Round Up Speech by Minister of State for Transport Baey Yam Keng for Second Reading of Land Transport and Related Matters Bill

1.             Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill, and their thoughtful questions.

2.             Let me first address the specific points that Members raised.

Certification of Medical Need

3.             At the outset, I wish to make clear that we are not banning the use of mobility scooters, but safeguarding them for those who truly need them.

a.       Our intention is not to target any specific group, but to set ground rules that provide clarity, and keep our paths safer for all.

4.             Several members, like Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Choo Pei Ling and Dr Haresh Singaraju spoke about how medical needs will be assessed to allow for the use of mobility scooters.

a.          We will need the support of – our doctors and Occupational Therapists, or OTs, to assess the medical needs to determine whether a person's medical condition(s) leads to mobility challenges that require a mobility scooter.

b.       MOH has issued guidelines for healthcare professionals to conduct the assessment, including a non-exhaustive list of possible conditions. Some examples include cardiovascular diseases such as severe heart failure and musculoskeletal disorders, such as muscular dystrophies and rheumatoid arthritis.

5.             Members including Mr David Hoe, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Dr Hamid Razak asked about the process to obtain a Certificate of Medical Need, validity periods, and timelines.

a.       For the convenience of users and assessors, both digital and hardcopy Certificates will be possible. The doctor or OT may fill in a standard online form to submit the data to LTA, or issue a hardcopy of the standard form. Once the assessor completes the form, the Certificate is granted.

b.       For the hardcopy, the user is encouraged to take a photo and submit it to LTA, so that it is stored in LTA’s digital registry.

c.        As part of the certification, the doctor or OT will assess and indicate if the user's need for a mobility scooter is long-term or temporary. For the latter, the period that the Certificate is valid will be specified.

d.       The Government will maintain a registry of those with valid Certificates of Medical Need, and those exempted from the requirement.

e.           Seniors exempted on the basis of age will not be in the registry. I know some seniors may look younger than their age, so if enforcement officers were to ask, their NRIC year of birth just needs to show that they are 70 years old and above. As an example, for this year, everyone born in and before 1956 are automatically exempted.

f.        Enforcement officers will request for the user's particulars to perform a back-end check on the spot. If the Certificate has not been submitted online, the user just needs to produce the hardcopy form for inspection.

g.           Individuals can also check their certification or exemption status on LTA’s OneMotoring website.

6.             Dr Choo Pei Ling asked whether physiotherapists can grant the Certificate of Medical Need.

a.       We have worked with MOH to determine the groups of assessors for the Certificate. Currently, mobility assessment, device prescription, and user training are not a part of the routine training of a general Physiotherapist.

b.          Hence, MOH’s position is that only doctors and OTs can assess and grant this Certificate.

c.        MOH will continue to monitor demand if these competencies should be built into training for a wider pool of healthcare professionals.

Implementation Support for Persons with Disabilities

7.             Members including Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Yip Hon Weng reminded us to streamline processes to minimise the burden on genuine users, particularly persons with disabilities and seniors.

8.             We fully agree. Risk-managed exemptions include seniors aged 70 and above, those who have already obtained Government-subsidised mobility scooters, and those who have applied for MOH disability schemes to help with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) needs in “mobility” and/or “transferring”. We are working to exempt more user groups with other relevant assessments where possible, such as applicants for other disability schemes.

9.             Members including Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Lee Hui Ying also asked about the cost to undergo the Assessment for Mobility Scooter, if polyclinics will offer the AMS, and if subsidies will be extended.

a.       For those who need certification, we have engaged the healthcare sector to encourage private GP clinics to offer the AMS. We want it to be widely available and accessible, so that users can have affordable choices.

b.       As Dr Haresh Singaraju has emphasised, we encourage users to go to their regular doctor or regular OT, who already understand their medical history, to streamline the assessment process.

c.        All doctors, including polyclinic doctors, are allowed to conduct the AMS. However, doctors may decline to assess users who are not their regular patients, depending on the doctor’s comfort level to conduct the certification.

d.       Healthcare subsidies will not be accorded for visits made solely to obtain the Certificate of Medical Need.

e.       However, as long as the patient is seeking healthcare services from a doctor or OT at public healthcare institutions or community care organisations, and the AMS is conducted as a clinically indicated part of their regular medical care, the overall care episode, including the AMS, can be given healthcare subsidies.

10.          Members, including Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr David Hoe, asked about specific plans to engage existing PMA users on the new rules, especially seniors and persons with disabilities.

a.       LTA will continue to work with the Agency for Integrated Care and SGEnable, as well as relevant Social Service Agencies such as SPD, to reach out to seniors and persons with disabilities.

b.       LTA’s public communications campaign on new rules will also be rolled out in various languages.

c.           On the ground, enforcement officers will engage and educate PMA users on the upcoming rules.

d.       We will also reach out through grassroots channels, and I seek Members’ support to raise awareness among your residents.

Impact on Delivery Riders

11.          Members including Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Ms Joan Pereira raised concerns on how the new PMA rules may affect platform delivery workers.

a.       We understand the concern on how the new rules could potentially affect the number of deliveries, and thus the earnings, of delivery workers.

b.       Only workers with mobility needs should use PMAs for their work. Such workers have to abide by the reduced speed limit and dimension limits for everyone’s safety. This protects not just other path users, but PMA riders themselves.

c.           By going at a slower speed, and using devices that are not oversized, they can navigate crowded paths and complete their deliveries safely. They reduce the risks of serious accidents, which would affect their earning stability.

d.          I thank Ms Yeo Wan Ling for sharing that the National Delivery Champions Association will provide financial assistance to help riders comply with the new rules.

e.       For delivery riders without mobility challenges, PMAs are not the right mode of transport for them. They should not misuse PMAs. They can continue their trade by switching to other devices or vehicles before 1 Jun 2026.

12.          We had engaged the Digital Platforms Industry Association and the National Delivery Champions Association last year. They expressed support for the new PMA rules, including the 6km/h speed limit, in a joint statement.

a.       The platforms have committed to be inclusive in allocating jobs and providing earning opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those with mobility challenges who rely on PMAs for their delivery work.

13.          Ms Gho Sze Kee and Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about platforms incentivising faster deliveries that may lead to speeding.

a.       Platform companies are responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of their delivery riders. This includes ensuring that their riders using active mobility devices on public paths have adequate third-party liability insurance coverage during the course of their work.

b.       We will continue to encourage food delivery platforms, rider associations and industry partners to promote safe riding practices, and explore what more can be done to deter errant riding behaviour.

c.        LTA and the Traffic Police have also conducted campaigns such as Be Safe, Be Seen to promote safer riding habits with Grab, and safety talks and training sessions for delivery riders with foodpanda.

Speed Limit

14.          Mr David Hoe raised a concern that the reduced speed limit could affect riders’ ability to travel upslope.

a.       Indeed, this was a concern that we had when developing the proposal. So, we spent some time studying the issue.

b.       So our studies support the calculations done by Mr Hoe’s volunteers, that motorised PMAs will be able to travel upslope along public paths safely with a speed limit of 6km/h. It is the motor power, and not the speed that pushes the wheels upslope.

c.        Nonetheless, we understand the worries, and LTA will improve awareness to reassure PMA users that 6km/h is safe.

15.          Ms He Ting Ru asked whether scientific literature was considered for the Active Mobility Advisory Panel’s (AMAP) recommendation of the speed limit reduction. Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Fadli Fawzi and Mr Cai Yinzhou raised concerns that the lower speed limit would increase journey times, and affect delivery riders’ earnings.

a.          In accepting the recommendation to lower the speed limit to 6km/h, our primary consideration was to peg the speed to brisk walking speed, since PMAs are a replacement for walking. We acknowledge that the trade-off is that users travel more slowly. This is necessary to protect themselves, and other path users.

b.       So I thank Mr Foo Cexiang for citing the many jurisdictions internationally that use 6km/h as the speed limit for PMAs, based on brisk walking speed.

c.           On Ms He Ting Ru’s suggestion, the AMAP already comprises stakeholders across various interest and professional groups, as well as academics.

Timeline

16.      Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Cai Yinzhou asked if users would have sufficient time to comply with the new rules that will come into effect on 1 Jun 2026.

a.       Mr Speaker, it will be almost two years since the proposals were announced in March 2024, and we have received strong calls to implement the rules swiftly, to improve path safety.

b.       Affected stakeholders, including retailers and users, have had time to change to compliant devices, before the PMA rules commence on 1 June 2026.

c.        But we will provide more time, until 1 Jan 2029, for existing mobility scooter users to register their devices, and change to devices that comply with the new maximum device speed of 6km/h.

Registration of Mobility Scooters

17.      Mr Foo Cexiang and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the cost of registration, and how mobility scooters can be transferred or sold.

a.       Retailers need to register the devices to their business before sale or ensure that the device is registered. Ahead of 1 Jun 2026, LTA will work with retailers to register their existing stock of compliant mobility scooters.

b.       Before the sale of the mobility scooter, retailers will check via the OneMotoring website to ensure that the prospective owner is either granted a Certificate of Medical Need, or exempted from the requirement.

c.        The sale should only be completed upon the successful transfer of ownership.

d.       We will be mindful that the cost of registration should be kept affordable so as not to place an undue burden on genuine users. As a comparison, the current cost of registering power-assisted bicycles is $50.

18.      Dr Hamid Razak suggested for markers to visibly identify those with medical need for mobility scooters, for ease of enforcement. On the other hand, Mr Foo Cexiang asked if registration and identification marks raised privacy concerns.

a.          We appreciate these concerns and we assure members that the registration and enforcement processes be handled sensitively.

b.          The registration system addresses both concerns: Registration and identification marks will display the device's unique identification number rather than personal details of the owner, similar to e-scooters where it is a sticker.

c.           In addition, as a general rule, only individuals granted a Certificate of Medical Need or exempted from the requirement can register mobility scooters.

19.      The registration framework will allow families to share a single mobility scooter.

a.       Registration is for the mobility scooter to ensure device compliance.

b.          It is not an offence to ride a mobility scooter that is registered to another person, as long as the user is granted a Certificate of Medical Need or exempted.

c.           This is no different from how vehicles can be driven by multiple drivers as long as each driver has a valid driving licence and the vehicle is insured accordingly.

Enforcement

20.      Several Members including Ms Tin Pei Ling, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Dennis Tan,  and Mr David Hoe raised suggestions to strengthen enforcement of the new PMA rules, including expanding the use of cameras, increasing plainclothes operations and action against non-compliant retailers.

21.      To enforce the PMA rules, LTA has a comprehensive strategy.

a.       Active Mobility Enforcement Officers will patrol public paths and conduct checks on user and device compliance. They will be supported by volunteer Active Mobility Community Ambassadors, to enhance engagement efforts. Ms He Ting Ru also expressed concern that enforcement officers will rely on casual visual perception of able-bodiedness. Enforcement officers will be trained to be sensitive in checking for the Certificate of Medical Need.

b.       Public tip-offs on errant users are gathered through LTA’s website and social media today, as Members such as Ms Poh Li San, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Mr Cai Yin Zhou have suggested. These complement other data sources to identify offence hotspots for targeted enforcement deployments.

c.           CCTVs focused on paths are already deployed islandwide to detect and deter offences such as speeding. Some of the CCTVs are deployed permanently, while others are deployed on a roving basis to allow us to respond quickly as new hotspots emerge.

d.       In addition to ground enforcement, LTA conducts targeted operations against retailers who display or sell non-compliant and unregistered devices, or offer illegal modification services. Non-compliant devices are seized and enforcement actions taken against offenders.

22.      But we must acknowledge that no matter how many boots we put on the ground, enforcement officers cannot be everywhere. Neither is it desirable to foster a culture where correct behaviour is dependent only on enforcement and penalties.

a.       It is better to also focus on education and awareness. This is why LTA works with the community, through Active Mobility Community Ambassadors, to promote awareness of active mobility rules.

23.      Members such as Ms Gho Sze Kee, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Valerie Lee asked about enforcement against unsafe devices. LTA will act on feedback received via official channels and social media, surveillance, as well as day-to-day operations.

a.       Targeted enforcement checks will also be conducted where e-scooters are commonly used, including areas where such devices may be parked or kept.

b.       PMDs verified by LTA as non-UL2272 certified will be seized.

c.           LTA has the responsibility to enforce against such devices. As Ms Sylvia Lim has acknowledged, LTA already conducts enforcement operations at residential areas to seize non-compliant active mobility devices, and will continue to do so, working with our partners.

d.       This Bill will allow us to go further – LTA can go beyond seizing the non-compliant device. The individual can also be prosecuted for the offence of keeping the unsafe device. This provides a stronger deterrent against fire hazards.

Disposal

24.      Mr Cai Yinzhou and Ms Poh Li San asked about the disposal process for non-compliant devices.

a.       If needed, owners may utilise designated e-waste recyclers or collection drives organised by ALBA in collaboration with Town Councils.

b.       I thank Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Tin Pei Ling, who expressed support for the new offence of keeping unsafe devices. They urged users to check that their devices meet safety standards and dispose of unsafe devices, to keep their communities safe.

c.        For PMAs, we may not expect to see a large-scale wave of disposals. To meet the new maximum device speed limit, many existing devices can simply be adjusted. Those who do not qualify for a Certificate of Medical Need can resell their devices, provided they are compliant.

d.       Disposal will likely be limited to oversized units or devices that cannot be brought into compliance, such as those with more than one seat, which are considered PMDs, which have their own set of requirements.

Issues beyond scope of Bill

25.        Beyond the provisions in this Bill, Members have asked about other measures to reduce the fire risks of active mobility devices. I will touch on these briefly as we plan to address some of these issues in a subsequent Bill later this year.

26.      Dr Hamid Razak asked for national guidelines for safe charging. Mr Cai Yinzhou suggested periodic inspections for PMAs, in the absence of a mandated safety standard.

a.       While we continue to monitor the development of international standards for PMAs, LTA and the SCDF will remind the public on safe charging and usage practices when using motorised Active Mobility Devices, and against using modified second-hand devices and non-original parts.

b.       Today, periodic inspections are required for e-scooters, to check that they remain compliant with the UL2272 standard and have not been illegally modified. The benefits of mandating periodic inspections for PMAs solely to check dimensions and speed limits must be weighed against the burden on users.

27.      Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Cai Yinzhou asked how online marketplaces can take responsibility to eliminate unsafe and non-compliant devices. Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested making it an offence for a seller to mislabel a device as compliant.

a.       Since we commenced the Active Mobility Act, the sale of active mobility devices and related services are now more common online.

b.       LTA actively works with major e-commerce platforms like Carousell, Lazada and Shopee to take down listings of non-compliant devices.

c.        We will look at how we can strengthen rules for online sales and advertising in our legislation.

Conclusion

28.      Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their many suggestions and clarifications raised. Due to time constraints, I have not addressed them all, but we will certainly study the points raised and continue to review how we implement the new laws in the Bill, as well as new measures needed.

29.      The proposals before us today represent more than new laws. We want to restore the original purpose of PMAs and ensure that they serve those they are truly intended for, and protect all path users at the same time.

a.       With the Certificate of Medical Need, we distinguish genuine users from those who misuse mobility scooters.

b.       Through registration of mobility scooters, we create accountability and ensure users purchase compliant devices.

c.        By making it illegal to keep unsafe devices, we keep communities safer.

30.      As we conclude this debate, let us return to the fundamental principle that path safety is not merely a regulatory matter. While this bill covers PMAs and non-UL2272 certified PMDs, it is a collective responsibility by users of all device types, and all path users, that will define us as a gracious society.

31.      Like Ms Valerie Lee, my heart goes out to Mdm Malar, who was hit by a PAB rider. I met her a few times in Tampines, where she is a volunteer. But when I visited her in December at her home in Pasir Ris, she was unable to open her mouth. Since then, her husband has been updating me, and I am heartened that she is recovering slowly but steadily, and I wish her well.

32.      Mr Speaker, the ultimate objective of this Bill is to foster a safe environment where gracious path sharing becomes second-nature:

a.       Where a PMA user will travel at walking speed on a crowded path and instinctively slow down to give way to other users;

b.       Where residents dispose of unsafe devices rather than endanger their families and neighbours; and

c.        Where all path users prioritise mutual respect over rushing to their next destination, even when no enforcement officer is present.

33.      It is these actions of the responsible majority that will keep paths safe and inclusive, and all of us can play a part. Thank you.