Mr Speaker, I have a few considerations to share on the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill.
At the outset, let me state that I recognise the importance of ensuring safety and order for all users in Singapore. Our roads, footpaths, and shared spaces must be safe for pedestrians, cyclists, persons with disabilities, and motorists. As mobility patterns and technologies evolve, our laws must be updated to reflect these new realities on the ground.
One of the most significant developments in recent years has been the rapid rise in the use of mobility vehicles, such as PMAs, PMDs, and PABs. Their use is not limited to elderly Singaporeans or persons with visible disabilities. Even working adults, caregivers, and delivery workers are using them, which reflects the last-mile connectivity challenges they face.
Mr Speaker, my point here is simple: the increased use of mobility vehicles by Singaporeans is more often than not driven by a practical need. Singaporeans rely on these informal, low-cost mobility solutions simply to get by and get on with their daily lives.
With COE prices shattering records year after year, a private car is now firmly out of reach for many working families. Even motorcycles, traditionally seen as an affordable alternative, have become significantly more expensive. Against this backdrop, it should come as no surprise that, to meet their everyday transport needs, Singaporeans have turned to mobility vehicles that cost from a few hundred to one to two thousand dollars — just a fraction of the price of a motorcycle or a car!
For many Singaporeans, these devices are the only viable way to bridge the last mile between their homes and essential destinations such as workplaces, schools, markets, and food centres.
Mr Speaker, I fully understand and acknowledge the Government’s concern about the misuse of such vehicles by able-bodied individuals in ways that compromise public safety. There have been genuine incidents involving reckless riding, excessive speeds, and conflicts on footpaths. These issues must be addressed.
But we must be careful not to inadvertently cause hardship to Singaporeans who rely on these devices out of necessity. Many such individuals now use mobility vehicles to earn a living, including completing food and parcel deliveries for platform companies such as Grab. For them, these vehicles are essential tools of work, rather than toys for amusement or recreation.
The Bill proposes to reduce the speed limit for PMAs from 10km per hour to 6km per hour. In an article published by Mothership on 27 January, platform workers shared that this reduction in speed limit is likely to reduce the orders they can complete by 20-30%, or even up to 50%. This will translate to a loss in earnings. While some workers will be able to make up for this by working longer hours, others who have caregiving needs or health problems may not be able to do so.
Besides being a tool for employment, mobility vehicles can also prove to be the most convenient or practical option for some residents to get around the neighbourhood. Let me illustrate with some examples from my own ward of Kaki Bukit.
Take a resident who lives at Block 530 in Bedok North Street 3, which is right next to Kaki Bukit Community Centre.
To head to Red Swastika School, the resident has no direct bus route. There are indirect bus options, but this involves switching either at Bedok Interchange or at Heartbeat @ Bedok, and that will take more than 35 minutes. The other option is to walk 1.2 km, which Google Maps indicate will take around 17 minutes.
To reach Bedok Reservoir Park or Damai Secondary School, the resident has two options: to walk 1.9km for 26 minutes, or to walk 1 km for 14 minutes to a bus stop along Bedok North Avenue 3, and then take a three-minute bus ride for three stops.
Mr Speaker, I don’t mean for these examples to be comprehensive or exhaustive. Rather, they are meant to demonstrate that, for certain short but significant journeys in Kaki Bukit, there are sometimes no direct or convenient public transport options. The only realistic alternative is to walk directly from point-to-point. This is the healthiest option but may be challenging for the elderly, those with mobility difficulties, or parents with young children and who are pressed for time.
Not to mention the hot and humid weather in Singapore which does not make for a comfortable walking experience. In such circumstances, a personal mobility aid can be useful, especially for caregivers with children, or workers rushing to and from shifts.
Mr Speaker, regulation without viable alternatives risks deepening inequality. Transport policy should be concerned with more than efficiency and safety, but also consider equity and inclusion, especially for those with the least resources.
As I mentioned earlier, the increasing reliance on active mobility devices is driven by practical necessity. Residents turn to these devices to cope with, and adapt to, what they see as gaps in our public transport network, especially when it comes to last-mile connectivity, or travelling to neighbourhood amenities that are just slightly too far to walk to comfortably. For such persons, mobility devices are the most viable option after taking cost, time, convenience, and accessibility into account.
As such, improving our public transport links, including boosting capacity for last-mile connectivity, must be a priority. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, I would encourage the Ministry to offer seed funding to pilot and test community bus shuttles in different towns — including Kaki Bukit — with the intention of providing coverage for those “short but significant journeys” around the neighbourhood that are currently underserved by our public transport operators. These local shuttles should be targeted to the specific practical needs of residents, and reflect how they actually get around the neighbourhood. This may reduce their reliance on mobility devices.
These improvements would also make our public transport network more fit-for-purpose for our ageing population. Our elderly should find it easy and convenient to take a bus for a few stops to visit their friends or run errands in another part of the neighbourhood. They should not be faced with a choice of either walking that kilometre or two, or having to rely on a mobility device. And I believe we also owe it to them to make these bus journeys free-of-charge.
Sir, in London, those over the age of 66 enjoy free travel across the public transport network at any time, save for the morning rush hour. Over there, they call it the Freedom Pass. I see no reason why we cannot, or should not, do the same for our seniors and give them a Merdeka Pass to travel freely on our public transport.
Mr Speaker, in Malay. Kami harus utamakan perbaikan jalur pengangkutan awam, termasuk menambah kapasiti untuk sambungan peringkat terakhir. Saya juga sarankan agar Kementerian Pengangkutan mengadakan dana awal untuk mengkaji dan menguji servis “bas masyarakat” di bandar-bandar seperti di Kaki Bukit. Tujuan servis ini ialah untuk menyediakan liputan bagi perjalanan yang “dekat tapi bermakna” sekeliling kejiranan. Pengangkutan awam masih terhad untuk perjalanan-perjalanan kecil ini. Bas masyarakat yang disarankan harus mementingkan keperluan khusus dan praktikal para penduduk serta mencerminkan cara mereka mengelilingi kejiranan mereka. Ini boleh mengurangkan penggunaan alat-alat mobiliti.
Langkah-langkah ini boleh menyesuaikan jaringan pengangkutan awam kita dengan keperluan warga emas. Mereka sepatutnya menganggap menaik bus sebagai sesuatu perkara yang sangat mudah. Mereka tidak sepatutnya memilih antara berjalan-kaki, atau menggunakan alat mobiliti. Dan saya rasa, kita bertanggungjawab untuk menyediakan perjalanan bas ini secara percuma untuk warga emas.
Tuan, di London, warga yang berumur lebih dari 66 tahun menikmati perjalanan percuma di pengangkutan awam, kecuali pada waktu-sibuk di pagi hari. Di sana mereka menggelarkannya “Freedom Pass”. Kita patut melakukan jasa sedemikian terhadap warga emas kita, dan memberi mereka sebuah “Merdeka Pass” untuk berjalan secara bebas melalui pengangkutan awam kita.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is an opportunity to consider how different modes of mobility may necessitate the long-term transformation of our last-mile connectivity infrastructure. The mobility devices that we are discussing today are here to stay. Ultimately, if pedestrian safety is our concern, this is best achieved by segregating pedestrian traffic from motor-powered mobility devices.
We can achieve this by moving more decisively towards a more coherent and integrated network of dedicated cycling paths that are clearly separated from pedestrian footpaths, wherever possible, and then confining the use of mobility devices to these cycling paths. Currently, this is not possible in many neighbourhoods where cycling paths share space with pedestrian footpaths.
Mr Speaker, other dense cities around the world have shown that this is possible. It requires us to fundamentally rethink how we allocate existing road space, rather than incrementally increasing cycling and non-pedestrian infrastructure at the margins. Since we expect private vehicle growth to be capped, and as car-lite policies take effect, the Government should seriously consider reclaiming road space currently dedicated to cars — including underutilised lanes and on-street parking — and repurposing them for cycling and walking infrastructure. In this way, we also make space for the safe use of mobility devices.
Mr Speaker, I believe we need to address the underlying problems and develop a more compassionate vision of mobility in Singapore. We must address the structural gaps that drive people to rely on mobility devices in the first place. This means investing in better neighbourhood connectivity, more responsive public transport planning, and infrastructure that reflects and facilitates how people actually move around their communities. Sir, notwithstanding these concerns, I support this Bill.
