Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2026 - Wrap Up Speech by Ms Sim Ann, Second Minister for Foreign Affairs & Second Minister for Home Affairs

Introduction

1. Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their interest and support for the Bill. Please allow me to address the questions they have raised.

Purposeful Endangerment

2. Mr Vikram Nair asked about the gap that a separate offence of purposeful endangerment fills, beyond what is already provided for in the Penal Code today.

3. I have addressed this in my opening speech. He also asked how the Ministry will decide which Act to apply in any given case. If the facts and circumstances of a case can satisfy more than one offence provision, whether in the same Act or across different Acts, the AGC will exercise its prosecutorial discretion to determine the appropriate offence to prefer.

4. Regarding the offence of purposeful endangerment, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked what would ordinarily amount to the "special reasons" needed to depart from lifetime disqualification, should the offence of purposeful endangerment be made out.

5. What constitutes “special reasons” in the context of purposeful endangerment is ultimately to be decided by the courts. The courts have, in the context of other traffic offences, found that “special reasons” are extenuating or pressing circumstances, and relate to the offence itself and not to the offender. These circumstances should be exceptional.

6. Mr Yip also asked about how vehicle forfeiture is to be carried out if the vehicle belongs to someone else.

7. This scenario is provided for under our existing laws. On the application of the Public Prosecutor, the court is to make an order for the forfeiture of the motor vehicle unless the court is satisfied that the person who has committed the offence is not the owner of the motor vehicle, and the person who has committed the offence had used the motor vehicle without the owner’s consent.

8. Dr Wan Rizal noted that Clause 6 empowers a District or Magistrate’s Court to impose the full penalty, which departs from the usual position under the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”). He asked about the rationale for this and if the rights of appeal remain fully preserved.

9. The CPC prescribes the sentencing jurisdiction of the District Court and Magistrate’s Court. However, this is subject to any other written law. There are offences in the Road Traffic Act (“RTA”) and other statutes which allow the court to impose the full penalty for the said offence, beyond the limit prescribed in the CPC. This is to ensure that the courts have the jurisdiction to impose a sufficiently severe sentence if warranted on the facts. Parties may still appeal against the court’s sentencing decision in accordance with the CPC.

10. To Mr Kenneth Tiong’s question on whether his illustrations apply to the purposeful endangerment offence, it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Increasing Maximum Penalties for Careless and Dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Hurt

11. Regarding the maximum penalties for careless and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, Dr Wan Rizal asked the Ministry to review, in a few years’ time, if this was effective in influencing driver behaviour.

12. We will continue to monitor the road traffic situation closely to ensure that our laws and policies remain adequate. That said, we do not expect to see many cases attracting this punishment since the higher maximum penalties should only apply to the most serious forms of grievous hurt.

13. Ms Choo Pei Ling suggested for permanent and irreversible neurological impairment to be recognised as a distinct aggravating factor in sentencing.

14. In the context of careless and dangerous driving, the courts presently recognise three broad factors as aggravating harm factors: first, the nature and location of the injury; second, the degree of permanence of the injury; and third, the impact of the injury on the victim’s quality of life. The courts can consider a victim’s neurological impairment in the context of these three factors.

15. Mr Xie Yao Quan suggested increasing the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death, to narrow the gap with the maximum penalty for purposeful endangerment.

16. I acknowledge this suggestion. As with other traffic offences, we will continue to review the penalties, including raising the maximum penalties, depending on the road traffic situation. As we review the penalties in the Act, we will reference penalties in other legislation such as the Penal Code where appropriate. We will take the same approach regarding the fines for these offences, as raised by Ms He Ting Ru. We highlight that generally, the RTA does not allow for the imposition of a fine for the more severe forms of driving offences, such as dangerous driving that causes death. In this Bill, we have focused on addressing these egregious forms of driving, and therefore have only reviewed the imprisonment terms for these offences.

17. Mr Xie has also suggested fully harmonising the maximum penalty for the offence of dangerous driving causing grievous hurt with the offence of dangerous driving causing death. We have chosen to draw a distinction between death and grievous hurt. Notwithstanding, I agree that severe forms of grievous hurt, such as those where victims fall into a permanent vegetative state, can have consequences that are almost as serious as death, and the penalties should therefore be broadly similar. This is what the Bill seeks to achieve by increasing the penalties that can be imposed for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt.

Drug Driving

18. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Choo Pei Ling, Mr Alex Yeo, Mr David Hoe, and Mr Andre Low asked about the criminal liability of drivers who take lawfully prescribed or available medication that may impair driving.

19. Let me first reassure the House that the new offence does not apply to most common medicines or over-the-counter medicines.

20. The new presence-based offence is a targeted one. It applies only to controlled drugs, psychoactive substances or intoxicating substances already covered under existing legislation, namely the Misuse of Drugs Act, Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act and the Intoxicating Substances Act.

21. Further, a statutory defence is available for those who can prove two conditions on the balance of probabilities. First, that the controlled drug, psychoactive substance or intoxicating substance was lawfully smoked, inhaled, used, consumed or administered. Second, the individual did not know or have reason to believe that this would affect his or her capacity, at the time of the alleged offence, to have proper control of a motor vehicle. This addresses Mr Vikram Nair’s query regarding occupational or accidental exposure of such substances.

22. For non-controlled drugs such as medication, the legal position has not changed. It continues to be an offence if a person is incapable to have proper control of the vehicle because he or she is impaired by any medicine or other substance.

23. As for the suggestion to make information on medication-related driving impairment more accessible, the Health Products (Therapeutic Products) Regulations already specifies substances which must come with a label cautioning that it causes drowsiness. If in doubt, members of the public should consult with their healthcare professionals and err on the side of not driving.

24. Mr Andre Low asked what constitutes the legal threshold for the new drug driving offence.

25. As mentioned in my opening speech, the presence of specified substances in a person’s blood constitutes the offence. These specified substances comprise controlled drugs, psychoactive substances and intoxicating substances regulated under the three Acts that I have mentioned earlier.

26. Mr Low further asked about analytical thresholds for the new offence.

27. The laboratory applies validated analytical limits and reporting criteria when reporting the presence of specified substances in blood. These limits are method- and substance-specific and are established to ensure that reported results are reliable, scientifically supportable and thus evidential. A concentration below the applicable reporting criteria would not be reported as a positive finding.

Drink Driving

28. Ms Diana Pang and Mr Andre Low asked for more details on the efficacy and reliability of the Handheld Breath Evidential Analyser (“HBEA”).

29. The Traffic Police, with the support of the Home Team Science and Technology Agency (“HTX”), will ensure that the deployed HBEA models meet evidential grade standards through testing and certifications in accordance with internationally recognised references such as the International Organisation of Legal Metrology R126. Subjects will be shown the test results on the spot. Where it is not practicable to conduct a breath test, the Traffic Police can require the subject to provide a specimen of blood instead.

30. Ms Pang also asked if the Ministry would consider certifying reliable breath-testing devices for purchase by members of the public, to allow a person who has consumed alcohol to conduct a preliminary self-check before deciding whether to drive.

31. I would like to reiterate that our key message with the drink-driving amendments in this Bill are: when you drink, do not drive. There is thus no reason to provide breath-testing devices in the market for drivers to self-check their alcohol levels. The same applies to those who attempt to consume products that claim to help reduce alcohol readings, as drivers should not be drinking in the first place.

32. Mr Andre Low asked about how the new drink-driving thresholds were set and Mr Alex Yeo asked if we had considered a zero-tolerance approach for drink-driving.

33. In reviewing the limit, the Ministry considered both the scientific evidence on alcohol-induced impairment and the approaches adopted in comparable jurisdictions. Scientific evidence show that impairment begins at low levels of alcohol consumption. The tightened limit therefore targets the range at which alcohol-induced impairment begins, while also accounting for endogenous alcohol productions where the body naturally produces small amounts of ethanol through normal metabolic processes.

34. As mentioned in my opening speech, I would like to reassure Mr Low that the amendment to the blood authorisation requirement does not diminish the duty of the medical practitioner or nurse to assess whether taking the blood specimen would harm the patient. On the contrary, the amended provisions make clear that prior to taking a blood specimen, the medical practitioner or nurse must be satisfied that this will not harm the patient.

Handphone Driving

35. Ms Lee Hui Ying asked if there was evidence to show that accidents resulted from handphone driving.

36. When accidents are reported to the Traffic Police today, there are significant evidential difficulties in proving whether handphone driving contributed to it. For one, drivers would not proactively confess that they were in fact using a mobile communication device at the time of the accident. There is also often no objective video evidence available to establish that a driver was on their mobile communication device at the time of the accident. But that does not mean that handphone driving is not dangerous or not prevalent. As Ms Elysa Chen noted, the World Health Organisation has reported that drivers using mobile phones are approximately four times more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers not using a mobile phone. We also note with concern that handphone driving violations are on an upward trend, with a 40% increase from 3,014 cases in 2024 to 4,214 in 2025. We must move decisively against this undesirable driving behaviour and not wait until more accidents or fatalities have been caused.

37. Ms Poh Li San asked how the revised handphone driving offence would be enforced.

38. The amendment will make enforcement easier, as the Traffic Police will no longer need to prove that the driver was operating the device for the offence to be made out. The Traffic Police intends to leverage technological solutions such as cameras as far as possible, to detect and enforce against this offence.

39. Ms Mariam Jafaar and Ms Hany Soh sought clarification on the different scenarios that will trigger this offence. Ms Lee Hui Ying asked if the Ministry would consider implementing a “one-tap” policy for mounted phone use. Ms Diana Pang asked if an exception can be made for scenarios where the driver’s holding of the phone is a split-second occurrence.

40. The Bill makes it clear that if the vehicle is in motion, holding a mobile communication device is prohibited. There is no exception. Even in the scenario where the device has fallen from its mount, the driver should stop the vehicle safely before retrieving the device. It is dangerous to assume that it is safe to pick up the device while the vehicle is moving, even if just for a second. What we are aiming for is a collective change in driver mindset and habits to minimise distractions while on the road.

41. Several members raised the issue of increased distractions for drivers, such as use of mounted devices and in-car entertainment systems. Ms He Ting Ru asked how the law will address drivers who interact extensively with a mounted device or in-car entertainment system. Mr Dennis Tan asked how the use of multiple screens would impact cognitive load, and how Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules would interact with the amendment to criminalise holding a phone while the vehicle is in motion.

42. We have not criminalised the use of a mounted device while a vehicle is in motion, as we appreciate that there are legitimate reasons to do so, such as using navigation applications. That said, there are existing provisions which target the use of mounted screens in moving vehicles under certain circumstances. Depending on the facts of the case, for instance, if a driver were to use a mounted device – whether single or multiple – and becomes distracted to the point that it affects his driving behaviour, the driver may be liable for the offence of careless or dangerous driving. Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules already makes it an offence to install any visual display unit in a manner that poses a safety hazard or causes distraction. We will monitor the road traffic situation and we do not preclude making changes to our approach to mounted devices or screens should the need arise.

43. Mr Dennis Tan asked about the evolving definition of “mobile communication device” and asked about the treatment of wearables.

44. Under the current Section 65B(1A) of the Road Traffic Act, it is not an offence for drivers to drive with wearable devices worn in the manner intended by the manufacturer of the wearable device.

45. I also thank Mr Tan for his suggestion regarding setting robust vehicle safety standards. The Traffic Police and LTA will continue to work on this.

46. Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Hany Soh and Ms Diana Pang compared handphone driving to other behaviours, such as smoking when driving. Handphone use while driving is especially dangerous because it engages three distractions simultaneously — visual, because it causes drivers to take their eyes off the road; manual, because it takes drivers’ hands off the wheel; and cognitive, as it diverts mental attention away from driving. The result is that a driver using a handphone while driving has slower reaction times, reduced situational awareness and impaired ability to maintain control of the vehicle. That said, we encourage all drivers to free themselves from any distraction while on the roads, to protect themselves and others.

General Offences

47. Let me now turn to other comments and suggestions from members on our approach to offenders. Mr Gabriel Lam suggested to take a rehabilitative approach towards first-time offenders, and a more punitive approach towards repeat offenders.

48. This is indeed our approach today. Under the Driver Improvement Points System, unless a very serious offence was committed, a first-time offender would generally not have his or her licence suspended immediately.

49. Dr Hamid Razak asked about safeguards for suspension decisions. The RTA only allows for immediate suspension under limited circumstances, where it is in the interest of public safety to do so. This power is exercised judiciously only in egregious cases. The suspension may be rescinded at any time if the investigation reveals that the person was not involved in the commission of any such offence.

50. Dr Neo Kok Beng suggested to immediately suspend the licences of those found to have engaged in deliberate “brake-checking”. Such conduct may constitute dangerous driving or purposeful endangerment. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the driver may also be immediately suspended.

51. Ms Diana Pang spoke about road hogging, where a driver is in the rightmost lane of the expressway but is not overtaking, and has a clear opportunity to switch to a different lane but does not do so, thereby blocking other drivers. As she noted, the Road Traffic Rules already includes an offence of road hogging, and this is enforced by the Traffic Police today. MHA and the Traffic Police will consider what more can be done to tackle such behaviour.

52. I would also like to acknowledge Ms Hazlina Halim’s suggestion to scale traffic fines according to income. This is a complex issue and raises questions of equity and fairness. We are aware that some jurisdictions have rolled this out and will study their experience.

Education, Training and Public Communications

53. Members have highlighted the need for the new rules to be communicated clearly to drivers. We fully agree and will work with industry stakeholders and partners to achieve this ahead of the planned operationalisation of the amendments in early 2027. There will be publicity on mainstream and social media channels, as well as targeted communication through key partners such as NTUC, platform operators and taxi associations. We will also update the curriculum in our driving schools to reflect these changes.

54. Ms Valerie Lee asked if offenders returning to driving after lengthy disqualification can have refresher programmes before their licences are restored. Today, drivers who are suspended or disqualified from driving for more than one year will have their licences revoked. Such individuals are encouraged to sign up for refresher driving courses and would have to retake the theory and practical driving tests to obtain a fresh valid driving licence before they can drive again.

55. Ms Poh Li San suggested ways to better utilise the Road Safety Community Park to educate our children and youths about road safety. There are plans to redevelop the Park to cater to a wider range of participants and engage families in road safety education. We also plan to seek suggestions from stakeholders on how the Park can be made more relevant and engaging. More details will be released in due course.

Enforcement

56. Members have asked various questions about the use and limitations of technology for enforcement.

57. The Traffic Police has been stepping up enforcement, both manual and supported by cameras. Examples include the Traffic Violation Enforcement Cameras and the switching on of the speeding detection function in our red-light cameras. We will continue to expand our camera-based enforcement efforts, with further details to be shared in due course.

58. Dr Neo Kok Beng and Ms He Ting Ru also asked about the deployment of cameras to enhance road safety and their effectiveness in targeting speeding respectively. Overt and covert cameras serve different purposes. Overt cameras achieve specific deterrence against speeding in areas where there are higher risks of accidents. Covert cameras achieve general deterrence and reinforce safe driving behaviour.

59. Ms Mariam Jafaar and Ms Hazlina Halim asked about the use of data to identify traffic violation and accident hotspots. The Traffic Police works closely with the LTA to identify locations with high accident rates and develop targeted interventions at these hotspots. Where a location is identified as a persistent hotspot, it may be designated under LTA’s Black Spot programme, a structured initiative to implement more comprehensive traffic engineering measures to address the root causes of accidents at those sites. The Traffic Police may also step up enforcement at these locations.

60. Ms Valerie Lee asked how many public reports result in warnings, investigations and prosecutions, and if better feedback can be provided to those who submitted evidence. We appreciate submissions from the public. However, due to the volume of submissions, we are presently not able to update every person of the outcome of their feedback. We will continue to explore whether it is feasible to do so. I would nevertheless like to assure the House that Traffic Police follows up on all reports received from its online portal, including initiating investigations and acting against violators when a traffic offence is made out. Today, action is taken for about four out of 10 public reports. The remaining reports typically do not disclose sufficient grounds to warrant investigations.

61. Mr David Hoe asked if Traffic Police would publish guidance on the minimum information and evidential quality required for public submissions. The Traffic Police’s “Feedback on Road Users” portal already sets out what members of the public should provide when submitting a report, including the date, time and location of the violation, the vehicle registration number, and any available evidence such as video or photo. Members of the public are encouraged to refer to these guidelines when making submissions. The Traffic Police will assess each case on the facts and circumstances submitted.

Automated Processing

62. Regarding automating the issuance of the Notice to Furnish Drivers’ Particulars, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Wan Rizal, Dr Hamid Razak, Ms Choo Pei Ling, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr David Hoe and Mr Jackson Lam asked how transparency can be maintained alongside a swift and robust appeal process. The Traffic Police will consider these suggestions in the development of the automated system. I would like to clarify that automated notices will only be sent for technical traffic offences, which will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. The legislation provides a permanent safeguard that applications to revoke notices issued through automated processing must be reviewed by an authorised public officer.

63. Members also had questions on the timelines for appeals. The Traffic Police aims to resolve appeals submitted by members of the public expeditiously. Most appeals are dealt with within a month, though more complex appeals can take up to three months to process. The addressing of appeals will continue to be free of charge. Those who require assistance with the appeal process can approach their nearest Community Centre or ServiceSG Centre, where staff can help them lodge their appeal digitally.

64. Mr Gabriel Lam also suggested for the Traffic Police to prescribe a maximum period of 30 days from detection within which a notice to furnish particulars must be issued to the vehicle owner. I agree that notices should be issued as soon as possible, so drivers can take immediate corrective action. However, currently, every traffic violation must be processed by at least one officer. This takes considerable time, especially with the significant increase in violations we have seen. That said, the automation of enforcement, which this Bill will allow, should expedite the process considerably once we have put in place the necessary systems.

65. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Wan Rizal asked if additional administrative guidance or resources can be provided for companies to comply with recordkeeping requirements, and to monitor if these requirements result in increased costs for platform workers. These requirements are in fact not new. While we understand that such recordkeeping imposes some compliance costs on businesses, we seek the public’s understanding that they are necessary to ensure that we can enforce our laws fairly and effectively.

66. Ms Valerie Lee asked for more information on the limitations of setting up and using traffic cameras for enforcement and plans for upgrading. Traffic enforcement cameras are typically deployed at locations prone to accidents and traffic violations, subject to space and infrastructure constraints. Deployment at any given location depends on site conditions such as space availability, power supply and line of sight for the camera to oversee traffic.

DIPS

67. Sir, I now turn to the Driver Improvement Points System or DIPS for short – more commonly known as the Demerit Points System. Although the changes to DIPS recently announced by the Traffic Police are not part of this Bill, I will address Members’ comments as these changes share the same objective of improving the safety of our roads.

68. Several speakers – Mr Darryl David, Ms Mariam Jaafar, and Ms Hany Soh – have asked to consider a differentiated regime for vocational drivers under the revised DIPS.

69. I would like to assure this House that while MHA and the Traffic Police have good reasons for tightening DIPS, we have been very mindful of the sentiments and potential reactions from vocational drivers. And this was why we made sure to consult the transport unions while formulating this policy. They are the National Trades Union Congress’ (NTUC) affiliated associations, namely:

(a) National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA),

(b) National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA),

(c) National Taxi Association (NTA), and

(d) National Transport Workers’ Union (NTWU).

70. We considered carefully what it would mean if there were to be a differentiated regime for vocational drivers. This in effect creates a lower standard of road safety accountability for one group of road users versus the rest. Seen in this light, it is very difficult to justify.

71. That said, while we intend for the lower thresholds for licence suspension and revocation to nudge all motorists to adhere more closely to traffic rules in future, we agree it would be good to ease the transition wherever possible. Rather than have different rules for different types of drivers, we think it is better to apply the same one-time deduction of demerit points across the board come 1 January 2027 as a transitionary measure, so that no motorist will be closer to the suspension or revocation threshold simply due to the changes to DIPS taking effect, and these are up to six points for non-probationary drivers and up to one point for probationary drivers. We have also taken in the union’s feedback about vocational drivers’ perspectives when refining the overall set of changes to the DIPS, including retaining one opportunity for all drivers being suspended for the first time to reduce the suspension period from four months to six weeks by completing the DIPS re-training course.

72. I am heartened that our transport unions have been proactive in championing road safety beyond just the DIPS changes. In particular, they have been speaking out against the dangers of being distracted on the roads, such as holding a handphone or watching videos while driving. Just today, the NTWU as well as NTUC Assistant Secretary General, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, who has been very helpful in facilitating MHA and Traffic Police’s engagement with the unions, released a social media post, to actively remind the vocational driver community that no notification, booking, or message is worth the risk of a momentary lapse in attention that could cost lives. I thank our transport union leaders for their strong support for vocational drivers, and for agreeing with us that ultimately, greater compliance with traffic safety throughout Singapore would be especially valuable for the safety and livelihoods of vocational drivers, precisely because they spend more time than others on our roads.

73. Ms Mariam Jaafar asked to consider a similar mechanism to Spain’s points-based licensing system, where a sustained period without any offence may increase their threshold for suspension or revocation. Mr Kenneth Tiong made a similar suggestion and asked that the Traffic Police take into consideration one’s driving history over a longer period of time.

74. I have explained that the one-time deduction of demerit points on 1 January 2027 is a transitionary measure, not intended to formalise another means of rewarding or incentivising safe driving behaviour.

75. We had considered introducing an additional buffer for drivers with good driving history. But upon reflection, this seems to be at odds with our intention of resetting driving behaviour, against a backdrop of a worsening road situation. We think it is better to retain the existing incentives for good driving behaviour under the revised DIPS. A motorist who commits no traffic offences within 12 months of their last offence will have their entire demerit point balance wiped from their record. A motorist who remains offence-free for 24 months from the end of their suspension will have their suspension records removed entirely. These incentives reward sustained responsible driving behaviour and offer drivers an opportunity to rehabilitate their records. We believe these incentives are effective and will be continued.

76. Mr Darryl David, Ms Hazlina Halim, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Hany Soh asked to consider introducing an early intervention course, refresher course or performance improvement plan for drivers, before they hit suspension.

77. A similar mechanism had previously existed in the form of the Safe Driving Course (“SDC”), available to all drivers. The SDC was an early corrective course for eligible motorists who had incurred demerit points but had not yet reached the suspension threshold, and motorists who completed it would have four demerit points expunged from their driving records.

78. A review of data from 2023 to 2025 showed that the take-up rate of the SDC was low – only 15% of those offered the SDC last year took it up. Its impact on improving driving behaviour was also minimal, with the difference in re-offending rates between SDC and non-SDC takers being marginal. These findings suggest that introducing similar early intervention courses that allow reduction in demerit points are unlikely to contribute to the objective of safer roads.

79. As for Mr David Hoe’s question on whether there are any plans to adjust the penalties and demerit points for each offence under the DIPS regime, we have no immediate plans to do so but will continue to monitor the road safety trends and make adjustments where necessary.

Other Suggestions

80. Sir, this Bill is ultimately about lives. It is about ensuring that every person who uses our roads – whether motorist, rider, cyclist or pedestrian – can do so with greater safety and confidence. Laws and enforcement are important, but safer roads ultimately depend on the daily choices that each of us makes – to slow down, to stay alert, to put away distractions, and to think of the other persons on the road.

81. We agree that laws must be evidence-based, and this principle has guided several amendments in this Bill, such as the revised drink-driving limits. Members have raised other suggestions that go beyond the scope of the Bill. MHA and the Traffic Police will work with the relevant agencies to consider these suggestions. For instance, suggestions relating to road infrastructure is something that we will discuss with LTA. Also, suggestions to make platform workers’ work environment safer can also be taken up at the multi-agency task force on workplace safety and health, and this is a taskforce that the Traffic Police is very glad to be invited to recently by MOM. We also encourage our partners, including unions, transport and platform operators, and community organisations to step forward and do their part – by reinforcing safe habits, supporting responsible driving, and helping every road user make safer choices.

82. Once again, let me thank Members for supporting the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.