Mr Speaker
Sengkang is one of Singapore’s densest estates, and our residents regularly share with us their transport and mobility experiences and challenges while going about their daily lives in the community. I support the core objectives in the amendments being tabled before us today, but would like to seek clarifications relating to how the enforcement of the new regime to regulate the use of personal mobility aids will take place, and in particular, how these policies are developed in conjunction with the Active Mobility Advisory Panel.
Enforcement based on clear criteria, not visual perceptions of able-bodiedness
One of the key questions that I have relates to how the authorities propose that enforcement take place against PMA users who are potentially breaching the upcoming rules. While the amendments introduce the Certificate of Medical Need system, how would trying to catch users without the requisite certification look like in practice? For example, would enforcement officers be required to identify potential rule-breakers based on clear rationale, for instance, whether the Certificate or the registration mark are visible on a mobility scooter?
While circumstances like having multiple people squeezing onto a mobility scooter might be a reasonable means of identification (as it is unlikely that multiple people travelling to the same location may have mobility-affecting disabilities), I am concerned that casual, visual perception of able-bodiedness will be used instead.
Complicating this is that I understand that LTA’s One Motoring Site lists several exemptions from the Certificate of Medical Need. These include users aged 70 and above, beneficiaries of the Assistive Technology Fund and Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund, and individuals assessed to require assistance with Activities of Daily Living under various assessments. How will enforcement officers thus identify these users, and how will we ensure that certified PMA users just trying to move around their everyday lives are not subject to constant interruption or compliance checks?
Having clear, published guidelines will also help with public education efforts. This is especially important given that we can see from various news reports that so many of the confrontations between PMA users and pedestrians take place without an enforcement officer present. How can we ensure that ‘vigilante justice’ will not rear its ugly head with passers-by leaping to hasty or even erroneous conclusions about whether or not a PMA user is indeed ‘eligible’? Having spoken to people with disabilities and advocacy groups, it remains common in our society to visually perceive able-bodiedness, including in the national press. We must avoid such stigma being further perpetuated, even inadvertently.
In view of the concerns above, can the government share how it proposes to address them, with a view to ensure that misconceptions about what disability means – visible or hidden, affecting young or old – are not further entrenched.
Mr Speaker, a further concern raised was that it appears that implementation timeline for the enforcement of the new rules may be inadequate, 4 months until June 2026. The Disabled People’s Association highlighted this point in their comments on this bill, stating that a 1-2 year implementation period would be more comparable to other laws such as the Workplace Fairness Act. With the new regulations adding quite a few requirements to the already extensive rules on active mobility, I believe it would be fair to give users more time to get used to the regime and to ensure compliance with it.
Lastly, I have some comments on the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, which developed the Review of Regulations for PMAs that informs this bill.
I note that in the report, while there is consideration of other legislation in other jurisdictions, I could not find much direct analysis or assessment of the available scientific literature on the issue of PMAs. For instance, on the recommendation of reducing the speed limit to 6km/h from the current 10km/h, can the MOS share what is the clear data used to determine how reducing the speed limit to 6km/h is significantly more likely to reduce the risk of serious injury, affect reflex time, and prevent more accidents to begin with. My colleague from Hougang SMC Dennis Tan had earlier and also during the 2024 COS raised concerns too that the proposed 6km/h speed limit appears to be tied to the average walking speed, and that this may be too slow and cut down the journey time for users and those who are reliant on it to move beyond their immediate neighbourhoods, and also have actual financial impact on those who rely on PMAs for their livelihoods.
Could the MOS thus provide more specific details about how the new speed limit was arrived at?
This is a similar issue with other reports like the Panel’s Review of Active Mobility Regulations for Safer Path Sharing, which introduced the 10km/h speed limit on footpaths, which I understand is based largely on work with focus groups. While such focus groups are important for understanding these issues in Singapore’s urban and cultural context, we must also engage with the research material given that we regulate primarily for safety rather than more subjective concerns. We should understand how the science factors into these recommendations, and ask if the panel should be updated to include more representation from academia.
In conclusion, while I support the bill in principle, I hope that some of the issues I raised would be taken into account to inform enforcement. I also hope that future reviews of regulations would be primarily driven by research and that this research is communicated together with any proposed new regulations. PMAs are useful to persons with disabilities and seniors by supporting their mobility in our communities and neighbourhoods, and can be important tools for removing barriers to accessing public transport. They bring significant co-benefits, in the form of promoting connections within the community, sociability, improving health, and offering mobility – all with much lower carbon emissions than cars.
Thank you.
