Speech On Second Reading of The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill by Dr Wan Rizal, NTUC’s e2i Director (Stakeholder Management) and Member of Parliament for Jalan Besar GRC on 4 August

Introduction

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is ultimately about making sure our roads are safe.

The case for action is compelling.

1. Traffic fatalities reached a 10-year high in 2025¹.
2. Rising accident numbers — the number of traffic accidents — resulting in injuries also increased², and the number of traffic violations rose too.³

Such evidence should be of great concern to drivers who transport people and goods daily, the workers who use our roads for commuting, and their families. And the introduction and implementation of stronger laws must be aimed at supporting their safety on our roads.

Deliberate road danger deserves a name of its own

Clause 6 introduces the new Section 63A. It targets drivers who deliberately endanger another road user. The penalty reaches up to 15 years' of imprisonment, caning, and lifetime disqualification.

Some road users do not make mistakes. They deliberately use their vehicle to pose a safety risk to another road user. This Bill finally recognises that difference and calls it “purposeful endangerment”, and metes out stiff penalties for introducing danger to our roads and I welcome it.

Clauses 7 and 8 also increases penalties for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt. Some maximum terms nearly double.

This should make our roads much safer for workers like our bus captains, taxi and private-hire drivers, and delivery workers. Our roads are their workplaces, and their families just want them to return home safe after work ends. Yet in July this year, it was reported that the number of work-related traffic fatalities in the first half of 2025 has exceeded last year’s total. 

This is very concerning. Hence, I would ask the Ministry to commit to a review in a few years. Did identifying this new offence actually shift driver behaviour? Higher numbers of violations in the statute book are not proof of success. Lower fatality and injury numbers on the ground are.

Sir, while I support the new Section 63A, I have one clarification for the Minister. Section 63A (6) empowers a District or Magistrate's Court to impose the full penalty. This departs from the usual position under the Criminal Procedure Code. Could the Minister confirm the rationale? And confirm that rights of appeal remain fully preserved?

Stricter standards are the right move, but communication is key for fair and effective implementation.

Sir, I support the tighter alcohol limit and the prohibition to hold a mobile phone while a vehicle is moving. However, compliance begins with communication.

Could the Minister share a concrete outreach timeline before commencement? Would the Ministry consider a targeted campaign, well ahead of the first summons, and delivered through NTUC, the platform operators, and the taxi associations.

I have noted the proactive clarification by the Ministry in its media release — that the usage of mounted devices will not be an offence, and that drivers may also hold their devices while the vehicle is stationery⁴. This is an important clarification to ease concerns on the ground. Many platform workers receive in-app notifications on their phone and rely on them for navigation. I encourage the Ministry to leverage my proposed campaign to ensure that our platform workers are kept up to date.

Safer roads require other support, not just enforcement

Sir, the workers most affected this bill are often — they often lack the HR support available to most employees.

First, on prescribed medication. Clauses 11 and 13 create a new offence for any specified substance found in a driver's blood. There is a statutory defence. But the burden falls on the driver to prove his use was lawful.

I note that doctors and pharmacists do highlight the side effects of prescribed medicines, including when the medications affect a person’s fitness to drive and operate machinery. I therefore ask the Ministry to continue to work with pharmacies to highlight when a prescribed medication could affect driving fitness and provide a simple hotline a driver can call to enquire before he starts his shift, not after he is arrested.

Second, on disqualification timing, where disqualification begins after release from prison. I agree with the Ministry that errant and dangerous drivers should be kept away from our roads. However, this poses an adverse impact to breadwinners where driving was part of their job.

I therefore ask that when livelihoods are affected, the Ministry work with platform operators, our Unions and Platform Work Associations, and NTUC’s e2i in the outreach to, and in handling of, cases sensitively. In this regard, I thank the Ministry for its recent efforts to engage our Unions and Platform Work Association Leaders before revising the Driver Improvement Points System (DIPS). I am glad that the Ministry addressed the concerns by providing a one-time deduction of demerit points⁵. This will ensure that motorists do not face suspensions or revocations when the revised DIPS becomes effective on 1 January 2027. I hope that the Ministry can adopt the same consultative approach to manage the livelihood issues in the transition towards the new compliance measures being debated today.

Technology-enabled enforcement must remain fair and preserve public trust

Sir, Clause 21 introduces the new Section 81A. It allows a computer program to assess camera footage. That program can then automatically trigger notices to vehicle owners.

As enforcement becomes more technology-enabled, Singaporeans must remain confident that technology assists decisions. It does not replace accountability. It is important that Section 81A clarifies that this computer program is operated under the Deputy Commissioner of Police’s oversight.

I would like to ask the Minister four questions:

1. First, will the human review safeguard remain permanent, to safeguard accountability even as confidence in the system grows?
2. Second, will the appeal process stay fast and free-of-charge?
3. Third, will MHA publish annual figures on notices issued, notices challenged, and notices revoked on review?
4. Fourth, how will the Ministry maintain transparency and provide timely information to road users on which offences are being handled by this computer program?

Sir I would like to highlight a practical question of those who drive for a living. Such a driver will feel the pinch of lost income if they are unable to drive while their case is under appeal.  How will the Ministry handle appeals of those detected by the computer system, and resolve the appeal quickly? 

Next, on the record-keeping duties for corporate vehicle owners under Section 81C. I would like to ask the Ministry if this duty must also be performed by a transport fleet operator and a Platform Operator, as defined under the Platform Workers Act. If so, I request for the Ministry to actively monitor the implementation, for example via account suspensions, and whether those costs are quietly passed down to Platform Workers by way of fare reductions.

Malay Segment

Tuan Speaker, izinkan saya berkongsi sesuatu dalam Bahasa Melayu.

Bagi ramai pemandu and delivery riders Melayu dan Islam, pekerjaan ini bukan sekadar mencari rezeki. Ia adalah satu amanah. Amanah membawa penumpang dengan selamat. Amanah menghantar barang dengan cermat. Amanah pulang kepada keluarga setiap malam dalam keadaan sihat. Inilah nilai yang telah lama menjadi pegangan masyarakat kita di jalan raya.

Dari sudut nilai ini, Rang Undang-Undang ini selaras jajar dengan prinsip kita. Ia menuntut setiap pemandu bertanggungjawab. Ia memberikan hukuman berat kepada mereka yang sengaja membahayakan orang lain. Saya menyokongnya.

Namun, izinkan saya menyuarakan dua kebimbangan yang lebih dekat dengan realiti komuniti kita:

Pertama, tentang penggunaan telefon. Bagi pemandu PHV, pemandu teksi, dan penghantar makanan, telefon bukan sekadar alat komunikasi. Ia adalah alat kerja. Ia menentukan pesanan seterusnya, alamat penghantaran, dan pendapatan hari itu. Peraturan baharu perlu dijelaskan dengan terperinci. Apakah yang dikira sebagai "memegang" telefon? Bila boleh disentuh? Bila tidak boleh? Kejelasan ini penting supaya seorang pemandu tidak kehilangan lesen kerana kekeliruan, bukan kerana kecuaian.

Kedua, tentang ubat yang dipreskripsi doktor. Ramai pemandu warga emas dalam komuniti kita menghidap kencing manis, darah tinggi, atau penyakit jantung. Mereka mengambil ubat setiap hari untuk terus bekerja dan menyara keluarga. Rang Undang-Undang ini memperkenalkan kesalahan baharu berkaitan bahan tertentu dalam darah pemandu. Walaupun terdapat pembelaan di sisi undang-undang, bebannya jatuh ke atas pemandu itu sendiri. Seorang pemandu yang mengambil ubat mengikut arahan doktor tidak sepatutnya berdepan risiko kehilangan mata pencarian kerana ubat yang menyelamatkan nyawanya.

Saya menyeru Kementerian bekerjasama bukan sahaja dengan farmasi dan doktor, tetapi juga dengan badan-band amelatui islammasjid, Mendaki, dan pertubuhan komuniti Melayu/Islam. Sampaikan maklumat ini dalam Bahasa Melayu yang mudah difahami. Sampaikan lebih awal. Dan sampaikan kepada mereka yang paling terkesan.

Kerana bagi seorang bapa yang menyara keluarga dengan pendapatan pemanduan, hilang lesen bererti hilang rezeki. Dan hilang rezeki menjejaskan seisi keluarga, termasuk anak-anak yang masih bersekolah. Amanah itu bukan hanya di jalan raya. Ia juga di rumah.

Closing

Mr Speaker, this Bill does the right thing on three fronts. It names and significantly penalises deliberate endangerment. It makes standard stricter for every driver. And it modernises how we enforce our road laws.

And I have three asks:

1. Communicate the new laws and compliance clearly to the workers most affected, before enforcement begins.
2. Take responsibility for the livelihood risk this Bill creates for compliant drivers.
3. And build in the transparency from day one of implementation, to support the enforcement technology that we deploy to expand enforcement power.

Our drivers deserve safer roads as they work hard to move people and goods across our island. Our commuters deserve safer roads, so that can arrive at home safely to their families.

Sir, support the Bill.