Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Transport.

2.21 pm

The Minister of State for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The proposed amendments aim to keep our land transport regulations relevant and effective. The Bill cuts across multiple land transport areas and reflects two complementary principles that have consistently guided our approach: one, strengthening public safety where risks have grown or evolved; and two, streamlining rules where we can responsibly reduce regulatory burden on individuals and businesses.

I will now go through the five key areas of amendments.

First, we will strengthen our efforts to stem unlawful use of deregistered vehicles. Deregistered vehicles pose a risk to road safety as they are no longer covered by insurance or subject to the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) periodic inspections. It is thus illegal to keep or use deregistered vehicles on our roads.

More than 99% of deregistered vehicles are properly disposed of. However, a small number of vehicles, about 1,900 over the past five years, have not been properly disposed of and may still be in circulation. A small number of these vehicles have been used for serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, with 245 detected in 2025.

To address this problem, earlier this year, we stiffened penalties for keeping or using deregistered vehicles. First-time offenders now face fines of up to $20,000, imprisonment of up to two years, or both.

LTA and the Traffic Police have been working closely together to conduct joint enforcement operations. The current Bill will amend the Road Traffic Act to strengthen LTA's enforcement powers: first, to ensure timely and proper disposal of deregistered vehicles to reduce the flow of new deregistered vehicles on our roads; and second, to remove the remaining pool of undisposed deregistered vehicles and prevent their circulation.

Allow me to elaborate.

First, we will introduce the new Authorised Exporter Scheme. Today, the export process involves multiple intermediaries. This makes it more difficult to hold anyone accountable when something goes wrong. The new scheme will require deregistered vehicles intended for export to be disposed of only through LTA-authorised exporters, who will be subject to compliance requirements. This reduces the risk of deregistered vehicles remaining in Singapore despite being declared as exported. LTA aims to implement this scheme in the fourth quarter of 2027, after consulting the industry.

For avoidance of doubt, vehicle owners who are not intending to immediately export their deregistered vehicle may also hand them over to LTA-authorised scrapyards or export processing zone operators.

Second, we will shorten the grace period for owners of deregistered vehicles to fulfil the disposal requirements from the current one month to 14 days. With the new Authorised Exporter Scheme, the disposal process for vehicle owners will be simplified. Vehicle owners no longer have to submit disposal documents to LTA themselves. Instead, they have 14 days to hand over their deregistered vehicles to an LTA-authorised exporter, scrapyard or export processing zone operator, who will then be responsible for document submission. This shortened grace period also lowers the risk of deregistered vehicles being misused before they are properly disposed of.

Third, the amendments ensure offenders remain liable for prosecution for as long as they fail to fulfil the disposal requirements after conviction. They will face a daily fine of up to $500 until the vehicle is properly disposed of.

Fourth, we will have the powers to prevent new or used vehicles from being registered by or transferred to individuals with precedents or are at high risk of misusing deregistered vehicles. This includes those who have previously kept deregistered vehicles or juveniles under 18 years old who may be exploited by bad actors.

We also need to deal with the remaining pool of deregistered vehicles already circulating illegally. The amendments allow us to criminalise the sale or supply of deregistered vehicles by persons who are aware that such vehicles will be illegally kept or used on our roads. This targets supply chain and holds bad actors accountable for circulating deregistered vehicles. Offenders will face fines of up to $20,000, imprisonment for up to two years, or both, with penalties doubled for repeat offenders.

The Government takes a serious view of the use, keeping, sale or purchase of deregistered vehicles. They put public safety at risk. Taken together, the tightened laws will help to keep deregistered vehicles off our roads and keep our roads safer.

Mr Speaker, the second area of amendments in this Bill is on active mobility. Earlier this year, this House passed amendments to address misuse of personal mobility aids (PMDs). As the market evolves, we will update our rules in five ways to keep active mobility devices (AMDs) and our paths safe.

First, we will extend retailer rules in the Active Mobility Act to also cover online sales and advertising. Our rules today were largely designed for physical retailers. As online sales become common, consumers should likewise have confidence that their online purchases are compliant.

It will be an offence to sell or advertise non-compliant AMDs online and sellers must display warning notices on device listings, informing buyers of device and usage rules. The rules will apply to online sale listings and advertisements that: one, originate in Singapore; or two, are made by a Singapore-connected person and accessible here. The rules will not be able to apply to foreign-based sellers with no Singapore presence who fall outside our jurisdiction. Import controls will continue to mitigate this risk.

As online content can spread quickly, LTA will be empowered to direct sellers to amend or remove offending online listings or advertisements promoting non-compliant devices.

Second, we will tighten advertising restrictions to protect consumers from unknowingly purchasing non-compliant devices. It will be an offence to make false or misleading representations of an AMD or battery, for example, to misrepresent a non-compliant device as compliant. We will also prohibit advertisements for illegal modification services.

Third, to reduce the fire risks arising from batteries in AMDs, we will introduce new battery safety rules. Fires caused by AMDs can have devastating consequences. There were 55 such fires in 2023, 67 in 2024 and 49 in 2025. One cause is the use of non-compatible batteries, which can compromise safety even when fitted onto compliant power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and motorised PMDs. We will therefore prohibit the fitting and using of non-compatible batteries in PABs, motorised PMDs and mobility vehicles.

To help users identify suitable batteries, sellers must display specification notices on the battery’s compatibility, voltage and capacity. Sellers are also prohibited from selling a battery knowing that it will be fitted to a non-compatible device or advertising a battery for use with a non-compatible device. This approach places responsibilities on both the seller and the user. We intend to commence the new rules on online sales, advertising and battery safety in the second quarter of 2027, giving affected parties time to prepare.

Fourth, to strengthen deterrence against illegal imports, starting later this year, we will increase the penalties for illegally importing PABs and motorised PMDs. For individuals, the maximum penalty will be doubled from a fine of $5,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, to a fine of $10,000, imprisonment of 12 months, or both. If the illegal import is made by a corporation or any other type of entity, the maximum fine will increase from $10,000 to $40,000. This aligns with penalties for severe offences involving the sale and illegal modification of non-compliant devices.

Fifth, from 1 January 2028 onwards, we will phase out the remaining Blue Seal PABs, which pre-date our current PAB safety standard. Blue Seal PABs were approved before the more comprehensive EN15194 safety standard became mandatory in 2016. Existing Blue Seal PABs are now at least 10 years old, and suitable original replacement parts for older models may be harder to obtain. It is therefore prudent to retire these older generation of PABs, as ageing electrical components may increase fire risk. As such, existing Blue Seal PABs can no longer be kept or used legally from 1 January 2028. We are giving existing users more than one year to transition to a compliant device, and working with ALBA, the national e-waste recycler, to step up collection drives for safe disposal.

I will now move on to the third area on illegal point-to-point transport services. Such services pose safety risks to passengers and undermine the livelihoods of licensed point-to-point drivers. Therefore, we will strengthen deterrence and bolster our ability to enforce against such illegal services.

First, we will increase the maximum fine for the use of unlicensed public service vehicles to provide point-to-point services from $3,000 to $10,000. Second, we will make it an offence to publish advertisements that promote such illegal services, including the forwarding and sharing of such advertisements via online messaging platforms. Third, LTA will be empowered to direct advertisers to take down such advertisements and require platforms to provide information on the advertisers. Non-compliance with any LTA direction will be an offence. Commuters should not engage these services as they often lack valid insurance coverage. We have not introduced specific penalties against commuters for the use of illegal point-to-point services for now, but we may do so in future.

LTA has stepped up enforcement efforts and impounded around 240 vehicles since July 2025. Investigations take around three to four months, exceeding the current one-month period before a seized unlicensed public service vehicles must be released in the absence of prosecution. Therefore, we will lengthen this mandatory release timeline to three months. This will give LTA sufficient time to investigate and build a complete case.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is not just about tightening rules. We are also streamlining requirements to reduce regulatory burden and facilitate innovation. This brings me to the fourth area – autonomous vehicles (AVs).

AVs have the potential to enhance our operational efficiency and overcome manpower constraints in the transport sector. We are deploying AVs in different ways, on roads and public paths. The existing sandbox under the Road Traffic Act for deploying AVs on roads has worked well, and we will extend it till end-2028.

We are developing a new piece of legislation to govern AVs used on roads more holistically. We target to introduce the AV Act in a year's time. The sandbox extension will allow ongoing deployments to continue until the new Act is in force.

We are also introducing a new sandbox under the Active Mobility Act to streamline regulatory processes and facilitate the progressive scale-up of autonomous mobile robots deployed on public paths (AVPPs). Modelled after the existing sandbox, it will commence in early-2027 and is valid for an initial period of five years. We may consider extending the new sandbox closer to 2031, if found useful.

The current approach of individual exemption order for each AVPP is onerous, hard to scale and challenging to enforce safety requirements. Under the new sandbox, LTA can impose targeted regulatory measures like fines for non-compliance. We will also take a risk-calibrated approach with three pathways.

First, public authorities can apply to designate areas under their purview as AVPP testbeds, which allows them to nimbly deploy AVs for various demand use cases. An example is the Punggol Digital District testbed that is managed by JTC.

Second, lower-risk AVPPs within the specified speed, weight and dimension limits will be subject to lighter-touch regulations and can be deployed quickly. An example is the robot by Delta Electronics that delivers groceries and medicine to seniors across three blocks in Bendemeer. All other AVPPs, such as larger robo-sweepers, will go through the standard pathway where LTA would test and authorise them for safe operations.

Lastly, the fifth area of key amendments is on electric vehicle (EV) charging. Since the Electric Vehicles Charging Act was introduced in 2023, EV adoption and the charging ecosystem have grown significantly. We are updating EV charging regulations to manage compliance burden while ensuring safety.

First, we will remove the mandatory two-yearly inspections for EV chargers installed in landed homes. These chargers pose lower public safety risks, because they have restricted access and tend to have a lower utilisation rate, as they serve a single household. With this change, we can reduce recurring compliance costs on these EV charger owners. Owners of chargers will remain responsible for maintenance and LTA still has the powers to require inspections of the charger where specific safety concerns arise.

Second, we will make it easier to enforce against illegal charging of an EV, such as using an unregistered charger, using chargers at banned locations or in non-permissible ways. Illegal charging of an EV poses safety risks. For example, even where a charger is type-approved, there are safety risks if it is unregistered, as LTA will not have sight of unregistered chargers if it needs to be recalled due to safety concerns.

Moving forward, if proven that a person connected a charger, it will be presumed that the person has charged the EV using the charger, unless proven otherwise. This presumption is necessary as it is often difficult to ascertain that electricity was actually transferred from a charger to a vehicle, especially for chargers located within private premises. Mr Speaker, I will now say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): To improve road safety, the Government will further strengthen enforcement to prevent deregistered vehicles from being driven on public roads.

First, we will introduce the Authorised Exporter Scheme to ensure deregistered vehicles are disposed of promptly and properly.

Second, the grace period for vehicle owners to dispose of deregistered vehicles will be shortened from the current one month to 14 days.

Third, if a vehicle owner fails to fulfil the relevant disposal requirements, after conviction, the owner will face an additional fine for each day of delay until valid proof of disposal is submitted.

Fourth, we will prevent high-risk individuals from registering new vehicles or taking ownership of a used vehicle to prevent them from misusing deregistered vehicles.

Fifth, it will be a criminal offence for anyone to sell or supply a deregistered vehicle while knowing that it will be illegally kept or driven on public roads.

The Government takes a zero-tolerance approach towards the use, possession, sale or purchase of deregistered vehicles. We will deal severely with anyone who knowingly breaks the law, in accordance with the law.

Let us now turn to the safety of AMDs. Today, more consumers are purchasing active mobility devices and batteries online. Whether they buy from physical stores or online platforms, their consumer interest should receive equal protection. We will therefore expand the existing regulatory framework so that online sellers are regulated in the same way as physical retailers. They must not advertise or sell non-compliant active mobility devices online or provide false or misleading information.

At the same time, we will strengthen battery safety regulations. In recent years, there have been dozens of fires involving active mobility devices each year. Prohibiting the use of incompatible batteries will help reduce this risk. We will require sellers to state key information, such as the device models for which the battery is suitable, as well as voltage and capacity. Sellers must not misrepresent incompatible batteries as suitable for use with the devices concerned. Users must also not install or use batteries that are incompatible with their devices. LTA would also strengthen public education to help users understand battery safety and learn how to select compatible batteries.

LTA expects to implement these new regulations from the second quarter of next year. We will give sellers and users sufficient time to prepare and comply with the new requirements. We hope these measures will give consumers clearer and more accurate information when purchasing online or replacing batteries, so that they can buy and use these products with greater confidence.

In addition, the Government will continue to take firm action against illegal point-to-point passenger transport services to safeguard passenger safety and the livelihoods of licensed drivers. These illegal operators and drivers often lack valid insurance coverage. If an accident occurs, the consequences could be severe. We therefore urge members of the public not to use such illegal services for their own safety.

The Government has stepped up day-to-day enforcement and this Bill will further strengthen our enforcement powers to deter such illegal services. This includes increasing the maximum fine for providing unlicensed passenger transport services.

In addition, publishing, forwarding or sharing advertisements for such illegal services would also be an offence. This includes forwarding or sharing these advertisements through personal accounts or online messaging platforms. Such acts facilitate illegal point-to-point passenger transport services and make it easier for more consumers to encounter and mistakenly use them.

( In English ): Sir, finally, I would like to highlight that the Ministry of Transport (MOT) will be moving a Notice of Amendments during the Committee stage to address clerical errors in clauses 51, 74 and 80 of the Bill. The amendment to clause 51 corrects a cross-reference error, the amendment to clause 74 corrects a formatting error, and the amendment to clause 80 reinstates a cross-reference that was accidentally deleted.

Mr Speaker, the amendments in this Bill reflect a regulatory approach that is responsive, calibrated and forward-looking. This Bill gives us stronger tools to act against deregistered vehicles, unsafe AMDs and batteries and illegal point-to-point services. At the same time, where possible, we streamline rules and foster innovation, as we have done for AV deployments and EV charging.

Ultimately, the Government cannot do this alone. Individuals should make responsible choices and businesses must uphold their obligations. We need to work together to make the difference. Sir, I seek to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.

2.45 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Our land transport system has been evolving, with new devices on our paths, new technology on our roads and new risks in our neighbourhoods. The law must keep pace. Before I speak further, I want to take the opportunity to thank our Transport Government Parliamentary Committee's (GPC's) resource panel who took time to give us feedback and insights ahead of the debate.

I will speak on three areas: one, the disposal of deregistered vehicles; two, the regulation of sales, advertising, batteries and alterations of AMDs; and three, AVs. My fellow GPC colleagues as well as other colleagues will speak on other areas as well.

First, on deregistered vehicles. The Bill introduces tighter controls to ensure that a vehicle, once deregistered, is properly disposed of. I support this, because we must stop wrongdoers from misusing such vehicles.

Reported cases this year reinforce this. In February, the Straits Times reported that drug dealers and underage drivers were being caught using deregistered vehicles as cases surged. Another man was to be charged for evading a police roadblock, driving dangerously and other traffic offences. In April, nine men were investigated in one operation for driving and riding deregistered vehicles. And in August, a man was charged with driving a deregistered vehicle without a licence and causing the death of a petrol station attendant. Behind every one of these cases are real people and in the last, a life was lost. So, the amendment is justified.

But the challenge is enforcement. A deregistered vehicle has no road tax, no insurance and by design, no visibility to any agency. Its In-vehicle Unit (IU) would have been removed. There is no tracker. Once it is off the register, how do we know whose hands it is in, what state it is in and whether it is still on the road somewhere?

In addition, the journey from deregistration to final disposal passes through several hands. The vehicle goes from the owner to a scrapyard, an authorised exporter or an authorised operator of a designated area and from there to final disposal. The Bill sets out duties for each of them. I would like to ask what checks are in place to verify that each actor does their part.

For example, an owner hands his car to a scrapyard, but the scrapyard is the rogue party. It resells the vehicle quietly, or strips it and lets the shell go back onto the road. Later, the car is caught in an offence. How will the Ministry establish that the owner did his part, so that he is not wrongly blamed and that the scrapyard which failed in its duty is held accountable? What records will be kept at each handover? Will transfers be logged in real time with the Registrar? What penalties can be expected for the rogue party?

Separately, going forward, the period allowed for disposal is being shortened from one month to 14 days. Some of our resource panelists shared that some owners and companies may wish to find a buyer, arrange an export or sell the vehicle for parts during this period. They are concerned that 14 days may not be sufficient and if there are unexpected circumstances, what recourse do these owners and companies have?

Let me now turn to the regulation of sales and advertising and to batteries and alterations for AMDs. I support these measures.

In MacPherson, we have seen fires break out at homes and along common corridors because PMDs were charged with incompatible batteries. We have also seen collisions on shared paths and in some cases, involving devices travelling at high speeds, suggesting alterations done. In mature estates, like ours, where it is densely built up and home to many seniors and young children, a single fire or collision can have tragic consequences. Hence, I am inclined to err on the side of caution. Regulating sales and advertising tackles the supply side of the problem. That is necessary, even as we continue to educate our population and work on the demand side.

First, online marketplaces. Much of this trade happens online, including by individual sellers and across borders. How will LTA find non-compliant listings? Will it rely on active monitoring, public reports or marketplace cooperation? How will LTA deal with overseas sellers who ship into Singapore – although I acknowledge that there were mention of import controls in place as well.

Second, private and second-hand sellers. The Bill rightly covers individuals and not only businesses. But many casual sellers do not know the rules. What outreach will there be and how will the warning and specification notices be made simple enough for an individual seller to understand and comply with?

Third, consumers. How will an ordinary buyer know whether a battery is compatible with a particular device? Will there be a clear, accessible list of approved models and compatible batteries, for example through a QR code or a searchable online register, so that the buyer does not have to try making sense of technical specifications?

Fourth, repair and alteration workshops. How will they be informed, trained and checked? I would imagine workshops having to shoulder some responsibility in such cases as well.

Adding on, there are non-compliant batteries already in circulation at present. Some of the users could be using the devices, with non-compliant batteries, for their livelihood or daily living. Hence, putting in place new rules alone may not help very much. More support to help these users transition is needed. Therefore, how will the Ministry facilitate this transition and support these users in the process?

Even as these measures take effect, we must keep educating the public. There are too many options out there, many with strong marketing and consumers cannot be expected to sort out the standards and permitted models on their own. We need sustained efforts on the safe use of AMDs and on gracious sharing of common paths. Rules may stop the worst behaviour, but education can change habits.

Finally, let me turn to AVs. The Bill creates a framework for trials, special uses and testbeds, with regulations that can modify existing road and path rules and a sunset in 2031. I support this approach. It lets us experiment safely and learn. But as we move into an increasingly digital and autonomous era, everything becomes connected, and connectivity opens us to attack and manipulation. I have two questions.

First, on data and privacy. AVs collect enormous amounts of data, from sensors, cameras and video footage, and the regulations will require operators to keep records and share information with LTA. We need data for meaningful analysis, to understand incidents, improve safety and drive new innovations. But it also captures the movements and images of ordinary people on our paths. How will the Ministry balance the two? Who may access this data, how long will it be kept and how will it be protected?

Second, on cybersecurity. What guardrails are in place to protect against cyberattacks on these vehicles? A compromised vehicle is not simply one broken machine. A coordinated attack on many vehicles at once could cause widespread harm on our roads. Will operators be required to meet minimum cybersecurity standards and undergo independent testing before approval? How is the Ministry working with stakeholders to ensure that we are ready to respond if something goes wrong at scale?

Lastly, related to this is, as we move into the digital era, with agentic AI being more coming to the forefront, autonomous is becoming something that we must view with great importance. In most recent discussions, whether it is in Singapore or internationally, we talk about AI safety. I think we will also have to consider this in totality as we look at AVs. And hence, I would appreciate if the Ministry could shed more light in the measures that will be put in place to safeguard this in this aspect.

Notwithstanding my questions, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

2.54 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to improve safety in active mobility, strengthen controls over deregistered vehicles and support Singapore's transition towards EVs. I will focus on four areas: AMDs and online sales, battery fire risk, deregistered vehicles and EV charging infrastructure.

Active mobility safety begins before the device reaches the rider. Mr Speaker, I welcome the amendments to strengthen regulation over the sale, advertisement and modification of AMDs. Over the years, Parliament has spent much time discussing enforcement against riders who use non-compliant devices, especially during the 13th Parliament. But many unsafe devices do not originate with riders. They begin upstream with importers, retailers, modifiers, online sellers and advertisers.

In that regard, I welcome this Bill's stronger focus on the supply chain. These concerns are not new.

Since 2016, I have repeatedly raised the need to tackle non-compliant devices before they reach users. During the Committee of Supply debate in 2016, when the Government was developing its active mobility framework, I pointed out that unauthorised e-bikes remain available for sale, and that many e-bikes in use were not authorised models. I had asked the Ministry to consider allowing only authorised e-bikes to be sold in Singapore.

During the 2018 debate, on the Second Reading of the Land Transport Enforcement Measures Bill, I spoke of my concerns about the burden of technical compliance, primarily on device owners, if they had purchased their devices from errant sellers who had misrepresented the specifications and asked about consumers' recourse in such cases, as well as whether consumers will have reliable means of verifying compliance before making a purchase.

In November 2019, I asked in a Parliamentary Question what measures were in place to deter the sale and supply of non-compliant PMDs by online suppliers, and whether Singapore customs have been asked to help detect and prevent non-compliant PMDs from being brought into Singapore by suppliers or individuals.

During the Second Reading of the Small Motorised Vehicle Safety Bill in 2020, I welcomed the introduction of import controls, but question why it had taken so long to restrict the import of illegal e-scooters and e-bikes. I also stressed that the most effective solution was to stop non-compliant devices from entering Singapore in the first place, and that control should extend beyond importers to shipping lines, logistics operators and online suppliers.

Subsequently, an import control regime was introduced in 2021, and in response to my Parliamentary Question in 2024, the Government confirmed that LTA was working with customs and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) against illegal imports, including devices purchased online. The present Bill moves the framework further in that direction. It extends powers and restrictions that previously applied largely to physical retail premises to online sales and advertising platforms.

Online sellers will be required to display warning notices, while the advertising and sale of non-compliant devices, forced or misleading representations leading to compliance and advertisement for illegal modification services will be prohibited. It also widens liability for those who sell, alter, fit or promote non-compliant devices and bans the display of such offending vehicles at any premises or place, subject to exceptions.

Mr Speaker, these are sensible measures. The law should not allow a situation where selling an unsafe device to a physical shop attracts liability, but selling or promoting the same product online avoids scrutiny. However, I am interested to know how these provisions will be enforced in practice. The Singapore retailer can be investigated and prosecuted. However, online sales frequently involve sellers operating outside Singapore. The Bill rightly strengthens the regulatory framework for online sales and advertising.

Nevertheless, practical enforcement against overseas sellers may understandably present different challenges, particularly where such sellers have no assets, operations or personnel in Singapore. Can the Minister of State share what actions can be taken against persistent overseas sellers? Can the Minister of State update the House on what arrangements currently exists or will be put in place with major online marketplaces, payment providers, logistics companies, Singapore customs and overseas regulators to prevent such non-compliant products from reaching Singapore consumers?

Will online marketplaces accessible in Singapore be expected to conduct proactive screenings of listings, or only to act after a direction has been issued by LTA? Can the Minister of State also clarify the rationale for the exception to the display ban at clause 9 or the amended section 30(2), which allows a seller to show a non-compliant mobility vehicle merely because a consumer request to view it. I am concerned that a seller found displaying a non-compliant mobility vehicle could simply claim that a customer requested to view it. Does the Minister of State consider that this risks undermining the effectiveness of the display ban?

Ultimately, Mr Speaker, success should not be measured by how many listings are taken down after the event, but by how many unsafe devices are prevented from reaching users in the first place.

Next, addressing battery fires through prevention. Mr Speaker, closely related to this issue is battery safety. Battery fires involving mobility devices have been a long-standing concern for residents. When such incidents occur in high-rise residential environments, the consequences extend well beyond the owner of the device. Neighbours, families and first responders may all be put at risk.

I therefore welcome the introduction of batteries specification notices and the creation of offences relating to the sale, fitting and advertisement of incompatible batteries under this Bill.

Mr Speaker, this issue has been a long-standing concern of mine too. During the February 2020 debate on amendments to the Active Mobility Act and the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill, I specifically ask whether the Government would regulate PMD aftermarket batteries, including their testing and supply, so that access to batteries which do not conform to the requisite safety standards could be cut off completely, thereby reducing the risk of battery fires.

I also suggested that the Ministry work with the Singapore Customs to prevent the import of off-specification batteries, including batteries purchased directly from overseas online sellers. The Government addressed inspections, illegal modifications and retailer offences during that debate, but did not specifically address my proposals concerning aftermarket batteries and controls at the point of import.

The present Bill reflects a stronger upstream approach. Instead of focusing only on the user after a battery has been installed or a fire that has occurred, it targets the supply chain by requiring battery specification notices and by creating offences relating to the sale, fitting and advertisement of incompatible batteries. This is a sensible development because prevention is always preferable to enforcement after the fact.

Compatibility matters too. A battery that appears suitable may not actually have been designed for a particular device. Modifications intended to increase performance may create significant fire hazards. The Bill recognises this reality and places greater responsibility on suppliers, retailers and battery sellers.

However, I would appreciate further information from the Minister of State on the causes of battery-related incidents. Has the Ministry analysed the different factors contributing to the recent battery fires? What proportion of the fires involve incompatible batteries, illegal modifications, unauthorised charging arrangements or other causes? I believe this will help Parliament to assess whether the proposed measures are targeting the principal sources of risk and what else we need to do.

Mr Speaker, this also brings me back to a point I raised during the debate on the Land Transport Enforcement Bill in 2018. At that time, I had asked whether consumers will have a reliable means of verifying compliance before making a purchase. This question is also relevant to the issue of batteries, besides devices.

I am glad that this Bill requires seller to display battery specification notices containing information on battery specifications and compatibility. However, many consumers may still lack the technical knowledge to determine whether a particular battery is genuinely suitable for a particular device.

Could the Minister of State consider whether LTA should maintain a publicly accessible and easily searchable database of approved batteries and compatible devices, so that consumers can independently verify compatibility before making a purchase? Such a resource will complement the new regulatory requirements by empowering consumers to make informed decisions, reducing the likelihood of incompatible batteries being purchased, fitted or used in the first place.

Mr Speaker, legislation is important, but legislation alone will not eliminate battery fires. Public education remains equally important. Consumers need to understand that safety is not determined by price alone and that a cheaper replacement battery purchased online may carry significant safety risks if it is incompatible with the device for which it is intended.

Next, I speak on strengthening controls over the registered vehicles. Mr Speaker, I also welcome the amendments to deregistered vehicles, the establishment of a formal authorised exporter framework and clearer statutory rules governing disposal address long-standing gaps in the existing framework, given an increase in reported cases of deregistered vehicles being used on our roads, including in some instances, being linked to hit-and-run cases and criminal activities, it is understandable that the Government wishes to strengthen a framework governing their disposal.

The amendments should make it harder for deregistered vehicles to remain in circulation or fall into regulatory grey areas. I particularly support the offence of knowingly or recklessly selling or supplying a deregistered or unregistered vehicle for unlawful road use. Those who facilitate illegal road use should bear responsibility as well. These amendments do not represent a fundamental shift in policy, but rather formalise and strengthen a process that was previously less comprehensively reflected in legislation. They should hopefully improve accountability and reduce opportunities for abuse.

I would, however, appreciate clarification regarding the reduction of the disposal grace period from one month to 14 days. The Government explained that under the proposed framework, vehicle owners will only need to hand over deregistered vehicles to authorised exporters, authorised scrapyards or authorised export processing zone operators and will no longer be required to separately submit disposal documents to LTA.

I understand the rationale that this may simplify the disposal process. However, what assessment was made in determining that 14 days would be sufficient? Were industry stakeholders consulted in arriving at this timeframe? I also appreciate clarification on what safeguards or extensions, if any, are available where compliance within 14 days is impracticable due to circumstances beyond the owner's control, such as estate administration or ownership disputes?

Mr Speaker, the success of this new framework will depend significantly on the integrity and effectiveness of the proposed authorised exporters scheme. Could the Minister of State elaborate on how LTA intends to ensure that authorised exporters are properly scrutinised before authorisation is granted and remain compliant after authorisation?

Beyond the penalties provided under the legislation, what forms of supervision, auditing, inspection and ongoing compliance monitoring will be imposed on Authorised Exporters? What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of the scheme, including situations where deregistered vehicles are improperly handled, insufficiently accounted for, or re-enter circulation instead of being properly exported or disposed of?

Each Authorised Exporter or operator also carries notification storage, scrapping, export and tamper-reporting duties. Will operators file periodic reports and will LTA audit them against export and scrapping records?

Mr Speaker, the Bill also presumes that the last recorded owner continues to keep or use a deregistered vehicle, unless the authorised operator has properly notified the registrar that he has taken over the vehicle. It protects the owner who hands over promptly, but only once the operator gives notice. In the meantime, the owner has no control over when or whether the operator notifies the registrar.

I would also appreciate clarification on the transfer of responsibility under the new framework. If a vehicle owner hands over deregistered vehicle to an authorised exporter, authorised scrapyard or authorised export processing zone operator within the prescribed 14-day period, has the owner's legal responsibility been fully discharged at that point or does the owner remain exposed to liability, if the authorised entity subsequently fails to fulfil its own obligations?

Will proof of prompt handover be enough to display the presumption of continuing to use the vehicle when the operator fails or has yet to notify the Registrar? Put another way, at what point does responsibility transfer from the vehicle owner to the authorised disposal entity? Greater clarity on this point would help ensure that vehicle owners understand precisely what is required of them under the new regime.

I next speak on supporting EV adoption through practical implementation. Mr Speaker, I turn now to the amendments relating to EV chargers. I do welcome many of these amendments. The grouping of EV chargers as the same model for approval purposes, the introduction of accessible codes in place of certain physical marks, the streamlined approval framework for charger installations and the regulatory sandbox for innovative charging technologies should hopefully reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, while maintaining regulatory oversight.

These amendments should support innovation and facilitate the continued expansion of Singapore's EV-charging network. However, the more significant challenge to Singapore's EV transition is no longer legislation, it is implementation. The Bill introduces a new framework under which developers and building owners remain responsible for providing EV charging infrastructure. Our plans will now be certified by qualified persons and electrical workers, instead of requiring prior approval of LTA.

I understand the rationale for streamlining the process. However, I would appreciate clarification on how compliance will be monitored under this new model. What forms of audit inspection or post-certification checks will be conducted by LTA, to ensure that safety standards remain high?

Mr Speaker, I am particularly concerned about the implications for older developments. Many existing condominiums, strata title developments and commercial buildings were designed and constructed long before widespread EV adoption was even contemplated. Unlike newer developments, some may not have sufficient electrical capacity to support significant EV-charging demand without substantial upgrading works.

Class 45 contemplates a formula for determining the required minimum electrical load and minimum active electrical load for EV charging infrastructure. Could the Minister of State elaborate on the factors that will be considered in developing this formula? Will different requirements apply to different classes of developments, such as residential, commercial and industrial properties? Will allowance be made for the practical realities faced by older developments where upgrading electrical infrastructure may involve substantial cost and technical complexity? More importantly, what assistance, incentives or transitional support will be available for older developments that need to undertake major upgrading works in order to comply.

I would also appreciate clarification regarding the amendments to the inspection regime. The Ministry's factsheet states that landed home chargers will no longer be subject to mandatory two-year periodic inspections. Could the Minister of State explain the criteria that will be used to determine which chargers remain subject to periodic inspections?

Beyond landed home chargers, are other categories of chargers being considered for exclusion from routine inspection in future, and if so, what risk-based considerations will guide such decisions?

Finally, I welcome the EV charger sandbox provisions, which will allow innovative charging technologies to be tested in a controlled environment. Could the Minister of State share what types of charging technologies the Government envisages being tested under the sandbox, and how safety will be assessed where alternative technical standards, designs or operating requirements are permitted?

Mr Speaker, the transition to EVs should be practical, affordable and inclusive. Regulatory streamlining is important, but success will ultimately depend on whether charging infrastructure can be deployed at sufficient scale, at reasonable cost and in a manner that remains workable for both new and existing developments.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the objectives of this Bill are sound and many of its provisions are sensible and necessary. My questions are directed not at the policy objectives, but at their implementation. Whether in relation to overseas online sellers, battery safety, authorised exporters or EV charging infrastructure, the success of this framework will depend on how effectively these new powers exercise in practice.

I look forward to the Minister of State's clarifications. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

3.13 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak about what this Bill means for the workers who keep our land transport system moving – our taxi and private-hire drivers, delivery riders, bus captains and other transport workers.

As technology changes, consumers need enough information to make informed choices. But workers too need enough information to make informed choices about their livelihoods. And as we introduce new technology into our transport system, our workers must continue to have a seat at the table and a place in the future we are building.

Mr Speaker, I support the stronger action in this Bill against the advertising and sale of non-compliant AMDs and incompatible batteries. As an adviser to the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA), my concern is also for delivery riders who may themselves be victims – workers who spend their hard-earned money on a device or battery without realising that what they have bought is non-compliant and unsafe. They have not only wasted their money, but an unsafe battery can pose a fire hazard to themselves, their families and their neighbours.

I therefore welcome stronger deterrence and enforcement against irresponsible sellers. However, enforcement must go together with education. Can LTA work closely with NDCA, platform operators and community partners to help riders and members of the public recognise unsafe listings, know what information to verify before purchasing and easily report suspicious products? If we can intervene before the purchase is made, that is better for consumers, workers and of course, public safety.

As the adviser to the National Taxi Association (NTA) and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA), I also strongly welcome the measures to strengthen enforcement against illegal point-to-point transport services.

This is an issue which NTA and NPHVA have raised repeatedly with MOT and LTA. Drivers who follow our regulations, bear the costs of operating legitimately and play by the rules should not find their livelihoods eroded by illegal operators. There is a passenger safety dimension too because illegal services operate outside our licensing, insurance and safety framework. I thank MOT and LTA for listening to our associations and acting on this.

This partnership has not only been about protecting what our drivers already have. Together with the updates to the cross-border point-to-point regime, we have also been able to open up new opportunities for our drivers and grow both the economic and jobs pie.

This is what good partnership, tripartism, should look like – protecting legitimate livelihoods while finding ways for workers to benefit from new opportunities. Technology changes, business models will change, regulation must keep pace, but workers must also be heard, because they are often the first to see what is changing on the ground. When the Government, industry and unions work together, we can protect our workers, create new opportunities and grow the overall pie.

I hope we bring precisely this approach into the next major transformation facing land transport – AVs.

Let me say this clearly. Our transport workers are not against technology. Neither are our unions. During the debate on "An AI Transition with No Jobless Growth" in May, I said that when you involve workers early and genuinely, they do not resist change. They drive it. Our workers know jobs will change. What they are asking for is a seat at the table to ensure that change translates into better lives and livelihoods.

Take Chye Thiam Maintenance, a homegrown environmental services company that has been working with WeRide on deploying robo-sweepers in Singapore since 2024, with no major safety incidents publicly reported. For context, WeRide is also one of the technology providers involved in the Punggol AV trials.

There is a genuine manpower challenge in this sector, including an ageing pool of mechanical sweeper drivers. If autonomous technology can fill manpower gaps, take workers away from repetitive tasks and improve productivity, then I think we should use this. These are areas where we can accelerate the use of AVs.

This illustrates an important principle. The technology itself is not the issue. The use case matters. When an autonomous sweeper fills a manpower gap, technology can augment our workforce. When an autonomous taxi competes for the same passenger trip and the same fare as an existing taxi or private hire driver, the labour market consequences may be quite different. We should recognise this when deciding where, how quickly and at what scale we deploy autonomous technology.

I want to acknowledge that Singapore's approach to passenger AVs so far has been careful and measured. We started in controlled environments and moved to fixed-route trials. Operators had to demonstrate safety and accumulate operating experience.

As a Member of Parliament for Punggol, I have watched residents experience these vehicles first-hand. The AVs in Punggol have travelled more than 160,000 kilometres as part of the trials. Safety first, test carefully, learn, build public confidence, then expand progressively. I give MOT and LTA credit for that. The companies involved, including ComfortDelgro and Grab, have also taken a careful and safety-conscious approach to these trials.

At the same time, when I speak to taxi and private hire drivers today, I do hear anxiety. Our drivers are joining the dots. They see the Punggol trials moving toward point-to-point services. They hear about deployment expanding to other parts of Singapore and international AV operators starting to enter the market. They hear discussions about career conversions and new jobs in an AV ecosystem. Naturally, our drivers will ask – what does all this eventually mean for me?

Today, the number of AVs remain very small compared with the more than 70,000 taxi and private-hire drivers on our roads. But drivers are also hearing plans which point towards several hundred AVs potentially operating within the next couple of years. So, while the numbers today are small, they can see the direction of travel.

One driver said something to me recently and that stayed with me. He heard that close to 10,000 people had already taken the autonomous shuttles in Punggol. He said to me very simply, "10,000 riders. Does that eventually mean 10,000 fewer jobs for us?"

Of course, the answer today is no. These are trials and those rides are not equivalent to 10,000 displaced commercial taxi or private hire vehicle trips. But I understood what he was trying to tell me. To a driver, this is not a theoretical discussion about technology. One more trip taken by a robo-taxi could eventually mean one less trip for him. When you earn your living trip by trip, that really matters.

So, the question behind his question is one we have to answer – when AVs eventually operate commercially and at scale, will there still be enough trips for our drivers to earn a decent living?

Mr Speaker, there is another reason why we must approach this transition carefully. Driving has traditionally been what we sometimes call a job of last resort. Perhaps a better way of understanding its role in our economy is this – driving has been an important employment buffer for generations of Singaporeans. Many of us grew up knowing an uncle, an aunt or even a neighbour who drove taxis. In fact, many of us sitting in this Chamber today grew up with a parent who proudly made driving a living. This was honest work that put food on the table, paid school fees, raised families and sent children to university.

When other livelihood doors closed, this was one door that remained open. This function has not disappeared. In 2025, the number of resident regular platform workers increased, driven in particular by an increase in private hire car drivers from 31,800 to 36,000. People are still choosing this job. People are still relying on this work.

In the recent Labour Market Report, retrenchments increased in the second quarter of 2026, with more retrenched residents taking longer to find a job. Behind these statistics are real workers who need to find their next livelihood. As we plan for an AV future, we must think not only about how today's drivers transition. We must also ask what happens to the employment buffer in our labour market. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): In Singapore, driving a taxi holds special significance for many families. It provides an important fallback option.

When someone loses their job and is unable to find another immediately, they can drive a taxi. When someone needs to change jobs or seek new opportunities, they can drive a taxi. When they need to care for young children or elderly parents, they can drive a taxi, using the flexibility of the job to work while still caring for their family.

Generations after generations, taxi drivers have relied on their own hard work to support their families, put their children through school and lead lives of dignity and self-reliance. When all other doors are closed, the door to driving a taxi remains open.

Today, autonomous driving is gradually becoming a reality. We cannot, of course, resist change, but we must ask ourselves if this door narrows or closes one day, where is the next door that we will open for our workers?

( In English ): Mr Speaker, that is the bigger question. If driving gradually becomes less available as an accessible and flexible livelihood, and as an employment buffer, what will take its place? This is not simply a transport question. It is a labour market and social question.

We now have overseas experience which tells us to take these concerns seriously. Earlier this year, researchers studying Baidu's Apollo Go robo-taxis in Wuhan, using more than 200,000 daily observations, estimated a 10.9% short-run reduction in the average daily income of traditional taxis in the district studied. Drivers also worked longer hours and reported greater job stress and lower job satisfaction.

Well, Wuhan is not Singapore. The market and regulatory environment are different. I am not suggesting that AVs in Singapore will produce an 11% reduction in our drivers' incomes, but neither should we assume that there will be no impact. Displacement may not look like thousands of drivers suddenly losing their jobs. It may happen quietly. Fewer trips, longer waits between bookings, lower utilisation and gradually, greater pressure on earnings.

So, as we move from trials towards wider commercial deployment, I believe our drivers need three things from us.

First, clarity. Clarity on the deployment pathway. Clause 58 extends the road AV regulatory sandbox to 31 December 2028 while a more holistic legislative framework is being developed. What are the stages between today's controlled deployments and wider commercial deployment? What indicators will determine when we move from one stage to the next? When do we consider AVs to have moved from experimentation and supplementation into something capable of materially affecting the existing point-to-point market? Our drivers need enough information to make those informed choices about their livelihoods.

Second, measure the impact on workers. Safety, reliability and commuter acceptance must obviously matter, but will worker impact also be a measure? Can we establish a baseline now and monitor drivers' trips, utilisation, waiting times and most importantly, net earnings? If material livelihood impact emerges before alternative pathways are ready, will that be taken into account when determining the pace and scale of further deployment?

Third, workers need a meaningful seat at the table before decisions are made. I ask that NTA and NPHVA continue to be closely consulted as deployment progresses. Drivers can tell us what is happening to waiting times, trips, earnings and commuter behaviour long before these effects become obvious in aggregate statistics. Our drivers' experience are important data points too.

I welcome the Government's commitment to preparing workers for new opportunities and these are in fleet operations, remote operations, maintenance, safety assurance and other supporting functions. Some drivers will successfully make these transitions, some may not. But a successful transition cannot mean that only an upskilling course is offered. We need to ask – transit into what job, at what income and how many of those jobs actually exist?

We also cannot assume that every taxi and private hire vehicle driver can or want to become an AV engineer. Some will move into new occupations and some may take on new roles in the AV ecosystem. Others may want or need to continue driving for many more good years. A good transition must start from the worker rather than expecting the worker to fit a prescribed transition programme.

Mr Speaker, the Bill also allows controlled trials, special uses and testbeds for AVs on public paths. I support creating room for innovation, but our very busy public paths are shared by pedestrians, seniors, persons with disabilities, cyclists and of course, our delivery riders. Can the Minister of State explain how suitable locations will be determined and whether LTA will consult local residents, our delivery workers and other regular users before trials begin in heavily used public spaces? Early engagement can help technology succeed rather than become a source of unnecessary friction.

Mr Speaker, embracing technology and protecting workers are not opposing choices. Our experience in the Labour Movement tells us that we can do both. Let us accelerate in areas where autonomous technology helps our workers do more, where technology fills manpower shortages and improves workplace safety.

But where the same technology can compete directly with an existing pool of workers for their core incomes, our considerations must be broader, not necessarily slower forever, but more deliberate, more transparent and with workers sitting at the table as we decide the pace.

Mr Speaker, I support this Bill and I hope that as technology moves forward, our workers will move forward with it as well.

3.30 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. We have been in the Chambers for close to five hours. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.50 pm. Order. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.30 pm until 3.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm.

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

Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill: Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.

3.50 pm

Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, my speech today will focus on the amendments concerning AMDs and the extension of the existing regulatory sandbox for AV deployments on roads to 31 December 2028.

I support the Government's efforts to reduce the fire risk posed by AMDs. Fire safety is a paramount public concern. Last year, Singapore recorded 49 AMD fires. A welcome decline from 67 fires in 2024 and 55 in 2023. Every fire is a serious threat to lives, property and community safety. Measures targeting non-compliant AMDs and unsafe batteries are necessary and timely.

However, as we tighten standards, we must ensure these safety requirements do not inadvertently place an unsustainable financial burden on ordinary Singaporeans. Previous regulatory changes on AMDs have resulted in price increases. For example, since 1 June 2026, only LTA-approved AMD models can be displayed or sold. Following this change, retailers reported raising prices by $100 to $150 per device due to registration fees, mandatory inspections, compliance logistics and rising factory costs.

While these changes ensure standards, the cost of regulatory compliance does ultimately get passed down to end users.

During the Second Reading debate on the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill on 3 February 2026, I said that many lower-income Singaporeans and platform workers rely on mobility devices to earn a living by making food and parcel deliveries. These devices are essential tools of the trade, not toys or luxury items. If the cost of regulatory compliance drives up prices for AMDs and batteries, the take-home income of these workers will be reduced. I hope the Government will keep cost of regulatory compliance manageable and send a clear message to retailers of authorised batteries and compliant devices not to take this regulatory shift as an opportunity to inflate prices or profiteer.

I turn next to clause 23 of the Bill, which empowers LTA to issue written directions to individuals and businesses involved in advertising, selling or modifying public path vehicles and mobility device batteries. LTA can mandate compliance within a specified timeframe, direct the cessation of sales, require the removal of non-compliant online listings or order corrective actions such as publishing accurate notices. Crucially, if non-compliant sales or advertising takes place on an e-commerce platform, LTA may direct the marketplace operator to disclose information about the seller or publisher.

While these legal powers are clear on paper, how will they translate to practical enforcement? Major e-commerce platforms, such as Shopee or Pinduoduo, host numerous third-party merchants offering AMD replacement parts and batteries. A great many listings could be posted, modified or re-uploaded daily on these platforms under varying merchant names.

How does LTA plan to monitor compliance across these platforms in real time? Does LTA currently possess the internal capacity data tracking systems and enforcement personnel required to effectively audit e-commerce platforms, or will enforcement rely largely on complaints or feedback from the public? Does LTA have any plans to increase its own technical capabilities or work with other agencies that currently have the technical capabilities to ensure that e-commerce platforms comply with the new rules?

Finally, I wish to address Part 3 of the Bill, which extends the existing regulatory sandbox under the Road Traffic Act 1961, for AV deployments on roads to 31 December 2028.

During the debate on the Motion to reinforce Singapore's position as a global transport hub in July, I suggested that LTA should consider deploying self-driving public buses to build a network of night bus services by first running such self-driving buses along existing Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines when these lines are closed during the overnight hours. In response, Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling said, and I quote, "We agree that there are good use cases for autonomous buses, such as night bus services, and we will consider it when the technology is more mature."

With the regulatory sandbox for road deployments now extended through to the end of 2028, we will have more time to pilot operational users for AVs. I hope LTA will use this extended sandbox period to actively trial self-driving night buses along rail corridors after operational train hours. Bringing a network of self-driving night bus services to reality would improve public transport connectivity for late-night workers, while showcasing practical AV integration on our roads.

Notwithstanding my clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong

3.56 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill covers a wide range of areas from the online sale and safe use of AMDs and batteries, EV charging to AVs and the disposal of deregistered vehicles.

These may appear to be quite different issues, but there is a common thread. As our transport landscape evolves, our regulations must keep pace with changes in technology, business models and consumer behaviour, while keeping our roads and public spaces safe. At the same time, regulation should be practical and fair. Consumers should be able to understand what is safe and legal, while both workers and businesses that comply with the rules should not be disadvantaged by those who seek to circumvent them.

I have five areas which I would like to seek clarification from the Minister of State.

First, on the online sale of AMDs and batteries. I welcome stronger regulation of online sales and misleading claims. Consumers increasingly purchase PMDs, PABs and replacement batteries from sellers whom they may not know and cannot readily verify. Unsafe products can therefore reach our consumers quickly, while the same seller may reappear under a different account.

Enforcement must address these risks upstream and clarify the responsibilities of sellers and platforms. Online marketplaces are better placed than individual consumers to detect prohibited products, repeat sellers and suspicious listing patterns. Will major marketplaces be required to remove prohibited listings promptly and take reasonable steps to prevent sellers from relisting them through the use of another account?

The scope of enforcement must also reflect how our online commerce now operates. Will the provisions cover sales through social media, messaging applications and closed groups, as well as overseas sellers without a meaningful Singapore presence?

Retailers may also repeat technical specifications or safety claims supplied by manufacturers or overseas suppliers. What due diligence must they undertake before making such representations and would reliance on upstream information alone be sufficient?

For products posing significant safety risks, the safe choice should be the easy and default choice. Consumers should not bear the primary burden of identifying prohibited listings.

My second point concerns replacement batteries. This Bill regulates compatible batteries and makes it an offence to fit or use an incompatible battery. This is an important safety measure: a battery that does not match the device or its charging system can create serious fire risks, affecting not only the owner but also neighbours and the wider public. I therefore support the safety rationale.

However, if consumers are to be held responsible, they must have a practical and reliable means of determining compatibility. Product labels may be technical, incomplete, or difficult to compare, particularly for older devices. Will LTA provide an authoritative, searchable list for consumers to verify battery compatibility, especially for the older devices? How will enforcement treat consumers who act in good faith but are misled about compatibility?

There may also be cases where an older device remains serviceable, but its original battery is no longer produced. What practical options will owners have if no compliant replacement exists? Clear guidance is therefore needed to avoid leaving consumers with no realistic route to comply.

There is also a livelihood issue. Many delivery riders depend on their PABs as essential work tools. Safety standards are important and must remain firm, but information on compliant batteries and approved installers should be clear, accessible and reliable. Riders should be able to comply without unnecessary downtime or loss of income.

My third point concerns illegal point-to-point transport services, particularly cross-border services. I support strong enforcement.

Passengers who book a point-to-point service should be able to expect that the vehicle and the driver meet our safety and licensing requirements, and that the necessary insurance and regulatory protections are in place. However, ilegal cross-border services may not provide the same safeguards. At the same time, commuters may not always know whether a service advertised online is authorised, particularly where bookings are arranged through informal channels or made to resemble legitimate services.

The Ministry has indicated that commuters may eventually be penalised for using illegal services. If so, culpability must be clear. Must a passenger knowingly engage an illegal service and how will good-faith bookings be treated by the authorities? Before penalties are imposed, will passengers have a simple official way to verify authorised vehicles, operators and booking services, without having to navigate complex licensing arrangements?

Singapore taxi and private-hire car drivers incur licensing, insurance and other compliance costs to operate legally. Effective enforcement should protect their livelihoods from unfair competition. But as we know, illegal transport services may be coordinated through organisers, booking channels and commercial networks that recruit drivers, arrange for the rides and profit from these activities. Can the Minister of State share how will LTA target these upstream actors and not just focus on the individual drivers? This will require timely information-sharing and coordinated action across not just within LTA but also with the online platforms and the relevant enforcement agencies, particularly where operators use multiple channels or operate across borders.

My fourth point concerns AVs. The Bill extends the AV regulatory sandbox and establishes a framework for AVs on public paths. I support controlled testing and development. AVs can improve mobility, productivity and road safety. But wider deployment must be supported by clear evidence that the technology can operate safely in Singapore's dense and complex transport environment.

As AV technology matures, the question is how the testing regime will evolve from time-limited trials to wider deployment. The public should understand the thresholds that must be met and how performance in real-world conditions will be assessed. What safety, cybersecurity and operational evidence will be required before AVs progress from limited trials to wider or fully driverless deployment? Will LTA publish appropriate safety indicators, including incidents and safety operator interventions, to support public confidence?

AV systems may involve vehicle owners, fleet operators, software developers and technology providers. How will responsibility be allocated, and what minimum insurance and claims arrangements will ensure that persons who suffer injury or property damage can obtain timely compensation?

Taxi, private-hire car and other professional drivers may be affected as AV deployment expands. I welcome the Government’s assurance that deployment will not outpace support and retraining, but this commitment should be translated into measurable transition outcomes. The key question is this: how will this be measured? Will readiness indicators include and cover training, successful job transitions and the availability of suitable jobs?

These transition plans should be developed early together with unions and employers, before actual displacement occurs. Training must be linked to actual jobs, with appropriate support for workers who may require more time or more assistance to move into their new roles. As I understand, these new roles may be in areas such as safety operations, remote monitoring and fleet management. These roles should be assessed not only by number, but also by whether they offer sustainable wages, relevant skills and more importantly, meaningful career progression. Technological progress and worker transition must move together to sustain our social compact.

My fifth point concerns deregistered vehicles. I support stronger action against illegally kept or driven deregistered vehicles. Once a vehicle is deregistered, it should be exported, scrapped or otherwise disposed of lawfully. A vehicle that remains on the road may be uninsured or unroadworthy, posing serious risks not only to the user but to other road users.

The Bill strengthens requirements for timely disposal. However, rules on disposal must be matched by effective detection, especially where a deregistered vehicle continues to be driven or is moved around to avoid enforcement. Can registration, road-monitoring and Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0 data be used to identify promptly deregistered vehicles and trigger timely enforcement? Of course, these must be subject to proportionate safeguards governing access, retention and use of the data.

Enforcement must also include procedural safeguards. The Bill allows restrictions on vehicle registration or transfer for persons assessed as being at higher risk of failing to dispose of deregistered vehicles properly. What factors will LTA consider when assessing such risks? Will affected persons be informed of the basis and duration of any restriction and have access to a transparent review process if their circumstances change?

Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, the different parts of this Bill deal with very different technologies and transport activities, but there are three principles that should guide us.

First, make the safe and legal choice easy for consumers. Whether someone is buying a replacement battery online or booking a transport service, we should provide clear information and straightforward ways for consumers to check what is safe and legal.

Second, deal with the risks upstream. Where possible, we should act promptly and firmly against unsafe sellers, repeat online listings, illegal transport networks and deregistered vehicles before harm occurs, rather than relying primarily on consumers or individual enforcement after something has gone wrong.

Third, work with our unions to bring workers along as our transport system changes. Our workers must have a stake in a future shaped by advanced technologies. Where technology transforms jobs, the Government should engage our unions early and put in clear transition plans, timely reskilling support, and viable employment pathways, so that both workers and businesses can benefit from technological progress.

I hope the Minister of State will address the five areas raised. With these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Muhaimin Malik.

4.11 pm

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill comes at an important time. From 2030, all new car registrations must be cleaner energy models and pure petrol cars can no longer be registered. EV adoption is accelerating. In the first eight months of this year, EVs made up 63% of new car registrations and our EV population has reached about 82,100. We now have about 34,700 charging points, a little over halfway to our target of 60,000 by 2030.

Yet, only about one in nine cars on the roads today is fully electric and around 436,800 cars still run on petrol alone. As these cars are replaced, demand for charging will grow sharply. Charging must be safe, reliable and convenient, whether at home, in Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks or in condominiums.

My speech will focus on part two of the Bill, which amends the Electric Vehicles Charging Act. I will make three points. First, on bringing all chargers under one framework; second, on the lighter inspection regime for landed homes and; third, on moving beyond slow charging.

First, one framework for all chargers. Sir, before the Electric Vehicles Charging Act came into force in December 2023, chargers in Singapore fell into a patchwork. Some were approved, some had a Letter of No Objection, an administrative clearances under Technical Reference 25. Others had neither and were installed as general electrical installations under the oversight of a Licensed Electrical Worker. Many of these were installed in good faith by early adopters, commercial operators and fleet owners at a time when the Government was actively encouraging EV adoption.

This Bill tidies up how chargers installed before the Act are treated. It sets out clear categories for these early installed chargers, whether they were approved, issued a Letter of No Objection or neither, and allows LTA to require their owners to affix approval labels or a new charger identification label. It replaces physical registration marks with registration codes that can be checked in a prescribed manner. It also strengthens enforcement. Where a person is shown to have connected a charger to a vehicle, the law will presume that the person used it to charge the vehicle, making it easier to act against the use of unregistered chargers. I support these changes.

As we ramp up charging installation across HDB estates, condominiums and workplaces, a clear and consistent regime gives Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs) , landlords and EV owners certainty.

I have two clarifications for the Minister of State.

One, failing to affix a label when required is an offence. Many early chargers were installed years ago and some owners may not realise they are responsible for one. At present, does LTA or the Energy Market Authority (EMA) have a database of all chargers that have been installed in Singapore? How much time will owners be given to affix the new labels? Will the labels be provided free of charge? And how will LTA reach owners of older chargers so that no one commits and offence unknowingly? Next, with registration marks replaced by codes, how will residents, car park operators and enforcement officers check on the spot whether a charger is registered?

Second, lighter inspections backed by evidence. Sir, the Bill changes the inspection regime so that periodic inspections apply only to prescribed chargers while giving LTA a new power to order ad hoc inspections of any charger. I understand this will allow chargers at landed homes to be exempted from the current two-yearly inspection. I support this.

Our chargers are already protected by several layers of safety – type approval by LTA, built-in circuit protection and automatic shutoffs under our national standard, and installation and certification by a licensed electrical worker. With these safeguards in place, a mandatory inspection every two years adds cost for home owners without adding much safety.

But a lighter regime should still be backed by evidence. The Bill allows LTA to order an ad hoc inspection where it has reason to believe that a charger is unfit, dangerous or has been used in an offence, but also more broadly, simply to ensure the charger's continued fitness for charging.

This last ground does not require any suspected problem. I ask the Minister of State how LTA intends to use it? Will it be applied to specific charger models, older installations or chargers with a history of faults? How much time will homeowners be given to comply?

Third, moving beyond slow charging. Sir, this Bill also tightens the requirements on developers of new buildings and on owners of developments undergoing electrical work to provide a minimum electrical load for EV charging and charging points that draw a minimum active electrical load. Both will be set by a formula prescribed by the Minister. I welcome this, but how this formula is set will decide whether charging is truly convenient.

And I am concerned that our network today relies too heavily on slow charging. As my colleague Mr Louis Chua pointed out at this year's Committee of Supply debate, it is typical for an HDB MSCP to have only three slow chargers. In Sengkang, my residents have been calling for more chargers in their car parks and for fast chargers closer to home.

A slow charger of 7.4 kilowatts needs about eight hours to fully charge a car with a typical 60-kilowatt-hour battery. That works for a resident who can leave the car parked overnight but not for a shift worker, a private hire driver or a family that needs the car first thing in the morning. With only three chargers per car park, residents must queue, move their cars in the middle of the night or look elsewhere. As more residents switch to EVs ahead of 2030, this pressure will only grow.

Other cities with similarities to Singapore have moved faster. In Hong Kong, where most people also live in high-rise flats, about one in five public chargers is a quick or fast charger. Here, about 88% of our chargers are AC chargers and about half of these are rated 7.4 kilowatts or below. Only about 11% are direct current chargers. We do not publish the share of our public chargers that are fast chargers – and I think we should.

In her reply, the Senior Minister of State shared that there were 150 fast charging points at 70 car parks in HDB town centres and JTC premises, and that every HDB town will have at least one fast charging hub, with at least six fast charging points by the end of 2027.

I welcome this, but one hub per town may not be enough for towns with high EV uptake. I therefore have three questions for the Minister of State.

First, will the formula under this Bill account for fast charging, not just slow chargers? Will it be reviewed as EV adoption grows and will similar standards apply to HDB car parks?

Second, will the Government set a target for and regularly publish the share of public chargers that are fast chargers and the total charging capacity available per EV, so that this House and the public can track whether charging keeps pace with EV growth?

Third, in the same debate, the Senior Minister of State acknowledged that our real constraint is electrical infrastructure and that the first phase of upgrades will benefit around 450 HDB MSCPs by around 2029. What is the timeline for the remaining car parks, and will high-demand car parks be prioritised so that they can go beyond three chargers?

Finally, as we add more chargers in MSCPs and condominium basements, more EVs will be parked and charging together in enclosed spaces where a fire, however rare, can spread quickly and is harder to reach. I urge the Ministry to work with the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to review the fire safety requirements at these shared charging locations to ensure that there is adequate equipment and safety infrastructure in place.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill puts in place a clearer, more consistent framework for EV charging and I support it. As we ask residents, MCSTs and operators to adopt it, let us ensure that safety assurance is backed by data, that the transition is supported so that no one bears cost unfairly for having adopted early, and that our charging network is fast and dense enough for the EV future we are building towards. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

4.21 pm

Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to focus on how this Bill responds to technological changes in batteries and EV charging. I would also like to declare my interest as a business owner of a battery company.

In particular, I will speak about the Bill's stronger regulation of batteries used in AMDs and the practical pathway for manufacturers, suppliers and technicians to comply with these requirements. I will then make a brief point on how new charging models, such as mobile charging, could complement our EV charging infrastructure.

Sir, I support stronger standards for batteries used in AMDs. We know that non-compliant lithium ion batteries are serious fire risks, especially when they are poorly manufactured, modified or paired with incompatible devices.

However, as we strengthen battery safety requirements, we should also ensure that responsible businesses have a practical pathway to comply. Manufacturers, suppliers and technicians must not only know what standards apply, they must also be able to access the testing and certification necessary to demonstrate compliance.

As these requirements are operationalised, could LTA clarify how manufacturers and suppliers can demonstrate that a battery meets the prescribed requirements and is recognised as compatible with a particular device, particularly for batteries developed or supplied locally?

There is another consideration. The way a compatible battery is defined under the Bill places considerable weight on whether the battery has been tested together with a particular device; and for mobility vehicles, whether it was installed or endorsed by the original manufacturer.

I can understand the safety rationale behind this, but this has an unintended consequence that we should guard against. If in practice, the main route to demonstrating compatibility runs through the original equipment manufacturer, independent battery manufacturers capable of meeting the same safety standards could find themselves effectively shut out of the replacement market. Over time, this would then have the result of consolidating the replacement battery market within original equipment manufacturer supply chains into oligopolies, reducing consumer choice and potentially increasing replacement costs.

We should be particularly mindful of users who depend on these devices for their mobility or livelihood, for whom the affordability and availability of replacement batteries can have a direct impact on their daily lives.

Could LTA therefore clarify whether independent battery manufacturers will have a pathway to demonstrate compatibility with a particular device, provided their batteries undergo the necessary testing and meet the same prescribed safety standards?

These pathways could be secured by regulations that ensure accountability amongst independent battery manufacturers. Legitimate manufacturers, importers and suppliers should be identifiable and accountable for the batteries they place on the market. Could LTA therefore also consider whether greater traceability from manufacturer or importer to seller would help identify the source of non-compliant batteries and strengthen enforcement against illicit sellers, including those operating online?

We should not have to choose between an open market and a safe market. We should aim for an open but accountable market, where responsible players can participate if they can prove that their batteries are safe and compatible.

This then brings me to the practical question of testing and certification. If independent manufacturers are to demonstrate that their batteries are safe and compatible, how can they access the necessary testing and certification?

This can be particularly challenging for smaller companies. Today, if I were to send a battery for UL testing and certification, the process would typically look like this. We may have to supply about eight to 10 batteries and ship them overseas, to an overseas laboratory, including laboratories in Taiwan, where destructive tests are conducted. If the batteries meet the required standards, certification can then be issued. Such testing is expensive, in the tens of thousands, and the entire process takes around three months.

I believe there could be an easier way forward. Singapore has capabilities across the battery value chain. The Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), for example, has a battery test facility capable of performance, lifetime and destructive safety testing, including vibration, thermal abuse, overcharge, short-circuit and propagation tests. Our institutes of higher learning also possess relevant engineering and testing capabilities. At the same time, international testing and certification bodies, such as UL Solutions, already have a presence in Singapore. In short, there is nothing stopping Singapore from being a testing laboratory.

Could LTA therefore work with Enterprise Singapore, A*STAR, our institutes of higher learning and accredited certification bodies to develop a clearer pathway for local battery testing and certification? Where the necessary equipment and technical capabilities already exist locally, could certification bodies recognise, supervise or leverage testing conducted at these facilities rather than requiring batteries to be sent overseas for specialised testing? This would then lower the cost and time required for compliance while keeping with our high safety standards.

More broadly, if Singapore wants to develop capabilities in batteries, electrification and energy storage, testing and certification should form part of that ecosystem. We should build not only the capability to design and manufacture products here, but where practicable, the capability to test and certify them here too. This would then allow our companies to leverage Singapore's trust premium when they venture overseas.

Our objective should be one of safety. But this cannot be achieved only by keeping unsafe batteries out. Good and effective regulation should set the standard and allow businesses to strive toward that standard.

Sir, another model worth exploring is mobile charging. I had earlier asked the Ministry about its mobile charging sandbox, which is expected to conclude in the second quarter of 2028. Mobile charging can complement fixed charging infrastructure, particularly where a vehicle has insufficient charge to reach another charging point or where existing charging points are temporarily unavailable.

Could LTA consider expanding the sandbox to systematically test mobile charging as a supplementary charging option within our MSCPs? Instead of always bringing the vehicle to the charger, we should also explore having to bring the charger to the vehicle.

If mobile charging proves technically and commercially viable, it could also change the way we think about charging provisions in our MSCPs. Instead of permanently reserving more lots for fixed chargers, mobile charging could potentially allow charging to be brought to vehicles parked in ordinary lots. This brings peace of mind to EV users and will have a positive impact on adoption. I hope the sandbox can examine this use case as EV adoption grows.

Sir, whether we are regulating batteries or building our EV charging network, I believe the underlying principle should be the same. Regulation must keep pace with technology, but it should also create pathways for responsible businesses to participate.

For batteries, that means maintaining high safety standards while making compliance and certification more accessible. For EV charging, it means allowing new charging models, such as mobile charging, to evolve alongside our vehicle population. We should regulate firmly for safety while making it easier for businesses that want to do the right thing to innovate and comply. With these comments, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.

4.30 pm

Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I have only two concerns to raise.

First is on the removal of the mandatory two-year inspection. We all know EV charging is actually quite high voltage and high-power intensive, and they can actually go up from single-phase of 230 volts to all the way to three-phase 400 volts, and about 100-amps per phase.

My concern is that with the removal of this mandatory two-year inspection, how does the owner detect such, if there is any fault or incidents, such as micro cracks or damage to the cable? So, the current standards have made it quite “usable”, but really, we cannot depend on people with no experience or training to identify any possible cracks to the charging cable. So, if that is the case, how would the Government ensure that the charging cable that they have already installed is safe for charging?

Secondly, I would like to turn to the Active Mobility Act allowing for the expanded regulatory sandboxes, especially for the foot path. I am a strong advocate for sandboxes, especially for innovation and experimentation, but this Bill's proposal is on public paths, and therefore, I have couple of questions that is related to mixing AVs in a public environment.

The specific questions will be, whether the public will be clearly notified that there is an active sandbox testing zone, so is there any notifications about that, where they can identify? Will there be physical segregation during peak hours or street speed caps or third-party liability insurance imposed on operators conducting these trials? Will there be any physical onsite human supervision for these autonomous devices? If residents are injured by such experimental autonomous devices, what will be the legal and financial liability of the operator?

So, in the end, I would like to say that I actually support sandboxes for innovation experimentation, but those are the concerns that I have for the Minister of State to address. With these concerns addressed, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

4.33 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is alarming to learn that cases of crimes and traffic violations involving deregistered vehicles have increased more than threefold between 2024 and 2025.

In the last three years, 43% of such cases involved repeat offenders, suggesting that there are gaps in enforcement and deterrence that urgently need to be addressed. Separately, the growth of e-commerce in recent years has changed how mobility devices and batteries are sold. As shopfronts shift online, so must the associated consumer protections. I support the proposed measures, but have a few clarifications to make.

First, on the Authorised Exporter Scheme. While a complete system overhaul is a difficult choice to make, it is often necessary when the dangers posed are significant. Most of all, it is an opportunity to revamp our way of doing things. In light of the centralised oversight introduced through this scheme, will the Ministry consider how it can dovetail frameworks and workflows with the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment to align Singapore's new vehicle disposal framework with advanced global circular economy standards, such as the European Union's End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation?

Will the Ministry consider updating regulations for LTA-authorised scrapyards and processing facilities to require the safe pre-dismantling, segregation and domestic recycling of critical-mineral-rich electronics, such as electronic control units, drivetrains and infotainment units, from vehicles slated for scrapping prior to export or crushing?

Second, on promoting safer active mobility vehicles. To ensure that displayed warning labels are accessible and understandable to all consumers, could the Minister of State share what the minimum requirements are for these warning labels? I would like to propose that these requirements include a sufficiently large font size, visible placement and be in our four official languages.

Furthermore, to encourage public responsibility and participation, will the Ministry consider opening a reporting channel for members of the public to notify authorities of breaches by sellers and suppliers in cases of misleading representation of device compliance and insufficient warning labels? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): To ensure that all consumers can see and understand the warning labels on personal mobility devices, I propose that the labels feature a sufficiently large font, be prominently placed and use the country's four official languages.

Furthermore, will the Ministry consider establishing a reporting channel for the public to report vendors and suppliers who engage in violations, such as misleading advertising or the use of non-compliant warning labels?

( in English ): Third, the Bill expands a sandbox model for AVs that already has years of operational track record. Could the Ministry share the safety and incident data from the existing AV sandbox to date, given that the new Active Mobility Act sandbox is expressly modelled on it?

While operational experience is essential to mapping a safe deployment roadmap, I would also like to ask: what specific safety requirements must be met before autonomous mobility solutions are scaled up within this five-year window? Is there a mechanism to pause or roll back deployment if safety concerns emerge? Will the Ministry consider a public information channel that notifies residents as new categories of AVs are introduced on public paths near them?

Finally, the Bill removes the mandatory two-yearly inspections of landed-home EV chargers. Could the Ministry share the evidence that this proposed change is based on – the incident or fault rates – and share what would specifically trigger an ad hoc inspection under the new framework?

Without a clear and proactive trigger mechanism, it will always be a risk that unsafe installations go undetected until an accident occurs. Would the Ministry consider increasing the period in between inspections, for example, to four to five years instead, so that we maintain a minimum standard of safety while collecting more data to determine if this should be eased further?

As our world evolves, so do the challenges that arise and opportunities that present to us. The Bill is a meaningful step forward as we transform Singapore into a city of the future where mobility is inclusive, accessible, sustainable and highly intelligent.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

4.38 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. My short speech is about chargers for PMDs, PABs and mobility scooters. The Bill does not explicitly cover these chargers, and in the spirit of fire prevention I believe it should. My colleague, Mr Abdul Muhaimin, has spoken on the electric-car chargers in Part 2.

An 18-year-old student who did delivery work part-time bought a second-hand electric scooter from a stranger, which was unregistered and non-compliant, and came without a battery. He bought one from an online marketplace seller, choosing the cheapest, and borrowed a charger from a friend. That charger was made for a higher-voltage battery and carried no SAFETY Mark, the mark that shows that an electrical product has been tested and registered for sale in Singapore.

On 9 March 2022, the first time he charged the battery, it overcharged and caught fire in a flat in New Upper Changi Road. A woman aged 26 died. In January, he pleaded guilty to causing death by a negligent act and was jailed for seven months. So, the Court has dealt with that part. But this case raises questions about what our rules say about the charger.

The fire safety guide that LTA and SCDF publish describes another fire in Bedok North Road. The owner of a power-assisted bicycle had left its battery charging unattended. He was woken by the sound of an explosion and saw smoke coming from the battery. A fire broke out and attempts to put it out failed. Investigations found that the fire started at the battery while a non-original charger, bought from an online marketplace seller and again without the SAFETY Mark, was in use. The guide adds that, on SCDF and LTA's investigations, most fires involving these devices started while a device with non-original parts was charging.

So, Part 1 regulates batteries for these devices for the first time. A battery is compatible if it was fitted in and tested together with the device, or is the same brand and model as one that was. Before sale, the seller must display or publish a specification notice naming the compatible devices, the battery's brand and model, and its voltage and capacity. Selling a battery knowing the buyer means to fit it into an incompatible device becomes an offence, as does riding a device powered by such a battery.

I support these provisions. A battery sold online, as in the one in the New Upper Changi Road case was, will now come with a notice saying which devices it fits. But it says nothing explicit about battery chargers.

The Ministry may say that regulating the battery is enough, because a compliant battery's management system stops charging when it is full, even on the wrong charger. So, a good battery is the main protection and I agree the Bill should start with it. But it is not enough on its own.

The safety standards treat the battery and charger as one system. UL2272, which LTA requires for PMDs, tests them together and checks that the device stays safe if one part of its charging control fails. A wrong charger is one possible failure. So, if the battery's own protection then fails too, nothing stops the overcharge. UL tells users to use only the listed charger, and Britain's Office for Product Safety and Standards warns that "not all e-bike and e-scooter batteries and chargers are safe when used together".

Of the seven fires in the Government's guide, the Bedok North fire is the one where the non-original part was actually the charger. So, rules on batteries alone would not have stopped that charger from being used.

Our rules already require a charger to be tested with its device, but only for one kind of device. The Consumer Product Safety Office, under the Competition and Consumer Commission, registers a charger for a PMD under the SAFETY Mark scheme, only if it is the model tested with that device under UL2272.

But there are no such rules for the chargers of PABs or mobility scooters, which are registered on their own. Yet, EN15194, the European standard LTA applies to power-assisted bicycles, already tests the original charger with the bicycle, and the Bedok North fire involved a power-assisted bicycle.

So, my first question: will the Government, with the Competition and Consumer Commission, require the charger for a power-assisted bicycle or mobility scooter to be the model tested with it, as it already does for PMDs?

In July 2025, the Consumer Product Safety Office tightened its rules for the tap-off unit, the socket that plugs into a power track. It must now be tested with its track in every position, and one that lets live and neutral swap places can no longer be registered.

The same approach can apply to batteries. Since clause 7 defines a compatible battery and allows a criterion to be prescribed for it, those criteria could require the battery to prevent unsafe charging with an incompatible charger. They should set that outcome and test it, and leave the method to manufacturers. The methods already exist. Under EnergyBus, a communication standard for light electric vehicles, the battery sends the charger its voltage, current and temperature limits before the charger switches on. Connectors can also be designed to prevent incompatible connections. The Consumer Product Safety Office already lists both as options for high-power adaptors.

So, my second question: will the prescribed criteria for a compatible battery require it to prevent unsafe charging with an incompatible charger, set as an outcome to be tested rather than a single method?

The duty to register a charger falls on an importer or manufacturer in Singapore with an Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority certificate, so one shipped straight to a home by a seller overseas has no registered supplier here. The Consumer Product Safety Office warns that products from overseas may not meet our safety requirements, and that buyers may have limited recourse.

Clause 7 defines an online marketplace by what is sold on it: devices, its components and batteries, but not explicitly chargers. My colleagues, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Fadli Fawzi, have asked how LTA will enforce the online provisions against overseas sellers and large platforms. My question is similar. My third question is: will chargers for these devices be brought within the Bill's provisions on online marketplaces? If not, which agency will act on a charger listed by a seller overseas and under which law?

Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications on chargers, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazlina Halim.

4.44 pm

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Deputy Speaker, the Bill addresses several concerns, but raise one common question: how to keep rules effective as technology and the way we move continue to change? On one hand, we must act against those who deliberately put others at risk. On the other, we must help people understand and meet their obligations.

The Bill moves us in this direction and I support its intent. I will focus on three areas: first, safer mobility devices and safer batteries; second, the cost of compliance; third, AVs on public paths.

First, Deputy Speaker, safer mobility devices and batteries. The Bill strengthens controls over online sales and misleading compliance claims. Sellers will also need to provide clearer battery information, including compatible device models. But information only helps if the buyer too, can understand it. I echo my hon friend earlier Ms Yeo Wan Ling who called on the intentional approach to educate more Singaporeans to understand the displays; also, the hon Ms Joan Pereira who mentioned having displays in vernacular languages so more people are aware.

For example, take a delivery rider who needs to replace a battery for his PAB. The seller may say the battery is suitable, the price is affordable and it fits the device. But physical fit does not mean technical compatibility. Most consumers will rely on what the seller tells them. So, how can we make this simpler?

I suggest a standardised battery compatibility label, similar in concept to an energy efficiency label, showing which device models or categories the battery is compatible with, the relevant specifications and any limitations. The aim is simple. A buyer should be able to identify a safe and compatible battery without needing technical expertise.

There is also the issue of older devices. A PAB may still be working well, but its original battery may no longer be available because the supplier has stopped operating or the model is no longer supported. For someone who depends on the device for work, replacing the entire device can be expensive.

We should therefore have a clearer pathway for safe replacement including verified replacement options, reliable suppliers and clear guidance on disposal. I also urge the Government to monitor the impact of these compliant costs.

Second, the cost of compliance. The Bill introduces stronger requirements for online sellers of AMDs and batteries. These safeguards are sensible. But compliance should not become a barrier for small businesses, sole proprietors or individual operators who are trying to do the right thing. A large company may have compliance teams. A small business may have one person handling sales, stock and administration. Can the Government provide a simple compliance guide for smaller businesses, covering product specifications, battery information, advertising requirements and record keeping?

I also believe enforcement should distinguish between a genuine first-time mistake and deliberate or repeated misconduct. A genuine first-time error could be given a clear period to rectify. Repeated breaches should face stronger action. Deliberate evasion should be dealt with firmly.

The same issue applies to online marketplaces. An unsafe or misleading listing can reach many consumers before it is removed. A seller who is taken down may also attempt to return under another account. How will the Government work with online platforms to identify repeat offenders and to prevent known unsafe products from simply being relisted under another account? Make it easy for responsible businesses to comply and difficult for irresponsible sellers to evade the rules.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, third, AVs on public paths. The Bill extends the regulatory sandbox for AVs and introduces a framework for their deployment on public paths. I support controlled trials. AVs could have useful applications, particularly for cleaning, deliveries and other services. Trials allow us to understand what these vehicles can do, where they struggle and what safeguards are needed before wider deployment.

We are already seeing this move beyond the experimental stage like in East Coast Park and Sembawang Park under a controlled regulatory exemption. The purpose of the sandbox is to allow us to learn what works, identify what does not and use that experience to set the conditions for safe scaling up. For example, a child may suddenly turn back. An elderly person may stop in front of the vehicle. A wheelchair user may not be able to move aside easily. A visually impaired person may not know that the vehicle is approaching. We need clear operating conditions.

When must the vehicle stop or give way? What happens if connectivity is lost? How quickly can a human intervene? What happens when the system cannot confidently interpret the situation? I believe earlier my hon friend Mr Melvin Yong also raised these questions.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would suggest minimum operating standards covering speed, operating hours, connectivity, human intervention and emergency stopping before these deployments are expanded first.

And the route matters. A path may behave very differently during school dismissal, morning peak periods or weekends. Residents, caregivers, persons with disabilities and regular path users may notice problems that an operator does not. Their feedback matters.

We should also measure more than collisions. If a vehicle repeatedly blocks a ramp, causes pedestrians to step onto the road, or creates an obstruction without causing an injury, that is still a safety and accessibility issue. Can the Government therefore publish regular summaries of significant incidents, near misses, complaints, emergency interventions and corrective actions arising from these trials? And importantly, what thresholds would trigger a deployment being paused or its operating conditions being changed? We should not wait for a serious accident before deciding that a safeguard was necessary. Sir, in Malay.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, overall, we need to ensure that our laws not only address emerging risks but are also easy for the public and businesses to understand and comply. We need to make PABs and batteries safer, help small businesses comply with new guidelines and ensure that AV trials are conducted with proper oversight.

Furthermore, Mr Deputy Speaker, when laws are updated, costs often rise as well. I therefore urge the Government to monitor the impact of the amendments in this Bill and provide appropriate support. Through a balanced approach, we can reap the benefits of new technologies without compromising public safety and confidence.

( In English ): Our transport system will continue to change. New technologies will bring opportunities, but new risks will emerge. Our rules must keep up. And when experience shows that they need to change, we must be prepared to uplift them.

If owners understand their obligations, buyers can verify safety claims and residents see that their concerns are taken seriously, the measures will work better. That is how we can embrace new technology while keeping our roads, paths and homes safe. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

4.52 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the morning of 8 October 2021, I stood before the charred, blackened remains of a flat in Nanyang. In the dead of night, a fire sparked by a non-compatible PMD battery pack had ripped through the home. A young life was lost. A family was shattered. That heartbreak never leaves you.

This tragedy was not an isolated incident. Between 2021 and 2025, Singapore recorded 276 fires involving AMDs, whether it is PMDs, PABs or PMAs. That is 276 ticking time bombs in our HDB blocks, threatening innocent neighbours asleep in their beds.

We must tackle this fire threat at its root. I strongly welcome the new ban on advertising non-compatible batteries under sections 32(1)(d) and 32(9)(d) of the Bill.

Yet the enforcement challenge is formidable. Under sections 29(A) and 54(A), LTA can direct online platforms to remove non-compliant listings and reveal seller identities. But what about shady overseas sellers and foreign platforms shipping deadly, unregulated batteries straight to Singaporean doorsteps by courier? How will MOT dismantle this cross-border pipeline?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just days ago, while walking in my neighbourhood, a single device zoomed past me at high speed. On it, were two adults and two young children, four persons were riding on one mobility device. Such raw power on the road points straight to an illegally modified motor or an uncertified battery. Section 34(A) rightly makes riding or using such devices an offence.

However, we face an immediate practical dilemma: where do these dangerous batteries go now if this Bill is passed? If residents fear severe penalties, they will hide them at home, leave them charging behind closed doors, or dump them down rubbish chutes. That is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Thus, I would like the Minister of State to consider asking MOT to introduce a safe, penalty-free voluntary surrender scheme for residents to hand over illegal devices and hazardous batteries before another fire breaks out.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me move on to the topic of cross-border taxi service. Before I continue, I would like to declare my interest as the chief executive officer of Strides Premier. We lease taxis and private hire cars amongst other business lines, and our parent company, SMRT, is involved in the operation of the upcoming Johor Bahru (JB)-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link.

Every day, thousands cross the Causeway for work, leisure and family. For many, cross-border taxis are not a luxury. They are a necessity.

We welcomed the enhanced scheme on 4 May 2026 raising the cross-border taxi quota from 200 to 300 for both sides. It was a vital step. Yet the reality on the ground tells a different story. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether both sides have actually maximised this quota of 300? If not, what is the exact take-up rate in JB and Singapore respectively?

Cross-Border Taxi Fares have spiked by 33%, from $60 to $80 now that door-to-door service is allowed. To see if supply truly meets demand, I would like to ask the Minister of State what is the average daily cross-border taxi ridership before and after 4 May 2026?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this brings me to a critical issue of fairness and safety. If the daily cross-border taxi ridership has grown and there is sufficient supply, we must clamp down hard on illegal cross-border services. Our licensed cross-border taxi drivers play by the rules. Illegal syndicates rob these honest drivers of their livelihoods and put customer safety at risk. With the RTS opening next February, our licensed drivers face even greater pressure. We must protect them now.

I seek three clarifications.

First, section 101(A) makes advertising of unlawful ride-hailing an offence in Singapore. But the Internet is borderless. What happens to ads hosted in Malaysia or on overseas platforms targeting Singaporeans? How will MOT close this very glaring loophole?

Second, under section 101(B), sharing these illegal ads, even in chat groups like WhatsApp or Telegram, is a criminal offence. But ordinary citizens need clear guidance, not just warnings. If a commuter receives an illicit flyer on the street or a spam message on their phone, how exactly should they report it? Must they go through the daunting process of filing a formal Police report, or will MOT set up a direct, frictionless channel to empower the public to report?

Third, legal cross-border taxis bear clear livery and decals. Anyone paying for an unmarked car for cross-border service knows it is illegal. Are these passengers guilty of abetting an offence under section 101(1) of the Bill? We want to encourage people-to-people exchange, especially with the impending Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone. But it must be safe, it must be legal.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I now turn to AVs. In Singapore, we struggle to find locals willing to take up cleaning jobs on the road. Relying heavily on foreign labour is simply not sustainable. Therefore, I strongly support the regulatory sandbox for AI-driven robo-sweepers.

However, I have practical concerns. Under section 23(P) of the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill, obstructing an AV on a public path is an offence. Does this mean a pedestrian is criminalised for blocking a robo-sweeper on a pavement? What happens during heavy foot traffic? Will the robosweeper cause unnecessary congestions? How exactly will MOT regulate their deployment in crowded places?

Notwithstanding the above clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.

5.00 pm

Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill covers several aspects of our land transport system, but there is a common thread. And for me, the question is not only whether we have the right rules. It is whether those rules work when they reach the ground, when they meet residents, building owners, businesses and the agencies implementing them.

So, today, I would like to focus on three areas where I see a common challenge – the last mile of implementation: first, unwanted bicycles, which is not discussed much in the Chamber today, but I assure you it is part of the amendment Bill; second, EV charging; and third, deregistered vehicles.

Let me start with unwanted bicycles, because this is something I have seen directly on the ground. I would first like to thank the Pasir Ris-Changi Town Council for responding to residents' feedback and clearing more than 100 abandoned bicycles within a couple of months earlier this year. This may sound like a housekeeping issue, but bicycles left along corridors, walkways and void decks can obstruct access, create trip hazards and interfere with cleaning and maintenance.

And this is not just a Pasir Ris issue. LTA has reportedly removed 186 bicycles and other devices from bicycle parking areas islandwide since January this year. When I posted about our clean-up online, I soon had residents from across the island asking, "Can you come to my estate next?" Some even even left photos on my post, of abandoned bicycles all the way in Tuas.

It was clear to me that there is a broader need for a clear and workable process to deal with unwanted bicycles. This is where I welcome the amendment in clause 22, which shortens the period bicycles can remain in LTA's holding yards from 30 days to seven days. This should allow LTA to deal with unclaimed bicycles more decisively and free up capacity at the holding yards. But as we shorten the window, could we also make the recovery process more straightforward? For example, how can owners have a simple way to check whether their bicycle has been removed and where it can be recovered?

This also raises whether a light touch or voluntary bicycle registry could help establish ownership when bicycles are removed. I recognise the concerns around mandatory registration, so I am not suggesting that every bicycle must be registered. But a voluntary system could serve a different purpose – helping to reunite genuine owners with bicycles that have been removed.

Finally, as a member of the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment, I also think about what happens to these bicycles once they are genuinely unclaimed. Could those that remain usable be refurbished, donated or otherwise reused, with recycling as the next step where appropriate? For me, the objective is not simply to clear bicycles faster, but to have a process that is efficient, gives owners a fair opportunity to recover their property and makes good use of what can still be reused.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my second point is on EV charging. I recognise that the amendments here are targeted. The Bill removes the mandatory two-yearly inspection requirement for EV chargers at landed homes, while retaining LTA's power to require an ad-hoc inspection where there are safety concerns. It also allows LTA to presume that a charger is in use when it is connected to an EV or EV battery. I support the move towards a more risk-based approach. But I would like to ask how we can make this approach work well on the ground.

I recently visited Carrissa Park condominium for a durian party and on the sidelines, officiated the launch of their EV chargers. I would like to commend the MCST for forging ahead with the installation and for sharing some of the practical issues they encountered with me, including that of telecommunications connectivity, which I have asked a Parliamentary Question today.

For many property owners and MCSTs, EV charging is still relatively new. So, as we move away from a blanket periodic inspection regime, could LTA provide clearer guidance on what circumstances may trigger an ad hoc inspection and what responsibilities remain with the registered responsible person? Also, if an EV charger is connected to a vehicle but is no longer actively charging, how will the presumption that it is "in use" apply? A simple, practical guide for homeowners and MCSTs would help them understand their responsibilities under this more risk-based framework. As EV adoption grows, this clarity will help us maintain safety while keeping compliance proportionate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my last point is on deregistered vehicles. The numbers are concerning. LTA reported 75 cases in 2024 and 245 in 2025, with 122 cases in the first five months of 2026. More recently, 91 deregistered vehicles were impounded in September alone. The Bill therefore rightfully looks beyond the person found using the vehicle, to the chain that allows a deregistered vehicle to remain in circulation.

The Authorised Exporter Scheme is an important step. But this creates an important implementation question. If the owner no longer has to submit disposal documents, can there be a digital chain-of-custody record between the owner, the authorised party and LTA, with a clear point at which the vehicle is verified as having left Singapore or been properly disposed of? And could owners receive confirmation that the process has been completed? This would give everyone clarity – the owner knows that his responsibility has been discharged, the authorised operator has a clear obligation, and LTA has a reliable record.

I also note that the Government intends to address the existing pool of undisposed deregistered vehicles. I would welcome greater clarity on how progress against this pool will be measured and when we can expect it to be substantially cleared.

Mr Deputy Speaker, whether we are talking about a bicycle abandoned in a common corridor, an EV charger in a condominium, or a deregistered vehicle that should no longer be on our roads, the legislation is only the beginning. The real test is what happens after the rule is made. Can residents understand what they are supposed to do? Do the different parties know clearly who is responsible? And can we trace the process all the way through to its conclusion?

For bicycles, that means clearing our common spaces while giving owners a fair opportunity to recover their property and finding ways to reuse what can still be put to good use. For EV charging, it means ensuring that a more risk-based inspection regime remains clear to users and effective in keeping our chargers safe. For deregistered vehicles, it means closing the chain between deregistration and verified export or disposal. These are the last-mile gaps I hope the Ministry will continue to address as we build a land transport system that is not only safer by design, but also works better in the everyday lives of our residents. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gabriel Lam.

5.07 pm

Mr Gabriel Lam (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a fairly wide-ranging Bill. It deals with deregistered vehicles, AMDs and batteries, electric vehicle charging, AVs and illegal point-to-point transport services. I would like to focus on three areas, looking at them from the perspective of my residents in Canberra.

Canberra is a growing neighbourhood. Families, seniors and residents from different walks of life share the same paths and common spaces with cyclists, delivery riders and users of different mobility devices. So, when we discuss active mobility, the issue is not simply about devices. It is about how we share these spaces safely.

For many residents, bicycles, power-assisted bicycles and mobility devices are part of daily life. Delivery riders depend on them for work. Others use them to get to the MRT station, the market, or simply around the neighbourhood. Increasingly, these devices, batteries and replacement parts can also be purchased online. A resident looking for a replacement battery may see several options on an online platform. They may look similar. They may make similar claims. But how does an ordinary consumer know which battery is compliant and compatible with his device? I therefore support the provisions in this Bill dealing with online sales, misleading claims and illegal modification services. I also welcome the requirements for sellers to provide information on compatible device models, voltage and capacity.

But I would like to ask the Minister of State whether we can make this even simpler for consumers. Could there eventually be a straightforward way for residents to verify that a battery is compatible with their device before making a purchase, perhaps using the device model or through an online verification tool? We want residents to make the right choices. We should make it as easy as possible for them to identify the right product.

This is particularly important because the consequences of getting it wrong can be serious. We have seen fires involving AMDs and lithium-ion batteries. In an HDB environment, a fire does not affect only the owner of the device. It can put neighbours and an entire block at risk. So, while enforcement against non-compliant products is important, giving consumers clear and practical information before they make a purchase is equally important.

My second point is on deregistered vehicles. The increase in detected cases is concerning. There were 75 detected cases of deregistered vehicles being used on our roads in 2024. In 2025, that rose to 245. For any resident using our roads, there is a basic expectation that the vehicle beside them is roadworthy, properly registered and properly insured. I therefore support stronger action against the misuse of deregistered vehicles.

I also welcome the proposed Authorised Exporter Scheme and the shortening of the disposal grace period from one month to 14 days. These measures should give the authorities better oversight over what happens to vehicles after deregistration and reduce the opportunity for them to be misused. At the same time, there is a practical consideration. Most vehicle owners who deregister their vehicles simply want to dispose of or export them properly.

I understand that the industry will have a transition period before the Authorised Exporter Scheme takes effect. Could the Minister of State assure the House that there will be sufficient authorised exporters and convenient disposal options when the new system begins? We should close the loopholes firmly, while making it straightforward for residents and responsible businesses to comply.

My third point is on AVs. I support giving this technology room to develop. AVs have the potential to improve our transport system, but public confidence will be important as trials expand into more parts of Singapore. The environment in a residential neighbourhood can be very different from a controlled testing environment.

On any evening in Canberra, we have children walking with their parents, seniors, residents using wheelchairs or mobility devices, cyclists and delivery riders, all sharing the same neighbourhood. A child may move unexpectedly. A senior may need more time to cross. Someone using a mobility device may require more space. This is simply what everyday life in a neighbourhood looks like.

I note that the Bill provides safeguards for AV trials, including insurance, operating conditions and requirements to publicise where and when trials take place. I would like to ask how residents living near a trial area will be informed. Will information simply be made available online, or will residents who are directly affected be informed in a more direct and accessible way?

And as trials eventually move closer to residential estates, I hope residents and grassroots organisations can be engaged early. They can provide useful feedback about how particular roads, crossings and common spaces are actually used throughout the day.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I look at this Bill through the eyes of my residents in Canberra, the questions are quite straightforward. If I buy a replacement battery online, can I easily tell that it is safe and compatible with my device? When my family uses our roads, can I trust that the vehicles around us are properly registered, roadworthy and insured? And as AVs become part of our transport system, can residents have confidence that they have been tested for the realities of everyday neighbourhood life?

These are reasonable expectations. As our transport system changes, our laws must keep pace. We should be firm with those who knowingly circumvent the rules. But for ordinary residents and responsible businesses trying to comply, we should make doing the right thing as straightforward as possible. And as we introduce new technology into our shared spaces, we should bring our residents along with us. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with these questions, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.15 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 4 November last year, a PMA caught fire in the eighth-floor lift lobby of Block 641 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4 in Yio Chu Kang. About 200 residents were evacuated. Four were taken to hospital for smoke inhalation. The cause remained under investigation.

But for the families who left their homes that night, the first question was not technical, it was human: how could a danger they neither saw nor created end up at their very doorsteps, in the place where they should feel safest?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the ultimate test of this Bill lies in how effectively it answers that question.

Transport technology can give Singaporeans greater confidence, mobility and choice. It can give an older person independence. It can give a worker a quicker journey. It can give a business new ways to serve the public. But when technology fails, the cost is often borne by the person with the least power to prevent it: a resident in a lift lobby, a passenger in a car, a pedestrian on a path. If power sits upstream, responsibility cannot be pushed downstream.

This Bill deals with deregistered vehicles, unlawful point-to-point services, AMDs, EV charging and AVs. These are not merely separate technical amendments. They represent a fundamental policy choice about where responsibility should ultimately lie: those who design, sell, operate, certify and profit from a system, or with the ordinary Singaporean who must live with its failures.

A deregistered vehicle that is neither roadworthy nor insured should not return to our roads. A passenger should not discover after an accident that an unlawful ride carried no valid insurance. And residents should not have to become battery experts just to be sure that the devices parked along their common corridors and lift lobbies are safe.

I support this Bill. I seek three clarifications on how we ensure that responsibility follows control.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill extends the regulatory sandbox for AVs on roads and introduces one for public paths. This is sensible. Autonomous mobility may improve safety, widen options for an ageing population and raise productivity in areas such as municipal services.

The question is not whether autonomous mobility will come. It is whether accountability will leave at the same time as the driver. When a human driver causes an accident, determining fault is relatively straightforward. But when an autonomous system fails, liability can easily fracture across software developers, sensor vendors, mapping providers, fleet operators and maintenance contractors. The public cannot be left to watch those parties point at one another while the facts remain unclear.

A sandbox should be a place to learn, not a place in which responsibility disappears. The Bill provides for insurance and operational safeguards. As deployments scale, will the Government establish an independent review process for serious AV incidents? It should determine plainly whether the failure lay in software, hardware or operations; publish the lessons; and require corrective action across the industry. When autonomy comes, accountability must stay.

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill strengthens controls over AMD batteries. Sellers must provide specification information, and it will be an offence to sell, fit or use an incompatible battery in any AMD, including e-bikes and motorised mobility aids. It also extends restrictions on advertising and retail displays from physical shops to online marketplaces and digital advertising platforms.

These are important steps. But if we are serious about preventing fires, safety must begin at the point of sale, not at the point of fire. I have previously in speeches and Parliamentary Questions pressed for decisive action against vendors and distributors peddling uncertified, third party knockoffs and non-compliant batteries and for clearer ways for consumers to identify safe and certified batteries.

The fire at Block 641 makes this concern intensely personal. Whatever the formal investigation ultimately concludes, the lives of those 200 residents were disrupted in a single night and neighbours were left with the lingering fear that it could happen again. Families should not have to live with that anxiety, nor should they have to unravel an opaque supply chain only after an inferno erupts outside their doors.

Could Singapore introduce a risk-based "battery passport" for regulated AMD batteries? Every regulated battery should carry a tamper-resistant identifier linked to its manufacturer, technical specifications, batch, importer and certified compatibility. A consumer should be able to verify what he or she is buying. The authority should be able to identify high-risk supply chains and recall defective batches. Responsible retailers should not be undercut by rogue merchants selling substandard grey-market imports.

Every regulated battery should have a history before it has an owner. The same principle must apply to the digital marketplace. A digital shopfront can distribute non-compliant devices and dangerous batteries at a scale a physical shop never could. By the time an illicit listing is taken down, the product may already be on its way to a household. Takedown powers are necessary. Prevention is better.

Can the Ministry work with major e-commerce platforms on three practical duties: verification of sellers of regulated AMDs and accessories; automated pre-listing screening for prohibited products and terms; and intelligence-sharing on repeat offenders?

A platform that can recommend a product to a consumer in seconds should be able to do more to stop an unlawful product from reaching that consumer in the first place. The point is not to make platforms guarantors of every transaction. It is to make them responsible for risks that their systems can identify and prevent, at scale.

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Electric Vehicles Charging Act amendments strike a practical balance. They remove mandatory two-yearly inspections for landed home EV chargers while retaining the Authority’s power to require inspections where safety concerns arise. They continue to rely on competent persons, Qualified Persons and electrical workers to inspect installations and certify technical compliance.

This is a pragmatic and realistic regulatory approach. As charging infrastructure grows across thousands of sites, public officers cannot inspect every cable, breaker and charger. Professional judgment must carry more of the load.

But delegation is sensible. Abdication is not. Professionals engaged by developers or building owners can face commercial pressures. A lax inspection or unsupported certificate may quietly compromise the safety of residents and vehicle owners. The Bill rightly penalises false or misleading certification. Yet, discovery after a fire or infrastructure failure is too late.

Will the authority subject these certifications to systematic quality assurance, through risk-based random audits, independent peer reviews, and the regular publication of compliance findings? A certificate must not be a mere paper-clearing exercise. It must assure residents that the infrastructure they rely on every day is genuinely safe.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I began my speech with the fire at Block 641 because it captures a simple truth about public safety. Emergency response begins when danger is discovered. Public protection must begin much earlier: from the moment a device is imported and listed online, to when it is fitted, inspected and certified.

That is why this Bill matters. It keeps deregistered vehicles that are neither roadworthy nor insured off our roads. It strengthens enforcement against unlawful point-to-point services. It tightens controls over AMDs and EV charging. It enables AV deployment within safeguards.

But the Bill’s success should not be measured only by the number of offences detected or directions issued. It will be measured by whether danger is prevented before it reaches the ordinary person. That means independent review when autonomous systems fail, traceable batteries before they harm, platforms that prevent unlawful products from reaching homes and certification that the public can trust.

These are not calls for residents to be less careful. They are a refusal to make residents carry burdens that belong to manufacturers, sellers, digital platforms, fleet operators and certifiers.

At Block 641, the alarm sounded after the fire was discovered. Our task is to build a system in which safety begins long before the alarm. A truly effective safety system works quietly in the background. Its true measure of success is the danger that never reaches an estate, and the crisis that never happens. Above all, it ensures that ordinary Singaporeans are never forced to play the role of safety inspectors, battery experts, or legal detectives just to protect their own doorstep. That expertise belongs to the system, and that is where the duty must stay.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

5.26 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. It strengthens road safety, response to the changing way mobility devices are bought and sold, and importantly, creates regulatory space for technologies that may fundamentally change how people and goods move around Singapore.

But good regulation requires us to do three things at the same time: we must be firm where there is real risk, we must be proportionate when the overwhelming majority are legitimate users and business, and we must leave enough room for innovation where tomorrow's possibilities may be very different from today's. I therefore have three points of clarification for the Minister of State.

Firstly, I support the intent behind the Government's stronger action against deregistered vehicles. The numbers warrant attention. Reported cases of deregistered vehicles being used on our roads increased from 14 in 2022 to 39 in 2023 to 75 in 2024 and 245 in 2025. In just the first five months of 2026, LTA investigated another 122 cases. Some deregistered vehicles have also been associated with hit-and-run accidents which have caused serious injuries and deaths and criminal activity. These are not risks that we should dismiss.

But there is another number that we must put beside that. Singapore deregisters tens of thousands of vehicles every year. In 2024 alone, around 55,000 vehicles were deregistered. So, while 245 cases of illegal road use in 2025 represents a sharp and concerning increase, they remain a small number relative to the overall volume of vehicles passing through our deregistration ecosystem.

That brings me to the amendments to the Road Traffic Act, particularly clauses 67 to 74, which restructure the requirements surrounding deregistration and disposal, including the legislative framework supporting the new Authorised Exporter Scheme. The Government intends to require deregistered vehicles destined for export to pass through LTA authorised exporters operating from approved and secured premises. The disposal grace period will also be reduced from one month to 14 days.

My question is about proportionality. There is a legitimate international market for Singapore's used vehicles. Some of our deregistered cars are exported and subsequently sold in markets such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Has the Ministry studied the impact that the Authorised Exporter Scheme will have on this legitimate export ecosystem? Can the Ministry share how many deregistered vehicles are exported annually, what our major destination markets are, and if available, the approximate value of this trade? More importantly, has the Ministry assessed whether restricting this trade to authorised exporters could reduce the competition, increase transaction cost, or ultimately reduce the residual value received by Singapore vehicle owners who are already dealing with the high price of car ownership.

I note that LTA intends to provide the industry with at least one year to transition into the scheme. That is welcome, but perhaps we should also establish a baseline against which we can judge its impact. How many exporters operate today? How many LTA expect will qualify under the new scheme and what proportion of the legitimate export trade could be affected? And importantly, how large is the pool of improperly undisposed vehicles that this intervention seeks to address? Enforcement should be targeted at the risk, rather than allowing the risk, created by the minority, to impose disproportionate costs on the majority who comply.

I therefore ask whether the Ministry could consider committing to reviewing the impact of the Authorised Exporter Scheme after implementation, including its impact on competition, export volumes and most importantly, value returned to vehicle owners.

My second point is about AVs. Here, I would encourage us to think and aspire further. Clause 3 introduces definitions for automated vehicle technology, autonomous motor vehicle and autonomous systems. More significantly, clause 6 inserts the new division 2C and sections 23M to 23P into the Active Mobility Act. Section 23N enables regulations for approved trials, approved special users and approved testbeds involving AVs on public paths.

That is important. We are no longer talking about autonomous cars travelling along our roads, but rather AVs on our public paths. The legislative architecture potentially accommodates autonomous machines operating amongst people on our paths. Robo-sweepers today, but perhaps delivery robots, maintenance robots, security robots and other forms of embodied AI tomorrow. This could become much more significant than it first appears.

Singapore has several natural advantages in this area. We are dense. We have high-quality infrastructure. We have excellent connectivity. We are strong regulatory institutions. And in cleaning, logistics, security and many other sectors, we face genuine manpower constraints. So, perhaps, our ambition should not merely be to permit some robots onto our paths. Our ambition is to make Singapore one of the safest and easiest places in the world to develop, test and responsibly deploy urban autonomous systems.

But innovation would only scale if the public trust it. That requires clarity on safety.

Section 23N gives the Minister of State substantial powers to prescribe conditions concerning AVs, including their secret and equipment, monitoring sensor data, video recording, insurance and mechanisms for human intervention.

I there have several questions. First, what must a robot be capable of detecting? A pedestrian environment is fundamentally different from a road. There are children who may suddenly run across the path, seniors who may move unpredictably, wheelchair users, cyclists, pets. Would there therefore be a minimum performance requirement for obstacle and pedestrian detection, stopping distance, failsafe braking and safe operation when the sensor fails?

Second, how fast and how heavy should these machines be allowed to become? A small 20-kilogramme delivery robot travelling at walking speed presents a very different risk from a 200-kilogramme AV travelling at 15 kilometres per hour. The momentum they carry varies greatly. Instead of treating all AVs alike, could we consider a risk-based framework where permissible speed, weight and operating environment determine the level of certification, insurance and supervision required?

Third, who is responsible when there is no driver. Section 23N allows regulations requiring liability insurance. That is important. But insurance answers the questions of who pays. It does not necessarily answer the more fundamental question of who is responsible. If a robot injures a pedestrian because its camera failed, its software made the wrong decision, or an AI misidentified an option, is the responsibility primarily with the operator, vehicle owner, software provider or manufacturer? As autonomy increases, our legal concept of the driver becomes increasingly inadequate.

Fourth, I would appreciate clarification on the boundaries of the definition itself. Could this framework cover not only will wheeled robo-sweepers and delivery vehicles, but eventually cover bipedal or humanoid robots walking autonomously along pedestrian paths? Technology may well reach that point before 2031. We should therefore try not to write rules around what a robot looks like today. We should regulate according to what it does and more importantly, the risk it carries.

There is one further issue, which is on privacy. The Bill expressly contemplates the collection and retention of sensor data and video footage from AVs. Imagine hundreds, eventually thousands of autonomous machines operating around our housing estates, parks and town centres. Collectively, they could become a very extensive network of mobile cameras and sensors,

What safeguards will govern what they can record, what long information can be retained, who may access it, whether it can be used for purposes beyond safe operation, and how these systems will be protected from cyber intrusion?

Mr Deputy Speaker, this question should not become reason to slow innovation. They should be the foundation that allows us to accelerate innovation safely. The machines must see the vulnerable user. It must stop safely. It must yield to people. Its owner and operator must be identifiable, and when something goes wrong, there must be sufficient information to establish what happened. Get these fundamentals right and our footpaths can become more than transport industry. It can become innovation infrastructure. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have two points to raise.

First, on deregistered vehicles. We must be firm with those who misuse these vehicles. But every year, tens of thousands of vehicles are deregistered, and some are legally exported overseas. So, we need to ensure that the new rules do not make things difficult for businesses that comply with the law or reduce the value of the cars received by our vehicle owners.

Second, on autonomous vehicles and robots. Today, it may be cleaning robots. Tomorrow, it may be delivery robots, security robots, or robots that we have not yet imagined. I want Singapore to be one of the safest places in the world for pedestrians, but at the same time, one of the best places to test and develop these new technologies. The principle is simple – be firm on risks, protect safety, but do not let regulations restrict innovation and opportunities. That is the balance we need to achieve.

( In English ): In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these two issues may appear quite different. One concerns cars at the end of their useful life in Singapore, one concerns robots that may define the future of mobility. But there is a common principle running through all two – good regulation must distinguish between risk and activity. We should not suppress legitimate activity simply because some participants create risk. We should regulate the risk itself.

For deregistered vehicles, that means strong action against illegal retention and use while preserving a competitive, legitimate export market. For autonomous mobility, it means setting clear safety outcomes while giving innovators room to experiment. If we achieve that balance, regulation does more than prohibit. It protects where it must, enables where it can and anticipates where technology is taking us next. With these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.

5.38 pm

Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill. I will focus on its extension of safety rules to online sales of AMDs and their batteries.

In March 2022, a fire in a New Upper Changi Road flat killed a 26-year-old woman. This January, the owner of the e-scooter, who was 18 at the time of the fire, was sentenced to seven months' jail. He had obtained the second-hand e-scooter from an unknown seller. He bought a battery from an online marketplace because it was the cheapest listing and borrowed a charger from a friend. The Court heard that he made no checks on whether these components were compatible.

This tragedy exposed three points of failure in the online market: first, components obtained from different sources may not be compatible; second, price and online presentation can drive the purchase despite the safety risk; and third, an anonymous seller may be difficult to trace after something goes wrong.

These are the three implementation issues I wish to examine: whether sellers must substantiate compatibility claims; whether platforms must act on warning signs; and whether LTA can enforce the rules against sellers who disappear and reappear online.

The Bill addresses an important part of this problem. Online sellers will have to provide warning and specification notices, identify compatible device models and state the battery's voltage and capacity. They will also be prohibited from advertising non-compliant devices or incompatible batteries. Importantly, these duties apply whether or not the seller is carrying on a business. They therefore extend to individual resellers, including those selling second-hand devices.

From my vantage point as a marketing professor, however, providing information is only the starting point. Online marketplaces are not neutral catalogues. Prices, photographs, promotional claims, search rankings and recommendations influence what consumers notice, trust and ultimately buy. Consumers should make reasonable checks, but sellers know more about their products while platforms control how those products are presented and promoted. I therefore have three concerns.

First, how will compatibility claims be substantiated? The Bill requires a seller to list every device model with which a battery is compatible. A false or misleading specification notice is an offence where the seller knows or ought reasonably to know that it is false or misleading. But what evidence must support such a claim before it is published? Will sellers be required to possess and retain test reports, manufacturer confirmation or other prescribed evidence for every device model they list as compatible?

In the Changi case, the e-scooter, battery and charger came from three different sources. A compatibility notice must therefore represent a properly verified assessment, not simply a seller's own assertion.

I recognise that the relevant safety standards and testing requirements will be prescribed in regulations. Could the Ministry explain what evidence will be required before a seller may represent that a battery is compatible with a particular device model and how LTA will audit such claims?

Second, what responsibility will online marketplaces bear? As I read the Bill, marketplace operators do not bear a separate general duty to screen every listing before it is published. They may be liable for taking part in publishing an unlawful advertisement. However, a business that publishes advertisements has a defence if it neither knew nor had reason to suspect that publication was unlawful.

Is that the intended design? More importantly, what would give a platform reason to suspect?

I suggest that certain warning signs should trigger a duty to investigate. These could include a seller reposting a product that was previously removed, multiple accounts using substantially identical photographs or coded phrases, such as "unlock full power" and "extended range", that may advertise illegal modifications without saying so explicitly.

The Bill also treats online material as published again on each day that a further step is taken to amplify access to it. Does the Ministry intend algorithmic recommendations, sponsored placement or preferential search ranking to constitute such a further step? This matters because the battery in the Changi case was selected because it was the cheapest listing. If a platform's systems repeatedly recommend or prominently promote an offending product, the platform is doing more than passively hosting the listing. It is actively increasing the product's reach and influencing demand.

When LTA directs a seller to remove a listing, I also suggest that the marketplace should be notified. Once notified, the platform should have reason to suspect substantially similar listings from the same seller or linked accounts.

Third, how will these requirements be enforced at scale? The Bill covers certain online sales originating outside Singapore where the required connection to Singapore is established. But legal coverage is not the same as practical enforceability. LTA may issue compliance and removal directions and require marketplace operators to provide information about sellers. But when overseas or anonymous seller cannot be reached, will LTA have a direct and sufficiently broad power to require the operator to disable access to the offending product listing in Singapore?

Removing one listing may also achieve little if the seller can create a new account and repost the same product the next day. Will marketplaces be required to collect and retain sufficiently reliable information to identify sellers and link related accounts? What measures will address sellers who repeatedly reappear using different names, photographs or product descriptions?

Enforcement effectiveness should also be measurable. I ask the Ministry to consider publishing aggregate indicators such as the average time taken to remove an offending listing, the number of products that reappear after removal, and the number of repeat sellers detected. This will help Parliament assess whether the new powers are changing conduct, rather than merely generating removal directions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Changi case was not caused by one failure alone. It involved components from different sources, a purchase driven by the cheapest available listing and an unknown seller. The Bill establishes important duties for sellers. Its effectiveness will now depend on whether compatibility claims can be verified, whether platforms respond when warning signs emerge and whether enforcement can keep pace with sellers who operate anonymously or repeatedly change accounts.

Consumers have a responsibility to make reasonable choices. But they cannot be expected to conduct technical testing or simply trust an anonymous seller's claims. The principle should be clear: safety information must be accurate and verifiable; platforms must act when they have reason to suspect a breach; and unsafe listings must be removed before a dangerous product reaches someone's home.

Notwithstanding these clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.

5.48 pm

Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, safer devices, safer paths, safer roads; these must be the non-negotiable foundations of our evolving transport system. This should also be the promise at the heart of this Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill.

Technology is expanding how we travel, work and move goods. But with every new device, every new service or every new AV also introduces new risks for the people who share our roads and paths. The law must therefore keep pace, not just to permit innovation, but to govern it responsibly.

I rise in support of the Bill but would like to seek clarification on three areas: first, the role of online platforms in regulating PMA sales; second, the impact of extending the regulatory sandbox for autonomous road sweepers and carts; and third, the implications of the authorised exporter scheme for deregistered vehicles.

First, safer devices. Earlier this year, in my speech on the first Land Transport Bill, I spoke about the importance of effective enforcement. Since 1 June 2026, LTA has also enforced legislation on the physical sale of PMAs. This includes mandatory registration of whitelisted models, user registration to obtain the Certification of Medical Need and banning the fitting or modification using non-compliant parts.

I am glad to see LTA continue to strengthen enforcement by extending these regulations to online sales. Otherwise, our sales could be bypassed by retailers moving online, reducing our protection and being unfair to physical retailers.

But with the challenges of enforcement and accountability of online transactions, our rules must not only target individual retailers but also include the cooperation of online platforms. The new Bill states that online sellers must display warning notices on the requirements for using PMAs before purchase. But there is no guarantee that users would even see the notice or take it seriously. Unlike a physical store, online sellers also would not validate if they were selling their compliant vehicles to eligible users.

Instead of only displaying the notices, we should require platform level interventions such as a compulsory user acknowledgement of the warning notices before checkout or using Singpass Verification to check Certification of Medical Need status, which has been used by e-commerce platforms for tickets or property listings. Can MOT consider applying this compulsory verification? This narrows the accountability gap between online and physical transactions.

Second, safer paths. The Bill introduces a five-year regulatory sandbox for autonomous robo-sweepers and driverless delivery carts on public paths until 2031. While these trials are small and localised, a future influx of AVs could lead to congestion on our footpaths and shared paths during peak hours.

What safeguards will MOT require to mitigate the risk of injury or congestion between the different users: pedestrians, cyclists, PMA and PMD users, and these driverless fleets? Will we implement a standardised protocol for the operation of AVs so that pedestrians will be able to predict their behaviour? Is there a requirement for a human in the loop? Who will bear responsibility if an autonomous delivery cart hurts a person?

Additionally, there could be fewer delivery workers and cleaners required. How does the Ministry envision the change in delivery worker and cleaner roles? What are some support measures that the Ministry is considering to help affected workers through this transition and what is the implementation timeline given the roll-out of these driverless fleets by end 2031?

Lastly, safer roads. I wish to touch on the new regulations for handling deregistered vehicles. With the increased numbers of deregistered vehicles, LTA intends to criminalise the supply or sale of deregistered vehicles. Vehicle owners have 14 days to dispose of their vehicles either through scrapyard or exporting. Has LTA considered if we have sufficient infrastructure in place to smoothly manage the export of deregistered vehicles?

Due to our Certificate of Entitlement system, many deregistered vehicles may still be in working condition when deregistered and it would be a waste to scrap them rather than export. However, the number of deregistered Category A and B vehicles has grown by 50% from Q2 2025 to Q2 2026. These vehicles, if exported, have to go through LTA-authorised exporters or be stored in one of the five approved Export Processing Zones, with no option to directly use freight services. These additional vehicles will cause a strain on the storage capacities of authorised exporters, adding onto the reported shipment delays and additional storage costs due to conflict in the Middle East.

Has LTA studied if the new rules may create a backlog of cars for export, and will LTA consider approving more Export Processing Zones (EPZs) or authorised exporters if shipment delays arise? With only five EPZs in Singapore at the moment, will LTA consider approving additional EPZs during this one-year transition period? This will help to mitigate the increased supply and backlog of cars waiting to be exported. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Our transport system must be guided by three “safer” priorities to give Singaporeans greater peace of mind: safer devices, safer paths and safer roads. Technology is expanding the ways in which we travel, work and transport goods. However, every new device, service or autonomous vehicle also introduces new risks for members of the public who use our roads and paths. The law must therefore keep pace, allowing innovation while ensuring that appropriate regulation is in place.

The Bill introduces a five-year “regulatory sandbox”, allowing autonomous road sweepers and driverless delivery vehicles to be tested on public paths until 2031. Although the current trials are small-scale and confined to specific locations, a future influx of autonomous vehicles could cause congestion on our footpaths and shared paths during peak hours.

In this regard, I would like to ask: What safeguards will the Ministry of Transport (MOT) require to reduce the risk of collisions, injuries or congestion involving pedestrians, cyclists, users of personal mobility aids and personal mobility devices, and these driverless fleets? Will we establish a standard operating protocol for autonomous vehicles so that pedestrians can predict how they will behave? Will the regulations require a human-in-the-loop arrangement? If a driverless delivery vehicle injures someone, who will bear responsibility?

In addition, fewer delivery workers and cleaners may be needed in future. How does MOT envisage these roles changing? Given that these driverless fleets will be rolled out by the end of 2031, what measures are the Ministry considering to support affected workers during the transition? Can the authorities also provide a specific implementation timeline?

This Bill recognises a simple reality – pedestrians, drivers, active mobility users and driverless fleets are increasingly sharing the same limited spaces. Its purpose must therefore be not merely to provide new transport options, but also to ensure that innovation does not come at the expense of public safety.

( In English ): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill recognises a simple reality: pedestrians, drivers, activity mobility users and driverless fleets increasingly share the limited space we have. Its purpose must therefore not be only to enable new transport options, but to ensure that innovation does not come at the expense of public safety or certainty.

Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.

5.58 pm

Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill.

This is a wide-ranging Bill. It tightens controls on deregistered vehicles, which is an important and welcome step, and it also covers AMDs, EV charging, AVs and illegal point-to-point transport services. What connects many of these amendments is a common challenge. Transport technology and consumer behaviour are changing rapidly and therefore, regulation must keep pace without unnecessarily constraining innovation.

My three points share one connected idea, that safety must follow the user. It must follow them to where they shop, it must follow them onto the paths they share and it must follow them into the vehicles that they board.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my first point concerns AMDs and battery safety. Like several Members before me, I welcome the Bill's extension of existing controls from physical retailers to online sellers. Regulation should follow the product to where consumers actually buy them. If strong controls apply in a physical shop, but unsafe devices remain easily available on the online platform, we clearly have not solved the problem. We have simply moved it.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Many Members, including myself, have previously raised concerns in this House about fires involving AMD and the need for clearer guidance on safe charging practices. The risk does not stay on the path. It follows the device home, to the flat or to the corridor where devices are charged. Compatibility is therefore only part of the equation. How a battery is charged, maintained, modified and eventually replaced matters just as much.

Could the Ministry complement these rules with a stronger emphasis on public education on battery and charging safety? Could safety information also be required at the point of sale, online or offline, so that buyers understand not only which battery is compatible, but also how to charge and maintain these batteries safely? The objective should be a complete safety chain: from importer to the seller, to the device, to the battery and ultimately, to the user behaviour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns AVs. I support extending the road sandbox to the end of 2028 and introducing a new sandbox for AVs on public paths until September 2031. Technologies, such as AVs and road sweepers, need room to be tested in real-world environments so that we learn before we write permanent rules. This is timely. Waymo has announced plans to launch a fully autonomous ride-hailing service in Singapore in 2028, the same year the road sandbox is due to end.

As these systems become more common, we should address a fundamental question early, similar to what hon Member Ms Lee Hui Ying mentioned previously: when an autonomous system causes harm, who is then responsible? With a conventional vehicle, responsibility normally begins with the driver. But with an AV, the chain is far more complex and complicated. Was it the owner, the operator, the manufacturer, the sensor, the software provider or an algorithmic decision or a failure simply to install an update on the systems? These questions matter most when autonomous systems share public paths with pedestrians, cyclists and other users who may be vulnerable.

The Ministry has indicated that the sandbox extension will allow deployments to continue until more holistic legislation is in place. Could the Ministry also clarify whether data from these sandboxes will inform not only the technical safety standards, but also a clear framework for liability, insurance and accountability, and whether this framework will be settled before commercial autonomous services begin and expand?

Innovation works best when the public knows that if something goes wrong, responsibility does not disappear with an algorithm.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my final point concerns illegal point-to-point transport services. I support stronger enforcement against unlicensed ride-hailing and taxi services. This is, first and foremost, a passenger safety issue. Unlicensed vehicles may not carry valid insurance for the service that they provide. A passenger may only be able to discover what that means after an accident.

It also is a question of fairness. Legitimate taxi and private hire drivers meet licensing, insurance and regulatory requirements. They should not have to compete with operators who circumvent these rules. Stronger enforcement protects their livelihoods too.

But enforcement works best when people have a practical, legal alternative. So, I welcome the increase in the Singapore-Malaysia Cross-Border Taxi Scheme quota increase from 200 to 300 taxis, and the Government's intention to raise it to 500 taxis from each country eventually.

But as enforcement tightens, particularly if penalties are eventually extended to passengers themselves, who knowingly use illegal services, then legitimate cross-border options must be available, convenient and affordable. Otherwise, we may be suppressing an illegal market without actually addressing the demand that created it in the first place.

Could the Ministry monitor not only enforcement outcomes, but also the waiting times, fares and availability of these cross-border transport services as these measures slowly take effect?

Mr Speaker, Sir, good transport regulation should protect without unnecessarily restricting, enable innovation without compromising safety, and enforce rules without losing sight of why people sometimes circumvent them. That is why I mentioned that safety must follow the user. To the online store, to the home where a battery is charged, onto the path that is shared with AVs, and into the vehicle a commuter boards, with a safe and legal option within reach.

Notwithstanding these observations and clarifications, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yeo.

6.05 pm

Mr Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, I will speak with a focus only on the proposed amendments to the Active Mobility Act 2017. Sir, AMDs have fast become a regular part of our transport landscape. They are used for point-to-point deliveries, as mobility aids, for short travels or even just to get around the neighbourhood. As AMDs become more commonly used, there is a more urgent need to ensure that devices sold in Singapore are safe for use and comply with regulatory requirements.

The usage of non-compliant batteries, for example, poses fire risks. We had one such unfortunate PMD-related fire last year in Potong Pasir which resulted in injury to a resident and significant damage to the home.

At the same time, the way in which such devices and their components, including batteries, are bought and sold has increasingly shifted online. Our regulatory framework must evolve to keep pace with these developments. These amendments, which tighten regulation around online sales and advertising and strengthen battery safety requirements, are therefore important and timely. Let me address each of these in turn.

Sir, I welcome the decision to extend the powers and restrictions imposed on physical retail premises to online sales and advertising platforms. The new section 54A recognises that if our rules on AMDs are to be effective, enforcement must follow the marketplace online.

But, as I understand the provision, where an offending listing is posted by a third-party seller on an online marketplace, LTA may direct the seller to stop the sale and remove the listing. LTA may also direct the marketplace operator to provide information about the seller. What appears to be absent, however, is a power for LTA to direct the marketplace operator itself to disable access to the offending listing where the seller cannot or will not comply. I wonder if this leaves a practical gap in enforcement.

Suppose an overseas seller is offering a non-compliant device or incompatible battery online to consumers in Singapore. What happens if the seller cannot be identified, cannot be contacted, ignores LTA's direction or simply removes the listing and puts up substantially the same product again under another account? In such cases, the online marketplace operator may be the party best placed to stop that harm quickly.

I ask if the Ministry would consider a tiered approach to Section 54A, giving LTA further powers to plug this gap. The first step should remain enforcement against the seller. As a second step, where the seller cannot reasonably be reached, fails to comply, repeatedly re-lists the product or where there is an immediate safety risk, LTA could then be empowered to direct the marketplace operator itself to disable access in Singapore to that listing so that it is no longer accessible to consumers. Such a direct intervention against the online marketplace operator would be the backstop, rather than the first resort.

There is some precedent for this approach elsewhere in our legislation. Under the Online Criminal Harms Act, a Disabling Direction can be issued to an online service provider requiring it to disable access in Singapore to specified harmful online material. We have already recognised, in this context, that effective regulation of online harms may sometimes require us to act not only against the person who puts up the content, but also through the platform which hosts and disseminates it.

Sir, to be clear, I accept that scams and breaches of our active mobility laws are different and distinct in nature and seriousness. Any corresponding powers and safeguards should therefore be calibrated proportionately.

This is why a tiered approach may be more appropriate. The purpose is not to impose a general obligation on online marketplaces to police every active mobility product sold on their platforms. Nor should we make platforms automatically responsible for every unlawful listing put up by a third-party seller. The objective is narrower.

Once LTA has identified an unlawful listing, there should be an effective last mile of enforcement which stops that listing from reaching Singapore consumers, particularly where the seller cannot or will not comply. I therefore ask the Minister of State whether the Government will consider enacting stronger powers enabling LTA, in appropriate cases, to direct a marketplace operator to disable access in Singapore to such offending listings or the reasons why the powers presently proposed are considered sufficient.

Sir, I turn next to the provisions on battery compatibility. I support the standards set in the new section 34A. Considering the risks and dangers involved, we must take battery safety seriously. However, section 34A places obligations not only on those who fit or cause an incompatible battery to be fitted, but also directly on the user. It makes it an offence for a person to ride or use an AMD powered by a battery that is not compatible with that device. This places a significant responsibility on the user.

Sir, for batteries purchased after these amendments take effect, identifying compatibility should become more straightforward, as the Bill requires sellers to provide prescribed information about the battery and the devices with which it is compatible.

My concern is with existing users and existing batteries. For example, a user may have been using the same device for many years. When the original battery failed, the user would have brought the device to a repair shop and relied on the repairer to install a suitable replacement.

How is the user to know whether the battery already fitted to his device is compatible with that device? He or she may not have kept the receipt and may not know the make or model of the replacement battery. The repair shop may no longer be around. Brands and manufacturers could have left the market. And even if he or she could identify the battery, determining whether it is compatible with their device may depend on technical information that an ordinary user could find challenging to verify.

To this end, I wish to ask the Minister of State whether there will be any transitional arrangements for users who already have replacement batteries fitted to their devices before Section 34A comes into force, so that they have a reasonable opportunity to verify compatibility and where necessary, comply with the new requirements. It would also be useful if LTA could provide an accessible means for such users to verify whether their existing batteries are compatible with their devices.

Further, in calibrating enforcement during the transition, would the Ministry distinguish between users who knowingly use incompatible batteries and existing users who had reasonably relied on the representations of sellers or repairers before these new requirements came into force?

Sir, the objective of my suggestions is not to dilute the safety standard, but to give existing users a clear and practical path to meet it. More broadly, as our active mobility landscape continues to evolve, effective regulation must work both online and on the ground, ensuring that unlawful sales can be stopped and that legitimate users can easily understand and comply with the safety regulation we impose.

With these observations, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jackson Lam.

6.13 pm

Mr Jackson Lam (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I would like to approach this Bill from a slightly different angle. I want to focus on what happens behind the scenes after a vehicle is deregistered and after an active mobility battery has already been sold. Because passing stronger rules is one thing, making sure they work on the ground is another. Sometimes, the biggest risk is not at the point where the transaction takes place. It is what happens afterwards.

Let me start with deregistered vehicles. The number of detected cases of deregistered vehicles being used on our roads increased from 75 in 2024 to 245 in 2025. And in 2025, there were more than 80 cases of crimes and traffic violations involving such vehicles. This is concerning. Once a vehicle has been deregistered, it should no longer be driven on our roads. Such vehicles may not have valid insurance and some have been linked to hit-and-run accidents and other criminal activities. These are real road safety and enforcement consequences.

This is why I welcome the Authorised Exporter Scheme introduced under this Bill. Under the new system, deregistered vehicles meant for export must go through LTA-authorised exporters. This moves us closer to a system where we can verify what actually happens to the physical vehicle.

But the effectiveness of the scheme will ultimately depend on enforcement.

We can have strict conditions for becoming an Authorised Exporter, secured premises and proper records. But if there is insufficient checking after an exporter has been authorised, then over time, the same gaps could appear again. So, I have few questions for the Minister of State.

First, how will LTA inspect and audit these Authorised Exporters? Will there be both scheduled and surprise inspections? Will LTA also check the number of deregistered vehicles received by an exporter against the number processed or exported? And where breaches are detected, what action can LTA take?

Second, the industry will be given a transition period of at least one year before the scheme takes effect. I understand why businesses need time to adjust. They may need to secure suitable premises, change their processes and comply with the new requirements. But given the significant increase in detected cases, I hope enforcement under the existing framework will remain strong during this transition period. We should not allow the transition period itself to become another window for abuse. So, can the Minister of State share how LTA intends to strengthen monitoring during this period?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I also support shortening the disposal period from one month to 14 days. But whether it is 30 days or 14 days, the key question remains: can we verify where the vehicle actually went? That is ultimately what will determine whether we have truly closed the loophole. And as the new system settles in, I hope LTA will also monitor whether there are attempts to circumvent the rules. When we tighten one part of a system, some may simply look for another weak point. So, enforcement needs to evolve together with the regulations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns active mobility batteries. I support the new battery safety requirements in this Bill. Sellers will have to provide important information, such as the compatible device models, voltage and capacity of the battery. There will also be restrictions against selling, fitting or using incompatible batteries. These help consumers make better decisions. And importantly, they put greater responsibility on those who sell and install these batteries.

SCDF reported that fires involving AMDs fell by 26.9% in 2025. It shows that the measures taken over the years are having an effect. But we should not become complacent. And in our HDB environment, even one serious fire can affect not only one household, but neighbouring residents as well.

A battery may look perfectly normal from the outside. An owner may also assume that because a replacement battery fits into his device, it is safe to use. But physical fit does not necessarily mean technical compatibility. The voltage may be wrong and the specifications may not match the device. Or the battery may have come from an unknown source. This is particularly relevant today because consumers can buy replacement batteries through many different channels. Some may be bought online second hand or fitted by third parties. And the owner may not have the technical knowledge to know whether the battery is actually suitable.

That brings me to my main concern. This Bill will strengthen the rules for batteries sold after the new requirements take effect. But what about those incompatible batteries that are already in circulation today? These batteries do not disappear when we pass this Bill. Some may already be installed in devices and sitting inside homes. And the owners may not even realise that there is a potential safety issue. So, I have two questions for the Minister of State.

First question, would the LTA consider a structured trade-in or exchange programme for incompatible batteries? We should make it easy for people to do the right thing. If an owner discovers that his battery is incompatible, simply telling him not to use it, may not be enough. He now has to dispose the old battery properly and also have to spend money buying a replacement. For some residents, especially those who rely on their devices for work and daily mobility, that additional cost may matter. We can perhaps consider giving owners a practical incentive to surrender an incompatible battery and replace it with a compliant and compatible one. For example, this could be introduced for a limited period as the new requirements come into effect.

The objective is simple: get potentially unsafe batteries out of circulation faster.

Second question, can we make it easier for existing owners to check their batteries? For example, could LTA provide a simple online lookup tool where an owner can check whether his device and battery are compatible? It should be simple enough that an ordinary consumer does not need to understand technical battery specifications. Ideally, he should be able to enter or scan the relevant model information and receive a straightforward answer. And for residents who may not be digitally confident, perhaps retailers or other appropriate touchpoints could help them conduct the check.

The new disclosure requirements will help someone buying a battery tomorrow. But we should also help someone who already has a battery at home today. We should explain not only that incompatible batteries are dangerous, but also how residents can identify them and what they should do next.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a common principle behind these two issues. For deregistered vehicles, we should not stop at the paperwork – we should know where the vehicle actually goes. For active mobility batteries, we should not stop at regulating future sales – we should also deal with potentially unsafe batteries already in circulation. In both cases, the challenge is the same. There is a difference between having a rule and achieving the outcome that the rule was designed to achieve.

An exporter can comply on paper. But we still need to know what happened to the vehicle. A seller can comply with the new battery requirements tomorrow. But that does not address an incompatible battery already sitting in someone's home today. Good regulation must close the loop. It must not only prevent the next problem. Where possible, it should also help us deal with the risks that already exist. With the above clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Gho Sze Kee.

6.23 pm

Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. I especially commend MOT for the focus on mobility device batteries. They have been a major cause of fires involving mobility devices. This is a step in the right direction. But I would like to share some observations.

First of all, what exactly is a compatible battery for an approved mobility device? The Bill describes a compatible battery as the same brand and model as the one which the device was tested and certified with. In other words, to be square with the law, you can only buy and use the original stock battery model. Fair enough, since mobility devices are tested and certified as a system, not as individual components. But how do you know the make and model of your battery is actually the one that was tested and certified with your device?

It turns out, that LTA does maintain a list of approved e-bike models, together with the compatible make and model of the battery for each. For PMDs though, the picture is different. There is a non-exhaustive list of UL2272 compliant models available, but it does not list down the make and model of the batteries for each model.

Sir, the Bill places clear legal obligations on both online sellers and the consumers. Online sellers of batteries will have to put up a list of compatible mobility devices with their listings. And consumers commit an offence if they buy and fit an incompatible battery to their mobility device. But without a ready reference, how can consumers easily verify independently an online seller's assertion that the battery is compatible with their device? More importantly, how can consumers know that the authorities are using the same reference?

A battery that is compatible with one model, will be illegal and possibly dangerous if fitted onto another model. So, how do the authorities know that a particular battery sold online will be actually used with a mobility device with which it is compatible? How can we deal with this? And how do we police the online platforms and prevent devices and batteries that are non-compliant and fire hazards from being sold here, especially by overseas sellers?

I know the answer for the first question. We actually cannot. But this is precisely why we place a legal obligation on consumers with this Bill. And I am glad there are provisions in this Bill, such as clauses 7 and 8, which attempts to address the second problem. But I cannot help but feel that we are missing an elephant in the room.

The LTA relies on a notice-and-take-down approach towards offending listings. LTA detects an offending listing, it notifies the online platform to take it down. This part of the Bill merely formalises what has been the operating procedure into law to give it teeth. But this still remains an ex-post approach, and the onus of detection and policing still falls on the authorities. LTA still has to find the offending listings before action can be taken. This is resource consuming and quite inefficient.

LTA may never get all of them, or perhaps even most of them. We must bear in mind, the platforms are the owners of the marketplace. They are the gatekeepers between the sellers and the consumers. They decide what can be listed, they have visibility over the listings on their platforms and they have the ability to put systems in place to detect and prevent illegal listings. No other party is in quite the same position to do so.

Sir, we place clear legal responsibilities on device users and sellers and we require them to proactively comply with the law, but strangely for the platforms that enables and facilitates such offending listings and profits from it, we are happy to accept only reactive compliance. And we only require them to act if the authorities detect a problem. I do not think this is enough. Contrast this to how we ask online platforms to act when it comes to scams.

Sir, under the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA), we specifically placed an onus on online platforms to adopt an ex-ante approach. We made a requirement of them to proactively detect and filter out scams before they ever reach our people. OCHA also has more teeth. Where an online platform does not comply with directions, the Competent Authority can issue an order to restrict access to the platform. This is especially crucial, as some online platforms are based entirely overseas.

Sir, mobility device fires have destroyed homes and caused death in our communities. If non-compliant batteries and devices can potentially burn down an HDB flat, destroy homes and endanger human lives, why should we treat this hazard with any less urgency than a financial scam? Back in February this year, during the Second Reading of the first Land Transport and Related Matters Bill, I raised the point, that it is time we hold delivery platforms more responsible.

I make the same call today for the online platforms. If we can require online platforms to be more responsible and proactive in our fight against online scams, then we should ask ourselves too, why can we not demand the same in our fight for safer paths and communities? I think we should.

Mr Speaker: Ms Cassandra Lee.

6.29 pm

Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. I wish to speak on the provisions concerning AVs. The Bill extends the existing sandbox for AVs on our roads and creates a new sandbox for AVs on public paths.

I support this approach. We should give new technologies room to develop, while putting in place the safeguards needed as they become part of our daily lives. How we regulate the technology matters. The law sets the standards expected of operators and technology providers. It influences how they design their systems, manage risks, respond to something when something goes wrong and take responsibility for those affected.

These experiences will, in turn, shape how Singaporeans view AVs, and more broadly, their confidence in AI and emerging technologies as they become more present in our everyday lives. The sandbox, therefore, gives us an important opportunity to get the regulatory framework right.

I will focus on three areas: accountability and compensation when accidents occur; safety for pedestrians on public paths; and how we support our drivers as the technology develops.

First, accountability and compensation. Earlier this year, LTA published its findings on the minor collision involving a ComfortDelGro AV and a road divider at Edgedale Plains. Our existing framework already requires AV operators to report accidents and incidents, including near misses and to provide information on what happened, possible causes, corrective action and lessons learnt.

As deployments increase, could MOT consider regularly publishing aggregated safety information on AV deployments – for example, distance travelled, accidents and significant incidents, the conditions in which they occurred, and the significant corrective actions taken? This would allow the public to understand the performance of AVs in context. It would also allow us to understand what the sandbox is teaching us, and use that evidence to inform subsequent legislation and regulation.

There is then the question of compensation. I welcome MOT's consultation on this. The consultation recognises that timely compensation is important for public assurance.

This is particularly important for AV accidents because responsibility may involve several parties. Was the operator responsible? Was there a problem with the software, sensors or the vehicle itself? Was the technology provider responsible? Resolving these questions may take time.

Whatever the complexity in determining liability between the parties, an injured member of the public should be able to obtain compensation promptly. I therefore ask whether our eventual framework could adopt a principle of compensating the victim first, while allowing responsibility between the relevant operators, technology providers and insurers to resolve subsequently.

What mechanism is MOT considering to ensure that a member of the public is not left waiting for compensation while liability between these parties remains disputed?

Second, AVs on our public paths. This requires particular care because AVs will be sharing space directly with our pedestrians. On our paths, we have seniors who may walk more slowly or may be unable to step aside quickly. We have young children who may suddenly change direction. We have persons with disabilities or mobility difficulties. We also have pedestrians who may be distracted or simply unaware of the AV approaching them.

The technology, therefore, has to deal safely with the full range of ordinary pedestrian behaviour, including behaviour that may be sudden or unpredictable. Existing assessments already look at matters, such as stopping distance, pedestrian safety, speed and responses to moving obstacles. I ask that we go further and expressly assess how these vehicles respond to seniors, young children and persons with mobility or other special needs.

Our experience with PMDs also provides useful lessons. Once devices share paths with pedestrians at-scale, their speed, weight, dimensions and where they are permitted to operate all affect safety.

Could the Minister of State share which lessons from our experience with PMDs will inform the AV framework? For example, will there be clear limits on speed, size and weight? Will there be restrictions on deployment along particularly narrow or heavily pedestrianised paths? Where there is insufficient space to pass safely, will an AV be required to slow down or stop and give way?

Our framework should place the responsibility on AV operators to ensure that their technology can operate safely around pedestrians, particularly those who may require more time or space to respond.

There is one further practical issue I hope the sandbox will examine: where these AVs will be parked, stored and charged when they are not in use. This becomes important if autonomous deliveries or service vehicles are eventually deployed at-scale in our neighbourhoods. They may be privately operated, but their parking and charging could create costs and risks in common spaces.

We have seen a version of this issue with PMDs. Where devices are kept along HDB corridors, at void decks or other common areas, concerns can arise over obstruction and, particularly where batteries are involved, fire safety.

For commercial AV deployments, we should address this early. Will operators be required to provide appropriate parking and charging arrangements as part of an approved deployment? Will the regulatory framework ensure that the costs and risks associated with storing, charging and maintaining these vehicles are appropriately borne by the operators?

We should avoid a situation where the commercial benefits of deployment accrue to the operator, while the associated costs, whether the use of common space, management requirements or safety risks, are transferred to residents, Town Councils or the wider public. I hope these considerations can be built into the sandbox requirements before deployments reach significant scale.

I also have a question about the new offence of hindering or obstructing an approved AV trial or deployment. I understand the need to protect approved deployments from deliberate interference. The Bill provides safeguards where there is a reasonable excuse, or where a person did not know and could not have reasonably known that his activity would cause obstruction.

On a public path, however, the distinction between deliberate interference and ordinary pedestrian behaviour will be important. A senior may stop unexpectedly. A child may run in front of a robot. Someone may simply be unsure how to respond when encountering one for the first time. I therefore ask how MOT intends to distinguish deliberate interference from ordinary, sometimes unpredictable, pedestrian behaviour when this provision is implemented.

My final point is about drivers. Waymo will be joining ComfortDelGro and Grab in Singapore, with commercial autonomous ride-hailing services targeted for 2028. This is an important development in our transport system. For taxi and private hire car drivers, it also raises understandable questions about their livelihood.

For someone who has spent many years driving for a living, the immediate concern may be: how much longer can I depend on driving to support my family? I welcome the Manpower Transition Package announced in July, including career conversion programmes, training incentives and career guidance. I also welcome the Government's assurance that the AV deployment will not run ahead of our ability to retrain and support affected drivers. As deployment develops, I ask how the Government intends to assess whether we are succeeding in that commitment.

Our drivers are a diverse group. A younger driver may be prepared to retrain and enter another industry. An older driver who is approaching retirement may find a major career switch considerably more difficult. He may prefer to continue driving and earning a sustainable income for the remaining years of his working life.

There will also be drivers for whom roles, such as AV technicians or remote operators, may not be suitable. The effectiveness of the transition should therefore be measured by outcomes: whether drivers find work, whether their incomes remain sustainable and whether the working arrangements remain compatible with their family and caregiving responsibilities.

I ask that the Government also give drivers as much visibility as possible on the expected pace of AV deployment, so that they have sufficient time to plan. For older drivers or others where a major career switch, may not be practical. How will the Government help them continue earning a decent livelihood as AV deployment expands?

There may remain areas where human drivers continue to have an important role, including cross-border taxi services and routes, or periods that are less well served. I hope the Government will continue to explore these opportunities, particularly for drivers who may find it harder to pivot into another field.

Mr Speaker, I support the controlled deployment of AVs. The sandbox gives us the opportunity to learn from actual deployment and to develop the regulatory framework alongside technology. We should use this period to establish how safety performance will be measured and made transparent; how an injured person can obtain compensation promptly; how AVs on public paths will safely accommodate our seniors, children and persons with mobility needs; and how our drivers, whose livelihoods are affected, will be supported through the transition.

These are practical issues that will increasingly arise as AVs become part of everyday life. How we address them will shape public confidence in AVs and more broadly, how Singaporeans experience the increasing use of AI and emerging technologies in our society. We should continue to innovate and adopt technologies that can improve our transport system, with clear rules, strong safeguards and proper accountability for their impact on people.

Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

6.41 pm

Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.