Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.

6.41 pm

Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, first, on deregistered vehicles. While I fully support the proposed measures, we also need to make sure the system can account for all vehicles. For every vehicle, there should be a record tied to its chassis number – when it was received, dismantled and exported. LTA should be able to pull up the record of any vehicle, conduct risk-based audits and act when the records do not add up.

If we require a vehicle to leave the system, we should be able to account for it until it does. The industry will also have at least one year to prepare. I would, therefore, like to know what safeguards will apply during this transition period.

Second, AMDs and batteries. I would like to ask the Minister: how will the law treat someone who has acted in good faith and relied on wrong information provided by the seller? Imagine a delivery rider whose battery stops working. He needs a replacement for work the next morning. He searches online and finds one advertised as compatible with his device and he buys it. If that information is wrong, he may have bought the wrong product without knowing it.

I am not asking for unsafe products to be tolerated. I am asking how we make it possible for an ordinary person who wants to comply to actually know what is safe. One practical solution would be a simple Government tool. One page, one search box. Enter the device model and it tells you which batteries are compatible. Make the safe choice the easy choice.

There is also a role for online platforms. For higher-risk products, could platforms act within a clear timeframe when LTA flags an unsafe listing, retain enough information to trace the seller and help notify purchasers where an unsafe product has already been sold? Because a takedown after a complaint is useful, prevention before the sale is better and a recall that reaches the purchaser is better still. Taking down an advertisement does not take the battery out of the home where it may already be charging.

Third, AVs on public paths. The Bill creates a new framework for AVs on public paths, including a sandbox until 30 September 2031.

I support having a sandbox. We should give useful technology room to be tested. But a public path is not a laboratory. A person with a visual impairment may not see a machine approaching. A wheelchair user may have very little room to move aside. A machine can avoid a collision and still create a problem. It can block a wheelchair at a narrow point or force someone using a walking frame to step around it. For some people, what looks like a small inconvenience can become a fall.

So, before these machines are deployed widely, I hope we can establish three things.

First, a clear and published safety bar. What must a machine demonstrate before it goes onto a public path? A robo-sweeper is not a car. Our standard should reflect the realities of shared public paths.

Second, clear accountability. If something goes wrong, the person using the path should know who is responsible.

Third, listen to the people who actually use the path. Before a testbed is designated, speak to wheelchair users, persons with visual impairment, seniors and parents with young children, and test the technology on the actual path where it will operate. Because a robot can perform perfectly in a controlled test and still make a public path difficult to use.

The Bill gives the Government powers to monitor deployments and obtain information about them. I hope we use that information not just to enforce, but also to learn. A sandbox should not only tell us whether a technology works. It should tell us what we need to change before we scale it up. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.

6.46 pm

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, this Bill updates our land transport laws in several important areas. I will focus on three: deregistered vehicles, AVs and illegal point-to-point transport services.

First, deregistered vehicles. Detected cases of deregistered vehicles being used on our roads rose from 75 in 2024, to 245 in 2025. This Bill therefore tightens the disposal regime, including a new Authorised Exporter Scheme and a shorter disposal period from one month to 14 days.

I understand the need to shorten the window in which a deregistered vehicle can be misused. But will 14 days work equally well for every type of vehicle? What about vehicles that retain economic value and are meant for re-export? EVs are one example. Re-conditioning takes time. Sourcing replacement parts can take even longer. There is also a sustainability consideration. If a vehicle can be safely re-conditioned, retrofitted and reused, we should preserve that value before moving towards dismantling and recycling.

Importantly, while the Bill prescribes a disposal period, it also gives the registrar discretion to allow a longer period where appropriate. Could the Minister of State clarify when such extensions would be granted? Could LTA take into account genuine export arrangements, reconditioning needs, parts availability and other supply chain constraints?

I would also like clarification on the new Authorised Exporter Scheme. First, how will authorised exporters be audited? Second, how will LTA verify the chain of custody from the vehicle owner through to export or final disposal? And third, will there be enough authorised exporters to provide meaningful choice and keep disposal costs competitive?

As we shorten the disposal window, we should ensure that the bottleneck does not simply move from the vehicle owners to authorised exporters.

Beyond tightening the disposal process, we should also strengthen our ability to detect deregistered vehicles that already made their way onto our roads. Bad actors may use false or substituted number plates, so number-plate recognition alone may not be enough. I therefore welcome LTA's announcement that ERP 2.0 can strengthen the detection of deregistered vehicles.

Could the Minister of State clarify how this capability will work in practice, particularly for vehicles travelling without a valid On-Board Unit (OBU)? How will ERP 2.0 alerts be integrated with the Traffic Police's existing surveillance systems, including camera networks and other roadside tools, so that suspicious vehicles can be identified, tracked and intercepted quickly? More broadly, how will LTA and the Traffic Police scale these capabilities across our road network?

Second, on AVs. This Bill creates a regulatory sandbox for AVs on public paths. It also makes it an offence, without reasonable excuse, to hinder or obstruct an approved AV deployment.

But before we decide what amounts to obstruction, there is a more basic question. On a shared public path, who has the right of way? The human path user or the AV? If a pedestrian continues walking normally and an AV approaches, who gives way? Should the pedestrian move aside or should the AV slow down, stop and give way? This matters especially for seniors, children and persons with disabilities.

As far as reasonably practicable, the technology should anticipate normal human behaviour and we should not require pedestrians to adapt to the machine. Once the hierarchy of right of way is clear, it will also be easier to determine what genuinely amounts to obstruction.

There is also the question of evidence and data. AV operators are likely to have onboard sensor data and video footages. The Bill allows regulations requiring such information to be captured, stored and provided to the authorities. Where such evidence exists, will it be first reviewed before an ordinary path user is required to establish the statutory defence? At the same time, what safeguards govern this data? How long may identifiable footage be retained? Who may access it? When should it be anonymised or deleted? And if deployments capture audio, including nearby conversations, what additional safeguards will apply?

There is also the question of liability when an accident occurs. The Bill provides for insurance coverage covering death, injury and property damage. Could the Minister of State clarify how responsibility will be allocated between the vehicle owner, operator and technology provider? More importantly, will an injured member of the public have a clear and straightforward route to compensation?

Could the Minister of State also clarify what benchmarks will determine when an AV is ready to move from controlled environments to more complex operating conditions? What safety and performance benchmarks will apply at each stage of the public path sandbox?

I turn now to the wider roll-out of AVs on our roads. From my perspective, AVs are intended to complement public transport and add capacity to our taxis and private hire vehicle fleet, including where transport options are limited. If AVs are meant to fill transport gaps, then we should be deliberate not only about where they are deployed, but also when. Beyond geographical fencing, we should consider time-based deployment as part of a phased roll-out.

For example, late at night, public transport may no longer be operating, and taxis and private hire vehicles supply may be thinner while demand remains from shift workers and the night-time economy. AVs could supplement existing capacity during these periods.

There may also be a safety advantage. On selected routes, lighter traffic at certain hours may provide a less complex environment for testing, learning and improving safety before deployment is expanded. Importantly, if AVs first complement existing transport options where and when taxis and private hire vehicle supply is limited rather than immediately substituting for existing drivers, this could help ease livelihood concerns as the sector adjusts to the technology.

Finally, illegal point-to-point transport services. The Bill treats forwarding or sharing an electronic advertisement as publication. But criminal liability also requires the person to know or be reckless as to whether the vehicle is being used unlawfully. Could the Minister of State clarify how this threshold works in practice, especially in private messaging groups? How will enforcement distinguish an organiser or an active promoter from an ordinary person who forwards a message without knowing that the service is unlawful?

We should also address the demand that makes illegal services attractive. Under the enhanced Cross-Border Taxi Scheme, the taxi quota has increased from 200 to 300 from each country. As enforcement is strengthened, could LTA also regularly review whether the number and location of authorised cross-border pick-up hubs adequately meet commuter demand? Where there are gaps in convenience or accessibility, expanding legitimate pick-up points could reduce the demand that makes illegal point-to-point transfers attractive in the first place.

Ultimately, enforcement and accessibility must go hand in hand. We should make illegal services harder to provide while making legal services easier to use. Mr Speaker, I look forward to the Minister's clarifications. Notwithstanding them, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Baey Yam Keng.

6.56 pm

Mr Baey Yam Keng: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Members for their support and thoughtful suggestions for this Bill. I seek Members' understanding that I am unable to address every single suggestion and question raised today. Issues like the mix between slow and fast EV chargers go beyond the scope of the Bill, so I invite Members to file Parliamentary Questions on these issues instead.

I will round up by responding to the key points raised.

First, on deregistered vehicles. These vehicles are inherently difficult to locate as they may be acquired through multiple intermediaries, and such transactions are not reported to the authorities. Since 2024, about 14% of the cases LTA investigated for using deregistered vehicles involved vehicles that have already been handed over to dealers or exporters. Bad actors are using more sophisticated methods to acquire and use them. They increasingly exploit juveniles and use online platforms, such as Telegram, to acquire deregistered vehicles while evading detection.

But the increase in detections also reflects stronger enforcement efforts to detect them. LTA and Traffic Police have been enhancing joint operations such as the enforcement blitz last month. This is the main reason for the rising number of detections.

Mr Edward Chia, Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked how we can improve detection of deregistered vehicles, including by leveraging on ERP 2.0. We intend to do so. Going forward, we can use ERP 2.0 Global Navigation Satellite System technology to detect the locations of deregistered vehicles, provided the OBU has not been tampered with or removed. Roadside surveillance camera systems can continue to detect deregistered vehicles without OBU.

Some Members like Ms Valerie Lee and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the new restrictions preventing high-risk individuals from obtaining a new or used vehicle. For now, there are two categories of high-risk individuals – individuals with a track record of failing to dispose deregistered vehicles and juveniles under 18 years old. For those with precedents, we will regularly review their status to ensure the restrictions remain justified. For juveniles, there have been several cases where vehicles close to COE expiry are transferred to their names before being misused after deregistration. Juveniles do not meet the minimum age to drive and hence would not be obtaining vehicles for their own use. These rules protect them from exploitation.

Members like Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Gabriel Lam, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Dennis Tan also raised clarifications on the new Authorised Exporter Scheme, such as the 14-day grace period to fulfil disposal requirements, the efficiency of disposal options under the new scheme and how LTA will ensure accountability of Authorised Exporters.

The Authorised Exporter Scheme is intended to simplify the vehicle disposal process while improving the accountability of exporters and maintaining meaningful consumer choice.

During the grace period, owners will only need to hand their vehicles over to an authorised person listed on LTA's OneMotoring website. The disposal responsibility will now lie with the LTA-authorised person instead of the owner. That said, owners can check the disposal status through their own OneMotoring account. Extensions to the grace period may be granted on a case-by-case basis. Vehicle owners will continue to have a range of disposal options, and disposal costs for motorists will depend on the market.

Preliminarily, LTA expects around 20 to 50 authorised exporters to come onboard. While some exporters may face additional compliance costs, others may already be meeting the new requirements and could benefit from economies of scale arising from a more structured operating environment. At the same time, we cannot afford to lose sight of public safety. LTA will strengthen accountability throughout the chain of custody, from the vehicle owner to final export. Deregistered vehicles must be stored and processed within approved and secured premises before being transported to the port or checkpoints.

Authorised exporters will also be subject to LTA's regulatory oversight, including requirements to maintain and submit records of vehicle disposal within specific timelines. LTA will conduct risk-based audits and revoke the licences of those who breach requirements.

To Ms Joan Pereira’s question, authorised exporters and scrapyards will continue to be subject to NEA's vehicle disposal and recycling framework to ensure resource recovery from end-of-life vehicles.

Turning to active mobility, I thank Members for supporting the extension of rules to online sellers. Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Sharael Taha asked about enforcement and the responsibilities of online marketplaces.

Foreign-based sellers who are not Singapore-connected persons are generally beyond the reach of our laws. Where sellers are within our jurisdiction, LTA can direct them to remove offending content or disable access to users in Singapore. The Bill is calibrated to manage the compliance burden on online marketplace operators. Primary responsibility for compliant sales listings and advertisements rests with sellers. Platforms need not pre-screen listings but must not knowingly participate in publishing unlawful advertisements.

The Bill also allows LTA to require platforms to provide information on sellers. It does not provide a general power to direct platforms to take down listings. Ms Gho Sze Kee and Mr Alex Yeo asked why we do not impose stronger duties similar to those under OCHA. OCHA addresses serious criminal offences affecting national security, national harmony or individual safety, with an online nexus. For non-compliant AMDs, we will rely on other levers, including continuing to work with platforms to remove non-compliant listings and advertisements.

To Mr Ang Wei Neng's and Mr Gabriel Lam's questions on other measures to curb non-compliant devices, existing import controls will remain the main safeguard against access to and use of such devices in Singapore.

I thank Members including Mr Kenneth Tiong and Dr Charlene Chen for their support of the battery safety rules. Mr Melvin Yong asked how users can determine if a battery is compatible with their device.

Compatibility is not simply what a seller declares. For PMDs and PABs, a compatible battery is one that was fitted into and tested with that device model to meet the prescribed safety standards, or another battery of the same brand and model. Testing is conducted by independent bodies to certify compliance with standards. For mobility scooters and motorised wheelchairs, the battery must be installed or endorsed by the manufacturer as suitable for the device.

Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked whether this could unduly restrict the replacement battery market. For PMDs and PABs, third-party batteries can be recognised as compatible if tested together with the relevant device model to meet the prescribed safety standards. Such testing may involve cost and effort, but safety is our key consideration here.

There were 49 AMD fires in 2025 alone. A battery that is safe on its own is not necessarily safe when used with a particular device. We must establish that the battery and device can operate safely together. Retailers are responsible for the accuracy of specification notices, and must substantiate their claims if investigated by LTA, such as with information from device or battery manufacturers.

As suggested by Ms Tin Pei Ling and Dr Hamid Razak, regulation must be complemented by education. LTA will accompany the new battery rules with public education on battery safety, building on efforts, such as the Be Device Safe campaign with SCDF.

Ms Gho Sze Kee and Ms Hazlina Halim suggested a simple way for users to check if a battery is compatible with a device. LTA already publishes an online list of compatible batteries for approved PAB models and intends to publish similar lists for whitelisted e-scooter and mobility scooter models before the new rules commence. This will provide consumers and retailers with a common reference.

Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Alex Yeo, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Jackson Lam asked about batteries already fitted to devices. PABs and motorised PMDs must already meet applicable safety standards today, and using a non-compatible battery already invalidates the device's safety standard certification. We therefore do not intend to subsidise replacements or offer trade-ins. LTA's published lists will help existing users check their batteries and comply. Batteries should be disposed through e-waste collection drives, which will be stepped up.

Ms Valerie Lee spoke about shortened claims and disposal notice periods for indiscriminately parked bicycles moved to a holding yard. LTA will put up banners ahead of enforcement to warn against indiscriminate parking and explain the claims process. Owners will have seven days to claim a removed bicycle, and LTA will give a further seven days' notice before disposal. This balances owners' interests with the need to keep our paths clear and safe.

As we strengthen enforcement against illegal point-to-point transport services, we need to ensure that commuters' transport needs are met through safe and regulated services. Mr Edward Chia, Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Ang Wei Neng also raised this point.

That is why we enhanced the Cross-Border Taxi Scheme in May this year. We increased the quota on each side from 200 to 300 taxis, enabled cross ride-hail bookings and allowed both countries' taxis to drop off in Singapore and most parts of Johor. Since the enhancement, average daily cross-border taxi trips have risen by around 20%. Grab has also reduced the minimum advance booking lead time from 12 hours at launch to 75 minutes from 6 August 2026.

Singapore's cross-border taxi quota has been fully utilised, while Malaysia has utilised more than half of its quota. We are discussing with the Malaysians to increase the quota of licensed taxis to meet the cross-border transport needs of our commuters.

Beyond enforcement and service enhancements, commuters should use regulated services and avoid unlicensed operators to ensure their safety. Although regulated services may cost more, proper licensing of drivers and vehicles ensures the safety of passengers. Commuters can refer to LTA's website for the list of licensed operators offering cross-border point-to-point transport services.

Mr Edward Chia also asked how the advertising offence will apply to messages shared in private messaging groups. An offence arises if the person forwarding such advertisements knew the service was unlawful, or proceeded despite signs that it might be unlawful. LTA will assess each case based on the facts.

Turning to AVs, the extended sandbox and the upcoming AV Act will support progressive deployment on our roads. As shared by the Minister for Transport on previous occasions, AVs would add to the range of mobility options that Singaporeans already have and complement public transport. They can fill demand gaps in places where drivers are less keen to go and provide service after hours when public transport is not operating. We thank Mr Edward Chia and Dr Hamid Razak for supporting this.

To Mr Fadli Fawzi's suggestion on running trials for autonomous night buses, we want to take an even more gradual and calibrated approach relative to autonomous passenger cars. This is because our public bus operating environment is complex, our bus passenger profile is very diverse, and autonomous bus capacities are much lower than the capacity of our double deckers. Hence, we are currently exploring narrower use cases for autonomous buses, including employee shuttles.

On the new regulatory sandbox for autonomous mobile robots on public paths (AVPP), LTA will maintain oversight and ensure that they are safe for other path users.

For the testbed pathway, LTA will review the public authority's application, including its proposed framework for validating, monitoring and governing the AVPPs deployed. The prospective testbed must also be under its management.

For the light-touch pathway, LTA will check that the AVPPs comply with the speed, weight and dimension limits, and screen the deploying companies for their legal registration and AV track record.

For the standard authorisation pathway, LTA will test the AVPPs in a closed-circuit setting, before moving on to their intended operating environments. AVPPs need to operate reliably, avoid obstacles and stop when required. LTA may also require safeguards, such as on-site safety operator or speed limit.

All AV deployments must also have liability insurance coverage and a sound incident management framework. This ensures that affected parties are adequately protected and compensated in the event of accidents. We recognise the value of sharing key safety and operational information with the public and are studying how to do so. LTA will also partner operators on public engagement, to help the local community understand how to interact safely with AVPPs.

I hope these provide reassurance to Members, like Mr Gabriel Lam, Dr Choo Pei Ling, Dr Neo Kok Beng, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Cassandra Lee.

Next, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Ms Hazlina Halim asked about the interactions between AVPPs and other human path users. Operators need to demonstrate that AVPPs can share paths safely with other users, including giving way to pedestrians. LTA will consider the proposed operating environment, such as path characteristics and user behaviour. Narrower paths may require operators to adjust their plans, such as take alternative routes and reduce speed.

Mr Edward Chia, Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Sharael Taha also asked about the use of data and how responsibilities would be attributed among various AV actors. Ms Tin Pei Ling similarly asked about data privacy and cybersecurity, while Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Choo Pei Ling asked about accountability.

Data collection through cameras and sensors is necessary for AVs to accurately perceive their environment and operate safely. Such data would also be used to improve performance, support incident response, or reconstruct incidents for investigation. Operators must also put in place cybersecurity safeguards, and comply with Personal Data Protection Act to safeguard individual privacy.

Members have rightly pointed out the complexity of AV operations, which involve multiple actors. Given the rapid evolution of AV technology, regulatory sandboxes help us deepen understanding and expertise needed across different operating environments, while facilitating innovation. Regulatory frameworks are refined with these learning points. The upcoming AV Act will provide greater clarity on the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of AV actors involved in on-road deployments.

I thank Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Cassandra Lee, Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Lee Hui Ying for raising the workforce angle. New technology will create good jobs and new opportunities for Singaporeans. For the growing AV industry, they range from safety drivers and remote operators to software developers and cybersecurity engineers.

Taxi and private hire car drivers who drive for a living are our priority in this transition. We do not expect immediate impact on their livelihood, given the small numbers of AVs, several hundred by end 2028 relative to the 72,000 taxi and private hire car drivers today. The majority of point-to-point transport will be provided by human drivers for the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, to support drivers interested to explore opportunities in AV or other sectors early, we have introduced flexible courses, career conversion programmes, training incentives and up to 90% salary support in partnership with industry and union partners.

For delivery and cleaning workers, we do not expect significant impact in the near-to-medium term. The cleaning sector faces persistent manpower shortage, while the scale of delivery AVPPs remains small today. Technological readiness, cost viability and ability to integrate with existing infrastructure would all affect their pace and extent of adoption.

The Government will continue to monitor industry developments and the potential impact on workers.

Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked about charging technologies that could be facilitated through the sandboxes, such as mobile charging and how they can be scaled more widely. The amendments in this Bill allow LTA to impose customised technical conditions directly for each trial, instead of having to gazette specific subsidiary legislation.

Insights from sandbox trials also feed into our national standards. For example, the technical requirements for the safe deployment of mobile charging systems were recently incorporated into our national EV charging standard, Singapore Standard 722, published in April this year. Businesses who wish to scale up mobile charging can apply for LTA's type approval for broader commercial deployment. We will continue to use such sandboxes to support innovation.

Members such as Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Neo Kok Beng, Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Joan Pereira asked about how LTA's EV charging regulatory regime ensures safety and reliability.

In determining which chargers should be subject to inspections, LTA considers the charger's location, which indicates utilisation frequency. Publicly accessible chargers are more heavily used than landed home chargers and are thus required to undergo mandatory periodic inspections once every six months.

LTA will continue to conduct risk-based audits to ensure compliance with EV charging regulations, including reviewing certification submitted by charger equipment specialists and licensed electrical workers. EV charging operators should comply with the EV Charging Act and licensing conditions, such as responding to downtime incidents promptly for publicly accessible chargers and maintaining their chargers in a safe and serviceable condition.

For landed home EV charger owners, LTA will publish maintenance guidelines on its website, to cover basic maintenance and safety checks, signs of deterioration or damage and recommended servicing practices to ensure chargers remain safe.

Ms Valerie Lee has also asked about enforcing against illegal EV charging, where a charger is connected to a vehicle but may not be actively charging.

When LTA collects evidence to show that an accused had connected the charger to an EV or its battery, it will be presumed that the accused had charged the EV using the charger. The accused person can then provide evidence to show that no charging occurred. For example, the charger was powered off or faulty. They will not be convicted in such cases.

Some Members such as Mr Muhaimin Malik asked about the formula for the minimum required electrical load for EV charging infrastructure. We would like to clarify that the formula is not being amended by the Bill. The Bill will only streamline the submission process for developers.

Mr Speaker, this Bill covers significant ground to respond to evolving industry trends and keep our rules updated. Members' thoughtful contributions today will inform how we refine and implement these measures. Land transport touches the daily lives of every Singaporean. The Government will continue to act decisively where safety is at stake, streamline where we can, and work closely with industry and the community.

Let us all do our part for a safe and forward-looking land transport ecosystem. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Senior Minister of State Baey? Many speakers today but looks like Minister of State your replies are very convincing.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Baey Yam Keng].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 –

The Chairman: Clause 51. Minister for Transport.

Mr Baey Yam Keng: Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 51 standing in the name of the Minister as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 92, lines 13 and 16: to leave out "26( c )" and insert "26( d )".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 52 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 –

The Chairman: Clause 74. Minister for Transport.

Mr Baey Yam Keng: Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 74 standing in the name of the Minister as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 106, line 29: to leave out "(i)" and insert "(i)".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 –

The Chairman: Clause 80. Minister for Transport.

Mr Baey Yam Keng: Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 80 standing in the name of the Minister as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 117, line 18: after "(7A),", to insert "(8),".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 81 to 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.