Mr Speaker, I rise to speak about what this bill means for the workers who keep our land transport system moving, our taxi and private hire drivers, delivery riders, bus captains, and other transport workers.
As technology changes, consumers need enough information to make informed choices, but workers too need enough information to make informed choices about their livelihoods. And as we introduce new technology into our transport system, our workers must continue to have a seat at the table and a place in the future we are building.
Mr Speaker, I support the stronger action in this Bill against the advertising and sale of non-compliant active mobility devices and incompatible batteries. As an Advisor to the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA), my concern is also for delivery riders who may themselves be victims — workers who spend their hard-earned money on a device or battery without realising that what they have bought is non-compliant and unsafe. They have not only wasted their money, but an unsafe battery can pose a fire hazard to themselves, their families, and their neighbors.
I therefore welcome stronger deterrence and enforcement against irresponsible sellers. However, enforcement must go together with education. Can LTA work closely with NDCA, platform operators and community partners to help riders and members of the public recognise unsafe listings, know what information to verify before purchasing, and easily report suspicious products? If we can intervene before the purchase is made, that is better for consumers, workers and public safety.
As the advisor to the National Taxi Association and National Private Hire Vehicles Association, I also strongly welcome the measures to strengthen enforcement against illegal point-to-point transport services. This is an issue which NTA and NPHVA have raised repeatedly with MOT and LTA. Drivers who follow our regulations, bear the costs of operating legitimately and play by the rules should not find their livelihoods eroded by illegal operators. There is a passenger-safety dimension too, because illegal services operate outside our licensing, insurance and safety framework.
I thank MOT and LTA for listening to our associations and acting on this. And this partnership has not only been about protecting what our drivers already have. Together with the updates to the cross-border P2P regime, we have also been able to open up new opportunities for our drivers and grow both the economic and the jobs pie. This is what good partnership, tripartism, should look like — protecting legitimate livelihoods while finding ways for workers to benefit from new opportunities.
Technology changes. Business models will change. Regulation must keep pace. But workers must also be heard because they are often the first to see what is changing on the ground. When Government, industry and unions work together, we can protect our workers, create new opportunities and grow the overall pie. I hope we bring precisely this approach into the next major transformation facing land transport — autonomous vehicles.
Now, let me say this clearly. Our transport workers are not against technology. Neither are the unions. During the debate on An AI Transition with No Jobless Growth in May, I said that when you involve workers early and genuinely, they do not resist change. They drive it. Our workers know jobs will change. What they are asking for is a seat at the table to ensure that change translates into better lives and livelihoods.
Take Chye Thiam Maintenance, a homegrown environmental services company, has been working with WeRide on deploying robo-sweepers in Singapore since 2024 with no major safety incidents publicly reported. For context, WeRide is also one of the technology providers involved in the Punggol AV trials. There is a genuine manpower challenge in this sector, including an ageing pool of mechanical sweeper drivers. If autonomous technology can fill manpower gaps, take workers away from repetitive tasks, improve productivity, then I think we should use it. These are areas where we can accelerate the use of AVs.
This illustrates an important principle: the technology itself is not the issue. The use case matters. When an autonomous sweeper fills a manpower gap, technology can augment our workforce. When an autonomous taxi competes for the same passenger trip and the same fare as an existing taxi or private-hire driver, the labour-market consequences may be quite different. We should recognise this when deciding where, how quickly and at what scale we deploy autonomous technology.
I want to acknowledge that Singapore's approach to passenger AVs so far has been careful and measured. We started in controlled environments and moved to fixed-route trials. Operators had to demonstrate safety and accumulate operating experience. As the MP for Punggol, I have watched residents experience these vehicles first-hand. The AVs in Punggol have travelled more than 160,000 kilometres as part of the trials. Safety first. Test carefully. Learn. Build public confidence. Then expand progressively. I give MOT and LTA credit for that. The companies involved, including ComfortDelGro Group and Grab, have also taken a careful and safety-conscious approach to these trials.
At the same time, when I speak to taxi and private-hire drivers today, I hear anxiety. Our drivers are joining the dots. They see the Punggol trials moving towards point-to-point services. They hear about deployment expanding to other parts of Singapore and international AV operators entering the market. They hear discussions about career conversion and new jobs in an AV ecosystem. Naturally, our drivers will ask: What does all this eventually mean for me?
Today, the number of AVs remains very small compared with the more than 70,000 taxi and private-hire drivers on our roads. But drivers are also hearing plans which point towards several hundred AVs potentially operating within the next couple of years. So while the numbers today are small, they can see the direction of travel.
One driver said something to me recently which stayed with me. He had heard that close to 10,000 people had already taken the autonomous shuttles in Punggol. He said to me, very simply: “10,000 riders. Does that eventually mean 10,000 fewer jobs for us?”
Of course, the answer today is no. These are trials, and those rides are not equivalent to 10,000 displaced commercial taxi or PHV trips. But I understood what he was trying to tell me. To a driver, this is not a theoretical discussion about technology. One more trip taken by a robotaxi could eventually mean one less trip for him. And when you earn your living trip by trip, that really matters. So the question behind his question is one we have to answer: when AVs eventually operate commercially and at scale, will there still be enough trips for our drivers to earn a decent living?
Mr Speaker, there is another reason why we must approach this transition carefully. Driving has traditionally been what we sometimes call a “job of last resort”. Perhaps a better way of understanding its role in our economy is this: driving has been an important employment buffer for generations of Singaporeans.
Many of us grew up knowing an uncle, an aunt or a neighbour who drove taxis. In fact, many of us sitting in this Chamber today grew up with a parent who proudly made driving a living. This was honest work that put food on the table, paid school fees, raised families and sent children to university. When other livelihood doors closed, this was one door that remained open, and this function has not disappeared.
In 2025, the number of resident regular platform workers increased, driven in particular by an increase in private-hire car drivers from 31,800 to 36,000. People are still choosing this work. People are still relying on this work.
In the recent labour market report, retrenchments increase in the second quarter of 2026, with more retrenched residents taking longer to find a job. Behind these statistics are real workers who need to find their next livelihood. As we plan for an AV future, we must think not only about how today's drivers’ transition, we must also ask what happens to the employment buffer in our labour market.
Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.
在新加坡，德士司机这个职业，对很多家庭来说，有着很特别的意义，也是一条重要的后路。
当一个人失去工作，一时找不到新的工作，他还可以开德士；当一个人需要转换工作、寻找新的机会，他还可以开德士；当他需要照顾年幼的孩子、年迈的父母，他还可以开德士，靠着这份工作的灵活性，一边工作，一边照顾家人。
一代又一代的德士司机，就是这样靠自己的双手，养家糊口，供孩子读书，过有尊严、有自立能力的生活。
当其他的门都关上了，开德士这扇门还开着。
今天，无人驾驶逐渐成为现实，我们当然不能拒绝改变。但是，我们必须问：如果有一天，这扇门变窄了，我们为工友打开的下一扇门，在哪里？
Mr Speaker, that is the bigger question. If driving gradually becomes less available as an accessible and flexible livelihood — and as an employment buffer — what will take its place? These are not simply transport questions. They are labour-market and social questions too.
We now have overseas experience which tells us to take these concerns seriously. Earlier this year, researchers studying Baidu's Apollo Go robotaxis in Wuhan, using more than 200,000 daily observations, estimated a 10.9 per cent short-run reduction in the average daily income of traditional taxis in the district studied. Drivers also worked longer hours and reported greater job stress and lower job satisfaction.
Wuhan is not Singapore. The market and regulatory environment are different. I am not suggesting that AVs in Singapore will produce an 11 per cent reduction in drivers' incomes. But neither should we assume, there will be no impact. Displacement may not look like thousands of drivers suddenly losing their jobs. It may happen quietly: fewer trips, longer waits between bookings, lower utilisation and, gradually, greater pressure on earnings.
So, as we move from trials towards wider commercial deployment, I believe our drivers need three things from us.
First, clarity on the deployment pathway. Clause 58 extends the road AV regulatory sandbox to 31 December 2028 while a more holistic legislative framework is developed. What are the stages between today's controlled deployments and wider commercial deployment? What indicators will determine when we move from one stage to the next? And when do we consider AVs to have moved from experimentation and supplementation into something capable of materially affecting the existing P2P market? Our drivers need enough information to make informed choices about their livelihoods.
Second, measure the impact on workers. Safety, reliability and commuter acceptance must obviously matter. But will worker impact also be a measure? Can we establish a baseline now and monitor drivers' trips, utilisation, waiting times and, most importantly, net earnings? If material livelihood impact emerges before alternative pathways are ready, will that be taken into account when determining the pace and scale of further deployment?
Third, workers need a meaningful seat at the table before decisions are made. I ask that NTA and NPHVA continue to be closely consulted as deployment progresses. Drivers can tell us what is happening to waiting times, trips, earnings and commuter behaviour long before these effects become obvious in aggregate statistics. Our drivers’ experiences are important data points too.
I welcome Government's commitment to preparing workers for new opportunities in fleet operations, remote operations, maintenance, safety assurance and other supporting functions. Some drivers will successfully make those transitions. However, successful transition cannot simply mean that only an upskilling course was offered. We need to ask: Transition to what job? At what income? How many of those jobs actually exist?
We also cannot assume that every taxi and PHV driver can or want to retrain to become an AV engineer. Some will move into new occupations. Some may take on new roles in the AV ecosystem. Others may want — or need — to continue driving for many more years. A good transition must start from the worker, rather than expecting the worker to fit a prescribed transition programme.
Mr Speaker, the Bill also allows controlled trials, special uses and testbeds for AVs on public paths. I support creating room for innovation, but our public paths are shared by pedestrians, seniors, persons with disabilities, cyclists and our delivery riders. Can the Minister explain how suitable locations will be determined, and whether LTA will consult local residents, our delivery workers and other regular users before trials begin in heavily used public spaces? Early engagement can help technology succeed rather than become a source of unnecessary friction.
Mr. Speaker, embracing technology and protecting workers are not opposing choices. Our experience in the Labour Movement tells us that we can do both. Let us accelerate in areas where technology fills manpower shortages and improves workplace safety.
But where the same technology can compete directly with an existing pool of workers for their core income, our considerations must be broader. Not necessarily slower forever, but more deliberate, more transparent, and with workers sitting at the table as we decide the pace.
Mr Speaker, I support this Bill and I hope that as technology moves forward, our workers will move forward with it as well.
