Mr Deputy Speaker, the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill recognises the seriousness of driving-related offences, especially those that cause grievous hurt or death to innocent members of the public.
At the outset, I wish to state clearly that I support the main proposals for change to our road traffic laws under this Bill. The data shared by the Ministry of Home Affairs paints a stark picture: between 2021 and 2025, Singapore's traffic fatality rate increased by about 24%, while traffic violations rose by approximately 38%. To arrest this worrying trend, firmer legislative mechanisms are undoubtedly required.
I fully support the introduction of penalties for purposeful endangerment, the tightening of legal alcohol limits, the standalone drug-driving framework, and the transition towards automated enforcement technology. In particular, the creation of a purposeful endangerment framework addresses a critical gap where a driver deliberately uses a vehicle as a dangerous weapon. As the Ministry has noted, such offenders often cannot be convicted of murder or culpable homicide because of the exceptionally high threshold of proving an intention to kill or knowledge that death was likely to result. Instead, they are typically charged with dangerous driving causing death, which currently carries a maximum imprisonment term of eight years for a first-time offender. Elevating the maximum penalty to 15 years, instituting a default lifetime driving disqualification, and empowering the courts to order the forfeiture of the vehicle used in the offence are appropriate expressions of deterrence and accountability.
In my speech today, I seek to clarify the understanding and practical enforcement of certain provisions, with particular focus on the evolving definitions surrounding mobile communication devices, digital screens and mounted devices while driving.
The Bill amends the offence of using a communication device to simply holding one, thereby allowing Traffic Police officers to enforce the offence without needing to prove active device use. I welcome the Government's intention to make our roads safer by reducing distractions caused by motorists handling their mobile devices while driving.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we must not underestimate the growing range of digital distractions confronting motorists today. These distractions no longer arise only from handheld phones. They increasingly come from mounted smartphones, wearable devices, large infotainment systems, digital dashboards and other screens embedded within modern vehicles. As vehicles become more technologically advanced, our regulatory frameworks must continue to keep pace with the changing nature of driver distraction.
Under the Bill, a driver is not regarded as "holding" a device if the device is mounted in accordance with the mount manufacturer's intended use. While I understand the practical rationale for this exemption, it raises important questions about how the exemption will operate alongside existing road safety rules.
In March 2026, I asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry had conducted or reviewed any local studies on the impact of multiple mounted mobile devices or digital screens on motorist reaction times and overall driving performance. In a written reply, the Minister stated that no such local studies had been conducted. The Ministry instead noted that Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules already makes it an offence to install a visual display unit in a manner that causes distraction or constitutes a safety hazard.
Given the absence of local research, I continue to urge the Ministry to proactively study the effects of screen-based distractions on road safety. In particular, we need empirical evidence on whether multiple mounted devices, large dashboard screens and simultaneous digital interfaces affect driver cognitive load, situational awareness and emergency braking response times. Such data would enable policymakers to calibrate future regulations on a sound evidential basis.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question concerning the interaction between the new mounted-device exemption and Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules.
Under the Bill, the touching and operation of a properly mounted device would not amount to the offence of holding a communication device. However, the same device could potentially still constitute a visual distraction under Rule 126, depending on how it is installed and used.
Can the Minister clarify how these two provisions are intended to interact? What would legally constitute a "safe" mounting arrangement under the new framework? Would compliance with the mounting requirements under the Bill have any bearing on the assessment of whether a visual display unit creates a distraction under Rule 126?
We must also consider the realities faced by many platform workers. To maximise their earnings, some drivers simultaneously operate multiple ride-hailing or delivery applications, often using several mounted devices within the vehicle. Each additional screen potentially imposes further cognitive demands on the driver and increases the amount of visual attention diverted from the road.
Has the Ministry assessed whether the use of multiple mounted devices contributes significantly to driver distraction? If not, would it consider studying this issue and also to study how safe driving can be enhanced whether by way of improving vehicle dashboard or device design, hardware or software, particularly given the growing number of drivers who rely on platform work as a source of income and for their safety?
May I also clarify with the minister for devices of wearable technology, such as smartwatches, how would their use while driving constitute an offence under Section 65B(1A) or elsewhere in the amended provisions, given their ability to deliver messages, notifications and other distractions directly to motorists while driving?
Beyond mobile phones and wearables, the law must also keep pace with developments in vehicle design itself. Modern infotainment systems have evolved into sophisticated communication and entertainment hubs. Features such as Apple CarPlay and Android Auto allow motorists to send messages, browse media content and interact with navigation systems while their vehicles are in motion.
At the same time, many manufacturers have adopted increasingly minimalist cockpit designs, replacing traditional buttons and switches with large touchscreen interfaces. Functions that were once operated instinctively through physical controls are increasingly accessed through digital menus, requiring drivers to glance away from the road even for routine tasks.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while stronger penalties are necessary, enforcement alone cannot fully address the problem if the design of modern vehicle cockpits is itself becoming a source of distraction.
If we focus solely on penalising distracted driving after it occurs, without examining whether certain vehicle designs contribute to driver distraction in the first place, we may be addressing the symptoms rather than the cause.
In the interests of proactive road safety, will MHA work with the LTA to consider standards governing pre-installed infotainment systems, vehicle mobile application control functions and increasingly screen-dependent cockpit designs? Will the Government look into whether we need to require certain complex touchscreen interactions or app-based functions to be automatically restricted while a vehicle is in motion, in the interest of driving safety?
Around the world, regulators and vehicle-safety bodies are increasingly recognising that road safety depends not merely on how people drive, but also on how vehicles are designed to be operated.
In Europe, Euro NCAP has revised its safety assessment protocols to encourage manufacturers to retain physical controls for key vehicle functions in response to concerns about touchscreen-related driver distraction.
Similarly, China has introduced requirements for designated safety-critical vehicle functions to retain dedicated haptic physical controls that can be located and operated by touch alone, reducing the need for drivers to take their eyes off the road.[6]
In the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has also issued driver-distraction guidelines recommending that certain visual-manual tasks be restricted or locked out while a vehicle is in motion where they may interfere excessively with driver attention.
Against this backdrop, will the Land Transport Authority consider whether Singapore's vehicle type-approval framework should evolve to better address the risks posed by increasingly large and complex in-vehicle displays? Does the Government agree that safety-critical vehicle controls should remain readily operable without prolonged visual interaction with digital screens or navigation through multiple layers of menus?
Mr Deputy Speaker, while I believe we should take a much closer look at the evolving landscape of digital and screen-based distractions, the fundamental reforms contained in this Bill represent a significant and necessary upgrade to our enforcement capabilities. Indeed, we must send a clear and unequivocal message that irresponsible and dangerous behaviour on our roads will not be tolerated.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin:
议长先生，我支持法案中加强道路安全的措施，包括引入蓄意危及安全的罪行, 收紧酒驾标准，以及扩大使用自动执法科技。
随着科技发展，司机面对的干扰已不只是手机。许多车辆配备大型触控屏幕和各种数码系统，司机操作这些设备时同样容易分心。我认为，道路安全不仅取决于司机如何驾驶，也和车辆设计有关。
因此，我呼吁内政部和陆交局研究这些新科技对驾驶安全的影响，并适时检讨车辆标准，确保重要驾驶功能不会过度依赖触控屏幕，保障道路使用者的安全。
我支持这项法案。
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
