance to avoid ending up in a perilous and potentially unrecoverable situation.

My next point concerns ensuring that every affected driver charged in Court has access to justice. The Public Defender's Office under the Ministry of Law currently does not provide legal representation to persons charged under the RTA, even where the individual who is facing financial hardship faces a potential term of imprisonment.

In view of the increased severity of the penalties under this Bill, would the Government consider reviewing the Public Defender's Act to remove the RTA from the list of excluded offences in the schedule? In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, while this Bill rightly focuses on strengthening the responsibilities of drivers, road safety is ultimately a shared duty. Pedestrians, cyclists and personal mobility device riders who are distracted by their mobile phones also contribute to accidents and near-misses on our roads and footpaths.

I therefore ask whether the Ministry is also studying measures to address phone distraction among these other road users. If the fundamental aim of this Bill is to enhance overall road safety, then a more holistic approach, one that also encourages all road users to stay vigilant would further strengthen that objective.

( In English ): Notwithstanding my above clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazlina Halim.

5.38 pm

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments and its intent to protect more lives, especially on the roads. However, enforcement cannot be the sole problem solver or the whole answer. As is often the case, we must also go upstream.

Today, I will cover three points: disproportionate impact of fines on the vulnerable, using data to identify patterns; but first, Singapore's road culture.

The wider consideration is the culture on our roads. Drivers must know the rules. The issue cannot be a lack of knowledge. It also should not be impatience, distraction and a lack of consideration for other road users.

First, how will MHA and the Traffic Police work with driving schools and private instructors to review the driving curriculum and on-the-road tests.

Learning to drive should not only be about passing the theory and practical tests. There should be greater emphasis on defensive driving and road courtesy. A learner driver should understand the risks of scrolling on the phone, tailgating or accelerating towards a junction or when the light is changing or when someone signals. This is not about frightening learner drivers. It is about ensuring they understand the responsibility that comes with being in control of a vehicle.

Second, education should not stop once a person obtains a license. Where a driver repeatedly commits traffic offences, there may be value in requiring that person to attend a refresher or corrective driving course. For some offenders, a fine is paid and then forgotten. A good corrective course may have a more lasting effect. The offender will have to confront driving habits, understand risks created and learn how to respond differently. The objective should go beyond punishing the offence that has already happened but also preventing the next offence.

Third, the data collected through automated enforcement should be used to identify patterns. For example, if many motorists are speeding along the same road, running a red light at the same junction or committing the same offence at the same location, we should ask why and what are the factors beyond poor driving behaviours? Perhaps, it is road design, signage or traffic-light timing? I urge the Traffic Police and LTA to use, track and share data on its findings and the changes it plans to make to the road environment in an attempt to reduce the risk of offences and accidents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I now highlight an acronym that my colleague, Ms Hany Soh, had also earlier mentioned and it is an acronym that all of us Members here hold close to heart – MPS. Dare I say that every week when we meet our residents, we receive appeals for traffic fines. A resident may not dispute the offence nor the fine but seeks help no less because he or she is struggling to pay it. Just yesterday alone, my Fengshan resident, a probationary driver and rider, Mr X, came to submit yet another appeal because he could not afford the $200 fine and was anxious that his licence may be revoked. We unpacked and explored some solutions, including reaching out to social service agencies and also Malay/Muslim organisations. Mr X's case is of course not the only one.

When the driver is a sole breadwinner managing bills, arrears and other family expenses, the fine can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. We therefore should ask: how are fines actually punishing lower-income offenders more heavily than better-off offenders?

A $500 fine is the same amount for everyone. But its effect can be vastly different. For a higher-income driver, it may be an inconvenience – cutting back spending for the month. For a lower-income worker, the same fine may mean having to go a little hungrier, a room that is a little dimmer or postponing the doctor's appointment.

I want to be clear. Financial hardship does not excuse dangerous driving. A person's income cannot determine whether he or she is required to obey traffic laws but how do we mitigate the impact to the vulnerable? Some jurisdictions use income-based fines. Under such a system, the seriousness of the offence determines the scale of the penalty while the offender's income determines the actual amount payable.

I recognise this will not be straightforward to introduce in Singapore. There will definitely be legitimate questions about how income should be assessed. A person may have a low salary but substantial assets. Another person may have irregular income. The system could become complicated. I am therefore not suggesting that Singapore should immediately introduce income-based traffic fines, but I ask for MHA to consider studying the consideration.

It would be useful to understand whether fixed fines achieve a broadly similar deterrent effect across different income groups or whether they are too easily absorbed by some and disproportionately damaging to others. In the meantime, there are practical measures that can be considered. Could there be a clearer and more accessible framework for offenders facing genuine financial hardship to pay their fines by instalments? This need not apply automatically. An applicant could be required to provide supporting documents, and serious and, of course, repeat offenders could be excluded. By this way, a reasonable instalment plan may prevent a one-off offence from creating a much larger financial crisis for the offender's family. Importantly, the fine would still have to be paid and the person would still be held accountable.

For suitable lower-level offences, MHA could also consider corrective driving courses or corrective work orders to be imposed alongside or in limited cases instead of part of the financial penalty. This should not apply to drink driving, deliberate dangerous driving, repeat offending or conduct causing grievous hurt. But for less serious offences, we should ask whether a financial penalty is always the best way to change behaviours.

The point is not to be soft on offenders. It is to make sure the penalty works. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Notably, the impact of fines is disproportionate on individuals with lower-income and those who earn their livelihood on the roads

While I support the intent of this Bill's amendments, I also voice my concern of the impact that will be felt by these groups.

As the Member of Parliament Dr Wan Rizal mentioned earlier, road safety is more than just law enforcement – it also depends on understanding and education.

I would also suggest that the Government work together with social service agencies, as well as Malay/Muslim organisations, to ensure that road users understand these amendments and feel assured, so that they will comply going forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker, that said, a fine of $500 is the same amount for everyone. Yet, its value and impact can sometimes be vastly different.

For a high-income driver, it may be little more than a minor inconvenience. But for a lower-income worker, that same fine may mean tightening one's belt, unpaid bills and mounting debt.

So, are we, in effect, punishing the less well-off more heavily than those with higher income?

I wish to be clear that one's financial situation does not excuse dangerous driving. Salary or income should not determine whether a person is required to obey traffic laws.

However, there are countries that employ a system of income-based fines.

Under such a system, the severity of the offence determines the scale of the penalty, while the offender's income determines the actual fine payable. The purpose is to ensure that fines carry a meaningful deterrent effect. I recognise this would not be straightforward to introduce in Singapore. For instance, a person may have a low salary but possess substantial assets. Others may have irregular income.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not suggesting that Singapore should immediately introduce income-based traffic fines. But could MHA at least explore if this proposal can be considered?

In the meantime, there are several practical measures that can be considered. Among them, a clearer and more accessible framework to allow fines to be paid in instalments.

Of course, applications need not be approved indiscriminately, and applicants should certainly be required to provide strong and genuine supporting evidence.

MHA could also consider whether corrective driving courses or corrective work orders could be imposed alongside – or in limited cases, instead of – part of the financial penalty or demerit points.

The point is not to be soft on offenders. Rather, the objective is to ensure that the penalty can be truly effective without jeopardising the offender's family stability.

( In English ): Mr Deputy Speaker, safer roads will not come from higher penalties alone. Singapore needs better drivers, better training, earlier interventions, safer road design, sensible use of technology and a fair approach to financial penalties.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the law must do more than punish wrongdoing. It should shape society's conduct, earn public confidence and strengthen our values that holds Singapore together. Sir, clarification notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.

5.48 pm

Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill strengthens our road safety framework in two important ways: tougher enforcement and penalties, and better use of technology by the Traffic Police. I support both.

But I would like to make one broader point. Deterrence is necessary, but deterrence must ultimately culminate in prevention. The best outcome is not that we punish a dangerous driver more severely after an accident. It is that we use stronger laws, better technology and better information to prevent that accident from happening in the first place.

First, on deterrence. I welcome the tightening of the drink driving and drug driving regime. I had previously asked a Parliamentary Question on protocols for road traffic offences involving drugs and asked for stricter penalties. While drink driving rightly receives significant attention, drug-impaired driving can also have devastating consequences. And I am glad that the Ministry is now implementing stricter protocols and stiffer penalties for both.

More broadly though, could the Ministry share the principal causes of serious road traffic accidents in Singapore? How many involve speeding, mobile phone use, drink- or drug-impaired driving, fatigue, failure to obey traffic signals or other dangerous behaviour? If we want better prevention, we need better understanding. The data should tell us where enforcement and education can have the greatest impact.

Second, on technology. I welcome the amendments allowing the Traffic Police to use automated decision-making for objectively verifiable offences, such as speeding and red light violations. The Bill also allows photographic and video evidence submitted by members of the public to be used for the mobile device offence. Technology should not merely help us process more offences. It should help us identify risk earlier.

Some time ago, I filed a Parliamentary Question regarding accidents and traffic enforcement cameras along Loyang Avenue, after residents repeatedly raised concerns about speeding and dangerous driving. At that time, I was informed that camera deployment was not practical due to space constraints. On that note, I am really grateful for LTA for the measures that they have put there, but I hope MHA can invest in technology and AI to overcome the technical limitations we have for our current camera systems.

Technology should not just detect violations. It should also help us see danger coming. This is also why I support greater use of citizen reporting. Many residents submit videos or pictures of dangerous driving or illegal parking through LTA's OneMotoring platform. Could MHA share how many public reports ultimately result in warnings, investigations or prosecutions? And could better feedback be provided to those who take the effort to submit evidence? People are more willing to participate when they know their contribution makes a difference. So, as we give the Traffic Police greater ability to leverage on technology, I urge the Ministry to also look at how accident data, traffic violations and citizen reports can be used to identify emerging hotspots.

My next point, prevention is not only about the driver. It is also about the road environment and the organisations operating on our roads. Residents have raised concerns about Pasir Ris Drive 3. In May this year, a cyclist tragically lost her life following a collision involving a tipper truck. While investigations will determine the precise circumstances, it is a sobering reminder of the vulnerability of cyclists when sharing the road with heavy vehicles.

Along Tanah Merah Coast Road, cyclists have also raised concerns about loose gravel, debris, accumulated dirt and stationary heavy vehicles along cycling paths. When they move onto the road because the cycling path is unsafe, we should not immediately assume that they are simply being irresponsible. Sometimes, the safer choice is just not available.

Enforcing matters pertaining to heavy vehicles involve several agencies – the Traffic Police, LTA and NEA – with different responsibilities. But road users only experience one road. They see gravel falling from trucks, they see debris accumulating and they see cycling paths becoming unsafe. So, where repeated breaches create persistent hazards, could enforcement, road maintenance and action against recurring sources of debris be better coordinated?

There is also a question of corporate responsibility. Where an individual driver commits an offence, that driver should be held accountable. But if the same operator or company repeatedly has vehicles associated with unsafe driving, poorly secured loads or other safety breaches, should we not also ask whether there is a deeper management problem? Could persistent safety breaches by operators be met with stronger licensing or operational consequences where appropriate? Road safety should not end with the person behind the wheel. It should also be part of the organisation's safety culture.

Finally, Sir, deterrence should be complemented by rehabilitation. For drivers returning after lengthy disqualification, could the Ministry consider a structured refresher or a rehabilitation programme before their licences are restored? A driving test demonstrates competence at that moment in time, but not necessarily judgement or changed attitudes. We should ensure that those returning to our roads are ready not just to drive, but to drive responsibly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill strengthens the consequences of dangerous behaviour and gives the Traffic Police better tools to detect offences. But ultimately, safer routes require something more. They require shared responsibility. And in my latest morning ride with some members from the Safety for Active Mobility Users, I learnt about a simple framework that captures this – the MAS framework. Not Meet-the-People Session, but MAS.

"M" for mentality: the most important one in their opinion, to recognise that another person's safety is more important than our own convenience. "A" for awareness: stay alert, slow down and anticipate others. And "S" for skill: stay in control and respond safely when situations change.

Mentality, Awareness and Skill. Because ultimately, road safety is not just about tougher laws. It is about ensuring that our convenience never comes at the expense of someone else's safety. If we can combine stronger deterrence, smarter technology, responsible operators and a culture of shared responsibility, we will not only have a stronger road traffic regime, we will have safer roads. I support the Bill and look forward to the Ministry's reply.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.55 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, every year, lives are lost to accidents that should never have happened: a moment of distraction, a driver who did not slow down, a pedestrian who was not seen in time. I believe that this Bill will close enforcement gaps by making phone-holding while driving an offence regardless of proof of active use.

I also welcome the lowering of the drink driving threshold to bring us in line with comparable jurisdictions and the recalibration of Driver Improvement Points System.

I have four questions.

First, pertains to motorcyclists' safety. When the question of lane splitting was previously shared in this House, the Ministry's position was that an outright ban is impractical and difficult to enforce. Instead, the Government's approach relies on a catch-all charge for dangerous or careless driving, the principle of shared responsibility among all road users and safety mandates, such as anti-lock braking systems on new motorcycles.

I do not dispute that enforcing a specific ban presents real difficulties. However, given that motorcyclist fatalities and serious accidents remain disproportionately high, I strongly urge that public education on safe riding practices be stepped up urgently, including clear messaging that lane splitting can amount to careless and dangerous behaviour.

In terms of public education, can we also extend it to foreign-registered vehicles and motorcyclists, such as by sending SMS reminders to all LTA Vehicle Entry Permit-holders, and putting up reminders at strategic locations, such as at the ICA premises at the Causeway?

My second question concerns Ministry's views on ensuring that both hands are on the wheel when driving. We all know that both hands must be on the steering wheel when operating motor vehicles, but very often, we see drivers with one hand on the wheel, while the other hand is tapping or scrolling on the phone, on a mounted device or holding a cigarette. This involves visual and manual disengagement from the wheel in ways similar to device use.

My third question is regarding the Traffic Police's deployment of Traffic Violation Enforcement Cameras (TVECs). MHA recently shared that after the TVEC's successful pilot, where they detected more than 67,000 traffic violations over 11 months, they have plans to increase the number for TVECs on our roads in the future. Could the Ministry share more about these plans?

In addition, I seek clarification on whether these TVECs detect drivers' failures to signal and insufficient durations during signalling for lane changes. This is an issue that my residents and many drivers have been giving feedback on, in view of a worsening trend. How often might TVECs be redeployed, especially in high-risk areas?

I would also urge the Ministry to step up enforcement against dangerous behaviours by other road users, including motorists who do not slow down when approaching pedestrian crossings and tapping on technology for identification of offenders.

My last question is on protecting our seniors at pedestrian crossings. Other jurisdictions have adopted hybrid crossing models with encouraging results. The United Kingdom's Pelican crossing pairs zebra markings with a signal cycle that legally compels vehicles to stop; its newer Puffin crossing goes further, using sensors to hold the signal red for exactly as long as a slower-moving pedestrian needs. Will the Ministry consider studying these cases for converting our higher-risk unsignalised crossings in School Zones or Silver Zones to such models? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): My last question is on protecting our seniors at pedestrian crossings. Other jurisdictions have adopted hybrid crossing models with encouraging results.

The UK's crossing pairs zebra markings with a signal cycle legally compels vehicles to stop; its new crossing goes further, using sensors to hold the signal red for exactly as long as a slower-moving pedestrian needs.

Will the Ministry consider studying these cases for converting our higher-risk, unsignalised crossings in School Zones or Silver Zones to such models?

( In English ): Sir, it is the responsibility of all road users to play their parts in road safety. Our road traffic framework and system must empower each to do so. I hope the Ministry will continue to treat both the calibration of our rules and the evidence behind them with equal rigour, so that when a rider, driver or elderly resident places their trust in the system, that trust is backed by the assurance for their safety. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jackson Lam.

6.01 pm

Mr Jackson Lam (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill because the objective is simple: to make our roads safer by encouraging responsible driving.

Road safety matters to every Singaporean. Whether we are drivers, cyclists or pedestrians, we all expect our roads to be safe. Every accident prevented means a life protected and a family spared from tragedy.

I welcome these amendments because our roads are changing. Traffic is increasing, technology is evolving and our laws must keep pace.

I support three aspects of the Bill.

First, the new offence of purposeful endangerment makes it clear that a motor vehicle is not a weapon. The law should rightly distinguish between careless driving and deliberate acts of violence. Second, I welcome the stronger measures against drink and drug driving. Lower alcohol limits and new provisions on specified substances reinforce our commitment to keep impaired drivers off our roads. Third, I support the greater use of technology in enforcement. Computer-assisted systems can improve efficiency and consistency, provided there is proper human oversight.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make one point on implementation. The success of this Bill should not be measured by the number of summonses issued, but whether it changes behaviour.

Many motorists will not read the legislation. They will learn about these changes through public education and the media, or maybe one day, when they receive the summonses themselves. That is why implementation is just as important as legislation.

I hope the Ministry will roll out a strong public education campaign to explain what has changed, why the changes are needed and what motorists need to do differently. Could the Minister also consider a clearly communicated transition period for amendments that introduce new obligations? For lower-risk, first-time offenders where there is no immediate danger to public safety, the Ministry or the officers could issue warnings where appropriate while helping motorists understand the new rules, especially for the cases where motorists are holding on to their devices.

This is not about weakening enforcement. Serious offences, such as dangerous driving, drink or drug driving and excessive speeding, should continue to be dealt firmly. It is about giving the public a fair opportunity to understand the new requirements before full enforcement begins.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I also welcome the use of technology in enforcement together with the safeguards for human review. Could the Minister share how these systems will be monitored? For example, will there be regular reviews of their performances and will the Ministry publish data on notices issued through automated systems and those later revoked after human review?

Such transparency will help strengthen public confidence. Good laws must be understood. Effective enforcement must be fair and trusted and lasting behavioural change requires education to go hand in hand with enforcement.

If we get this balance right, we will achieve what we all want: safer roads, more responsible motorists and greater public confidence in our road traffic laws. With those remarks, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.

6.05 pm

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

I rise in support of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. This Bill strengthens our response to dangerous driving. It better distinguishes deliberate harm from negligence, strengthens deterrence against the most serious offending and makes enforcement more effective through technology. I support these changes.

Last year, 149 people lost their lives on the roads – the highest number in a decade. Nearly 10,000 others were injured. Every one of them started the day expecting to return home. For those who survived with serious injuries, the accident is often only the beginning.

That is why, while I support the Bill, I hope to raise four issues where I believe we can strengthen its impact: ensuring automated enforcement remains accessible and fair; helping patients understand the implications of prescribed medications; designing safer roads for an ageing population; and recognising the lifelong consequences of permanent neurological injury.

First, on the automated decision-making system for camera-detected offences. The efficiency gains are real, given the huge number of violations the Traffic Police has to process a year. But removing manual review for even objectively verifiable offences, like speeding, places greater weight on the appeal process. Could the Minister share what safeguards will ensure the 14-day appeal window is genuinely accessible to elderly or less digitally literate vehicle owners?

Second, I have questions regarding the new offence of driving with controlled or psychoactive substances present in blood, regardless of impairment. While this is a reasonable deterrent, it depends on drivers knowing which common medications could trigger liability. Could the Ministry commit to a public education campaign, in partnership with pharmacies and general practitioners so that patients on legitimate prescriptions are not caught unaware?

Mr Deputy Speaker, my profession also leads me to think about one further question: what happens to those who survive? Two groups stand out, both in the statistics and in the patients I have treated.

Elderly pedestrian fatalities more than doubled last year. Many elderly residents are not careless. They simply experience the road differently, needing more time to cross safely. As Singapore ages, and as new towns, like Tengah, take shape, I hope the Ministry will consider whether roads can be designed around how people actually move, rather than assuming uniformed walking speeds.

Residents' requests for safer crossings are also valuable information about how they actually use their neighbourhoods. I hope the Ministry will consider whether this information can be used earlier in new towns to guide where crossing improvements are most needed. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): At this point, I would like to say a few words on behalf of our senior residents. It is not that they disregard the rules or do not value their own safety. They simply need a little more time. I hope road designs can take greater account of how residents of different ages and abilities use our roads.

( In English ): Motorcyclists are the second group. Though motorcycles make up only about 15% of our vehicle population, riders account for more than half of all traffic accidents. Many are young working adults. A serious accident can affect not only their livelihood, but also the families who depend on them. Could the Minister update the House on the timeline for mandatory rider refresher training and whether technologies that have improved safety for other vehicle classes could be extended to motorcycles?

Finally, there is another aspect of this Bill that I hope we can reflect on. One sentence in the Explanatory Statement describes traumatic brain injury resulting in a permanent vegetative state as "almost as serious as death". I understand why those words were chosen. Death, however devastating, is final. Severe neurological injury, too often, is not.

Many people imagine recovery as a period of rest followed by a return to normal life. Severe brain injury rarely follows that path. Recovery, when it happens, unfolds over months and years. Some patients make remarkable progress. Others improve only to a certain point despite the best efforts of the patient, family and rehabilitation team.

The difficulty is not only that recovery takes time. It is that the person's life and the family's life, may never return to what it once was.

This is why I ask whether permanent and irreversible neurological impairment could be recognised as a distinct aggravating factor in sentencing and whether the Government is reviewing longer-term rehabilitation and caregiver support for affected families. Such support would complement, not compete with, this Bill's deterrent aims. A family well-supported through recovery is also a family better able to see justice served without being consumed by it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill strikes a reasonable balance between deterrence, fairness and effective enforcement. Working in rehabilitation has taught me that the consequences of a road accident do not end when the ambulance leaves. For some families, the consequences last a lifetime. That is why I hope we continue to judge our road safety system not only by how firmly it punishes dangerous driving, but also by how many Singaporeans never need rehabilitation because the accident never happened.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.

6.13 pm

Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. I would first declare my role as one of the advisors to the National Taxi Association.

Sir, the statistics shared by the Ministry are sobering. These figures represent real lives lost and families shattered. A split second is all it takes – a split second of distraction, a split second of eyes off the road and a life is changed forever.

This is a critical turning point to zero in on the reckless behaviour endangering our streets. Our current enforcement regime must evolve to meet the challenges of an increasingly distracted driving environment.

I wish to raise clarifications on the amendments, particularly to make it an offence for a driver to hold a mobile communication device while the vehicle is in motion. While I understand this is intended to simplify enforcement and allow for camera-based detection, there are some practical questions that I hope the Minister and Ministry can clarify.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

First, addressing the root causes of accidents. May I ask the Minister how can these regulatory changes effectively reduce road safety by discouraging drivers from engaging in irresponsible behaviours?

The 2025 Annual Traffic Situation statistics are clear: the top killers on our roads are the "failure to keep a proper look-out, failure to have adequate control of the vehicle and changing lanes without due care."

By making the act of holding a phone an offence, we are ensuring more consistent physical control over the steering wheel. But physical control is only half the battle.

"Failure to keep a proper lookout" remains a real threat, even when hands are off the device. Drivers can still be dangerously distracted by prolonged interactions with mounted phones.

Other jurisdictions, such as Queensland in Australia, have addressed this by strictly limiting mounted phone use. It allows certain licence category holders to "briefly touch [the] mobile phone for hands-free use if, for example, the phone is in a cradle attached to the vehicle", including starting navigation, accepting a trip, or skipping a song.

May I ask will the Ministry consider implementing a similar "one-tap" policy for mounted phone use to prevent drivers from "scrolling" while their phones are mounted? How does the Ministry intend to discourage the cognitive distraction that remains even when the phone is not being "held"?

Second, protecting the livelihoods of our taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers. While we tighten these rules for the ordinary driver, we must account for those whose "office" is the driver's seat. These are our taxi and private hire drivers. They handle trip requests and navigating is not a luxury: it is their livelihood. To ensure they can comply with these strict safety standards without compromising their income, we must move beyond mere regulation and toward technological empowerment.

Will the Ministry consider working directly with taxi companies, ride-hailing platform operators to accelerate the adoption of hands-free navigation and voice assistant tools? Can the Ministry also provide a roadmap for how these drivers will be supported to transition to a "hands-free" environment, ensuring they remain compliant while keeping their eyes firmly on the road?

Finally, a data-driven legislation is crucial. Between 2019 and 2023, there were no road traffic accidents where evidence directly attributed the cause to mobile phone use. Yet, enforcement has been active, with an average of 2,800 summons issued annually between 2021 and 2025. This suggests that while our enforcement is effective, the link between phone use and actual accidents in our local context needs clearer definition.

I would like to ask the Minister if there have there been any accidents from 2024 onwards where mobile phone use was the primary factor? And if so, how do these new regulations specifically address the common factors found in those recent cases? Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. From 2021 to 2025, traffic fatalities increased by 24% while traffic violations rose by 38%. Behind these figures are lives lost and families broken.

On the roads, a moment of carelessness can lead to serious consequences. We are now at a critical turning point to focus our efforts on tackling reckless behaviour that endangers road safety. As distracted driving becomes increasingly serious, enforcement regime must keep pace with the times to address this challenge.

I like to seek several clarifications on the provision that makes it an offence for a driver to hold a mobile communication device when the vehicle is in motion.

While this is intended to simplify enforcement and enable camera-based detection of violations, it also raises several practical issues.

As we tighten these rules from ordinary drivers, we must also consider taxi and private-hire vehicle drivers. The car seat is their office. They need to respond to job requests in real time and navigation is an essential part of earning their livelihood.

To ensure that they can comply with these stricter safety standards without affecting their income, we should not look only at regulatory restrictions. We must also improve technology and empower them to balance their work needs with safety driving.

Will the MHA consider working directly with taxi companies and private-hire platforms to accelerate the adoption of hands-free navigation and voice-assistance tools.

In addition, can the MHA provide a roadmap setting out how it will support these taxi and private-hire drivers in transitioning to a hands-free working environment, so that they comply with the regulations while keeping their eyes firmly on the road?

( In English ): Mr Speaker, Sir, the message to every driver is clear. Loud and clear. When you are behind the wheel, your only "mobile communication" should be with the road. For this law to truly save lives, it must be matched by common sense in enforcement and a proactive commitment to helping our drivers and those who rely on this for livelihoods to adapt to this new reality. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.

6.21 pm

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I am speaking in support of this Bill because I fundamentally believe in building a Singapore where every family can thrive, every child and every senior will be able to cross the road without having to worry being injured.

Based on Traffic Police statistics, 149 people died and 9,955 were injured on Singapore roads in 2025. Our road fatality rate increased from 1.96 death per 100,000 people in 2021 to 2.44 in 2025. This is an increase of about 24% in four years.

While this Bill strengthens our law, punishment is ultimately the last line of defence. Deterrence depends on severity of punishment but certainty of detection, the speed and consistency of enforcement matters.

Hence, for the purpose of this Bill, I will focus on three specific areas: number one, distracted driving; number two, drink driving and impaired driving; number three, the use of technology in enforcement.

First, the amendment Bill recognises that it is an offence for driver to hold a mobile communication device when his or her vehicle in moving. It is no longer necessary to establish that the driver was operating on one of the device functions. The Bill also clarifies that touching a device properly secured and mounting does not constitute holding it.

I support this change because the driver holding a phone or another communication device may already be distracted even if it is difficult to prove whether he or she was typing, making a call or using a particular mobile app. So, this means that enforcement will be more practical in this regard.

MHA has also stated that the offence may be enforced using camera and photographic or video evidence submitted by members of public.

Back to the idea I mentioned earlier on certainty of detection, could the Ministry clarify whether the Traffic Police will publish guidance on the minimum information and quality of evidence for public submission?

This is important because as a parent and as a Member of Parliament, I know residents who witnessed dangerous driver behaviour often want to do their part, but they need to know what can be reported, what evidence is exactly useful, how to submit without putting himself at risk? Specifically, would a photograph or a video showing a driver holding a device with vehicle registration number be sufficient? If a witness can provide vehicle number, location and time but the recording is not sufficiently clear, would the Police also consider checking with other available camera footage to corroborate the report? Clear guidance would help members of public to make reports that can be acted upon.

The Bill also draws a distinction between holding a device and touching one that is secured in mounting. This distinction is understandable, but distraction does not disappear simply because the phone is being mounted. A driver may still spend extended period of time typing, reading messages, scrolling through manuals and entering direction when vehicle is moving.

So, could the Minister therefore clarify how this provision will work together and whether the Traffic Police will issue practical guidance in future when interaction with a mounted device may cross into the line of careless or dangerous driving?

Second, the Bill makes substantial changes to drink driving and impaired driving by lowering prescribed alcohol limits. I support a firm approach to drink driving. The public message should be simple: if a person intends to drink, he or she should not drive, full stop.

Similar to what Minister Sim Ann mentioned earlier, motorists should not treat the new limit as an allowance or an attempt to calculate how many drinks they may consume just to remain below it because the effect of alcohol varies across different factors, such as body composition, health, food consumption and medication.

The Bill also creates an offence when a controlled drug, psychoactive substance or intoxicating substance is present in a driver's blood. Unlike general offence of impaired driving, the provision applies based on the presence of specific substances, regardless of the quantity detected, without the need to prove the observed impairment.

The Bill provides a defence where a substance was lawfully consumed or administered, that the driver did not know or have reason to believe that it will affect his or her ability to control the vehicle.

You see, my concern is this. How would the ordinary person taking medication lawfully, understand this obligation? Because the reality is this. For many of us who are taking prescribed medication at some point, he or she is just following the doctor's instruction and he or she should not need to have specialised legal knowledge to understand whether how it may affect their driving.

So, the term "specific substance" does cover a broad category under several pieces of legislation. It is not presented to the motorists as a simple list of medicine or substance.

My ask is whether would MHA work with the Ministry of Health (MOH), doctors and pharmacists and medicine suppliers to provide clear guidelines on commonly prescribed or dispensed medicine that fall within this provision. Will medication labels and patient advice be strengthened where a medicine may affect driving? The guidance should be clear and publicly available before provision comes into force.

Third, the Bill allows the Deputy Commissioner of Police to authorise the use of computer program to access recorded images or video. Where the program assesses that there is sufficient evidence of a prescribed offence, it may cause a notice to be issued requiring a vehicle owner to identify the driver. I support the use of technology to process straightforward cases more quickly to free officers for work that requires human judgement.

Separately, Government has also announced that the Driver Improvement Points System will be tightened from 1 January 2027. Given the punitive framework, it is already being strengthened. I believe immediate priority should then be increased to the certainly of detection. So, against this backdrop, could the Minister also share whether the Traffic Police intends to extend the use of fixed and mobile enforcement cameras, including on roads within our neighbourhoods at location frequent by children and seniors?

This Bill also provides a safeguard. A person may apply for a notice to be revoked on the basis that the vehicle was not at the location of the alleged offence. The evidence then will be reviewed by the Deputy Commissioner or an authorised public officer who will confirm or revoke the notice?

Mr Speaker, my view is as enforcement become more automated, public confidence will depend not only on efficiency, but also on accuracy and accountability. Whether the system uses AI or any other form of automated analysis, people must be able to check the evidence behind its conclusion. Just as today we tell all citizens to not just trust what AI produce, you have to fact check. Likewise, we must also allow people to check when an offence is being issued.

Could also the Minister say what kind of accuracy and validation standards that a computer system must satisfy before it is officially deployed? Would there also be a pilot phase?

Mr Speaker, the Bill strengthens criminal enforcement. But criminal enforcement, in my view, is the last line of defence after dangerous conduct has already occurred. Road safety responsibility, therefore, cannot be the responsibility of MHA and Traffic Police alone.

MHA and Traffic Police are responsible for laws and enforcement. Ministry of Transport and LTA shape our roads, our junctions, our crossings, speed limits and traffic calming measures. The Ministry of Education and our schools continue to teach our children to be safe road users, and hopefully, the children will go back home to discuss this at home as well with their families. MOH and healthcare professions have an important role in ensuring that patients understand whether medication affects their ability to drive. Even at local level, People's Association and other community partners play an important role in identifying recurring danger sports, gather resident feedback, bring road safety education to families and seniors.

Because in my view, if we are serious about building a Singapore made for families, then road safety must be treated as a family policy. A child should be able to cross the road outside the school safely. A senior should be able to walk to the market with confidence. A motorist should be able to return home without being intimidated by a larger vehicle.

Therefore, my final ask is this: could the Government consider setting a whole-of-government target for reducing road deaths and serious injuries with clear responsibility across agencies and regular public reporting on progress and measures that are taken at high-risk location? Strong laws are necessary, but our wider objective must be to prevent collision, protect vulnerable road users, and make responsible behaviour the expected norm of every journey. This is the kind of Singapore I want my children and my family to be able to grow up in, one that they can move safely.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

6.31 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, nearly three decades ago, Sweden asked a question that changed how the world thought about road safety: how many deaths on our roads should society accept each year? Most countries were asking how to reduce the number, but Sweden asked: what if we refuse to accept any road death as inevitable?

That became Vision Zero, adopted by their Parliament in 1997.

While Singapore should not import another country's model wholesale, its central insight travels well: human error is inevitable, but our transport system should be designed so that those mistakes are less likely to become tragedies.

That is a useful lens for this Bill. For many years, road safety focused mainly on the driver, who remains responsible. Modern road safety, however, is also shaped by platform algorithms, vehicle-sharing, medication risks and automated enforcement. As risks become more interconnected, responsibility must be shared.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. It strengthens deterrence, modernises enforcement and closes gaps. I will raise five areas where we can build a safer, more trusted road system.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, a vehicle must never become a weapon. The Bill creates a new offence of purposeful endangerment where a driver deliberately targets and endangers another person, such as through brake checking, aggressive tailgating, or swerving, resulting in death or grievous hurt. This carries up to 15 years' imprisonment, possible caning, presumptive lifetime disqualification and vehicle forfeiture.

I strongly support this proposal. There is a clear moral and legal difference between a lapse, reckless driving and deliberately using a vehicle to terrorise another person. I seek clarification on two issues.

First, what would ordinarily amount to the "special reasons" needed to depart from lifetime disqualification? Second, how will the forfeiture operate when the vehicle belongs to an unknowing employer, rental company, car-sharing operator, or family member? The law should punish the person who weaponises the vehicle while protecting an owner who neither knew of nor consented to the conduct. When anger turns a vehicle into a weapon, the law must draw a line as firm as the harm is grave.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill strengthens our impaired driving framework. It lowers the prescribed breath alcohol limit from 35 to 15 microgrammes, and the blood-alcohol limit from 80 to 30 milligrammes. It also targets specified substances in a driver's blood, permits passive breath testing and modernises procedures.

I support this firm stance; the message should be simple: if you drink, do not drive. But as our population ages, the next frontier in impaired driving may not be alcohol alone, but lawful medication.

Many older residents take several prescribed medicines daily for pain, insomnia, anxiety, or chronic conditions, and understandably, assume that any prescribed medicine is safe for driving. That assumption is not always correct. The Bill provides a statutory defence for lawful, unknowing consumption, but a legal defence raised after investigation is a poor substitute for prevention.

Will MHA, MOH or Health Sciences Authority jointly issue a plain language guide on the new limits, specified substances, and testing procedures? Will healthcare professionals receive standard guidance on advising patients whose medication may affect driving?

I propose a recognisable, prominent national "Do Not Drive" symbol for medicines presenting a material driving risk. HealthHub could also provide a checker explaining whether a prescribed medicine affects driving, what precautions to take and when to seek advice.

This is especially important for vocational drivers whose livelihoods depend on the road. The Government should work with operators, unions and healthcare providers to offer short refresher modules whenever major traffic rules change.

The hallmark of good legislation is not that it expects ordinary people to be perfect, but that it helps them make better decisions. The best prosecution is the one that never becomes necessary.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill sharpens the offence concerning mobile communication devices. It will no longer be necessary to prove that a driver holding a device was also operating its functions and it clarifies that touching a properly mounted device does not amount to holding it. I support this clearer rule.

For many taxi, private hire and delivery drivers, however, the mounted phone is not merely a telephone. It is their workplace, constantly providing navigation, ride requests, delivery assignments, customer messages and payment alerts.

Drivers must remain responsible, but platforms also shape behaviour. If a platform can dictate how quickly a driver responds, how jobs are queued, or penalising a non-responsive driver, it has the power to design systems that support safer attention.

Could non-essential notifications be suppressed while a vehicle is moving? Could drivers receive longer response windows, use more voice-enabled functions, or have apps default to a simplified driving mode once vehicular movement is detected?

While auto-accept reduces tapping, if drivers still have only seconds to reject an unsuitable job, the pressure to look down remains. This is especially critical for private hire drivers who spend long hours on the road, often switching between multiple apps simultaneously. A single moment of distraction risks not only their lives, but the lives of their passengers and other road users. App design plays a decisive role here.

I propose that LTA work with transport and delivery platforms on a Safe Driver Digital Interface Code, establishing principles for movement-sensitive notifications, voice interaction, response times and safeguards against penalising drivers who stop before responding.

This does not prevent innovation; it directs it toward safety. We should not only regulate distracted drivers. We must actively design away the distractions.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill allows an authorised computer program to assess recorded images or videos and automatically issue notices requiring vehicle owners to identify the drivers. This is a sensible use of automation to improve speed, consistency, and free up officers for complex work. The Bill also provides an important safeguard, allowing recipients to seek a revocation that triggers human review.

To be precise, the program does not convict anyone; it initiates an information requirement. But this requirement has serious consequences. The owner must respond within 14 days. Failure to do so is an offence, and for certain offences, a licensed owner is presumed to have been driving. When automation triggers such legal duties, transparency and human review must be absolute.

I have four suggestions.

First, notices triggered by automated detection must clearly state that they were generated by an AI system.

Second, notices should provide easy digital access to the visual evidence, location, timestamp, vehicle details and a plain language explanation of the suspected offence.

Third, the review process should accommodate material errors beyond the Bill's express grounds, such as misread plates, lane confusion, or other clear signs of a wrongly issued notice.

Fourth, the Government should publish an annual report stating the number of automated notices, reviews, revocations, average review times, main causes of error and system improvements.

The most revealing measure is not simply how often the system is right, but how it detects, corrects and learns when it is wrong. The governing principles should be straightforward: transparency, explainability, meaningful human oversight, auditability and continuous improvement. A computer may issue the first notice, but it must never have the final word. When the state automates enforcement, it must make human accountability just as robust.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill requires corporate vehicle owners, including companies, partnerships and unincorporated bodies, to keep accurate records of who is permitted to drive, including their personal details, dates, and allocation periods. These records must be retained for 12 months.

The intent is sound. Enforcement agencies need to identify drivers swiftly, and proper records to prevent evasion.

Proportionality, however, matters. Not every organisation is a major logistics operator with a fleet management system. Many small and medium companies own only one or two vans shared among employees, and charities use vehicles to deliver meals or equipment using rotating volunteers.

To help them, the Government should provide a simple digital logbook template and checklist before these rules take effect, with guidance on handling shared shifts, temporary substitutions and changes in allocation.

Since the law mandates collecting and retaining sensitive personal details, the Government must also help these organisations protect that data. Will the implementation guidance address access controls, secure storage, safe disposal and general data-protection obligations?

There should also be a reasonable transition period, where genuine administrative errors are distinguished from deliberate concealments or the falsification of records.

Good regulation is not measured by the paperwork it generates, but by how effectively it solves problems and how safely it handles sensitive data.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I began this speech with Sweden's Vision Zero. Let me end there too. Many focus on the word "zero", an unpragmatic promise that no one would ever die on the roads. However, I think the critical word here is "vision", a decision about the deaths a society refuses to accept.

That is the spirit behind the five areas I spoke on: purposeful endangerment, impaired driving, digital distraction, automated enforcement and record keeping. While these may look like separate issues, they point in a single direction.

For decades, road safety policy asked how to change driver behaviour. This Bill invites a larger question: how do we change the system around the driver?

While my suggestions are distinct, they are driven by the same goal: designing safety into the system. A warning symbol is a safer default built into dispensing prescriptions. A Safe Driver Digital Interface Code designs safety into platform apps. An annual enforcement report builds accountability into technology and practical tools for small organisations make compliance achievable, so good intentions are not defeated by paperwork.

None of this dilutes personal responsibility; it strengthens it. A driver supported by clearer information, safer defaults, and better-designed systems is more empowered to do the right thing, and less likely to fail through a moment's inattention. That is the shift before us: not merely to punish the individual after harm occurs, but to design our system so that harm is prevented where possible.

Our laws reveal what we refuse to accept. Over time, through legislation, education and social norms, behaviours that were once common, like driving without seatbelts or holding a phone, became unacceptable. One day, I hope future Singaporeans will look back and wonder why the risks we tolerate today were ever treated as an ordinary part of driving.

The best laws do not just punish bad behaviour; they redefine what is acceptable, reshaping our systems so that the safe choice becomes the natural one. The measure of this Bill will not be the number of prosecutions, notices issued or sentence lengths. It will be the tragedies that never happen: the dangerous distractions designed out, the medication risk caught before the journey begins and the enforcement error corrected before it becomes an injustice. It will be measured in the lives of the people we protect: the child crossing safely to school; the senior reaching the market; the delivery rider and the bus captain finishing their daily shifts; and the families waiting at home at the end of the day, who are not left waiting.

Vision Zero began in Sweden. But the refusal to accept preventable death begins with all of us. This is our next step along that road, in our own way and for our own people. Let us take it not merely to write tougher laws, but to build a safer system and with it, a society that expects and protects, nothing less. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.