Parliament passed tougher traffic laws on Aug 4, with People’s Action Party Members of Parliament proposing road safety improvements and seeking clarifications on mounted device use while driving and the impact on vocational drivers.
During the second reading of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 26 MPs from both sides of the House and one Nominated MP spoke in a debate lasting over five hours.
Traffic deaths hit a 10-year high of 149 in 2025 – almost one death every two days, compared with 141 in 2016.
The number of people injured also rose from 9,342 in 2024 to 9,955 in 2025.
Second Minister for Home Affairs Sim Ann said the Bill aims to strengthen accountability for the most egregious road conduct, further deter driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and enhance the Traffic Police’s ability to detect and enforce traffic offences.
Amendments include new offence of purposeful endangerment, where an offender deliberately uses a vehicle to endanger another person’s life or safety, resulting in death or grievous hurt.
The penalties for purposeful endangerment are higher than those for dangerous driving causing death. Where death is caused, the offender may be jailed for up to 15 years, fined and caned.
Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central) called for higher penalties for dangerous driving.
He cited the case of Jeremiah Ng, who killed a Gojek driver and injured six others in 2021. The district judge who sentenced him at the time had said he treated the roads “like the Grand Prix driving circuit”. Ng received a seven-year jail sentence for dangerous driving causing death and a 12-year driving disqualification upon release.
Mr Xie noted that while Ng was reckless, his actions would not meet the threshold for the new purposeful endangerment offence, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years.
In such cases, drivers would still be prosecuted under dangerous driving laws, which carry a maximum sentence of eight years.
“For such an egregious case of recklessness and wanton disregard for other road users, eight years’ jail feels way too light,” he added.
Mr Xie proposed raising the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death to upwards of 11 years.
Ms Sim said the penalties will continue to be reviewed, as with other traffic offences.
Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast GRC) suggested scaling traffic fines according to income.
“It would be useful to understand whether fixed fines achieve a broadly similar deterrent effect across different income groups, or whether they are too easily absorbed by some and disproportionately damaging to others,” she said.
Ms Sim acknowledged this as a complex issue involving equity and fairness, adding that authorities will study how other jurisdictions have implemented such systems.
MPs propose using technology to deter traffic violations
The new law supports the traffic police’s efforts to leverage technology to scale up enforcement of traffic violations.
Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang GRC) and Ms Hazlina proposed using traffic data and AI-assisted analysis to identify traffic violations and accident hotspots.
“Technology should not replace enforcement judgment. It should make enforcement more targeted and more preventive,” Ms Mariam said.
In response, Ms Sim said that Traffic Police (TP) works closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to identify locations with high accident rates and develop targeted interventions at these hotspots.
Persistent hotspots may be designated under LTA’s Black Spot programme, a structured initiative that implements comprehensive traffic engineering measures to address the root causes of accidents. Traffic Police may also increase enforcement at these locations.
Incorporate attention management in driver education: MP
The changes to the law make it an offence for motorists to hold their mobile phones while driving, even when not using the device.
Poh Li San (Sembawang West) expressed concern that the changes might legitimise the “blatant misuse of mounted devices”. Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon GRC) cited Queensland, Australia, as an example of a jurisdiction that limits mounted mobile phone use for certain licence types.
Ms Lee also asked about accidents where mobile phone usage was the primary factor.
Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines GRC) emphasised that drivers need support to protect their attention. She proposed incorporating attention management into driver education, covering forms of distraction and the limits of multitasking.
Ms Sim said the government 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”.
Responding to Ms Lee’s question on accidents caused by mobile phone use while driving, Ms Sim noted significant evidential difficulties in proving whether mobile phone use contributed to accidents reported to traffic police.
“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 mobile phone driving is not dangerous or not prevalent.”
Mobile phone driving violations are trending upward, she said, with a 40 per cent 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,” she said.
Several MPs also addressed the impact the new law may have on private-hire drivers who depend on their mobile phones for their livelihood and navigation.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar GRC), Deputy Chairperson of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Law, noted that workers most affected by this bill often lack the HR support available to most employees. He asked if the ministry would consider a campaign to keep platform workers up to date.
Ms Lee, an adviser to the National Taxi Association, asked if the ministry would consider working directly with taxi companies and ride-hailing platform operators to accelerate the adoption of hands-free navigation and voice assistant tools.
Dr Chen proposed that the government work with platform operators to minimise the need for interaction while vehicles are moving. This could include simpler displays, voice-guided directions, suppressing non-essential notifications, and sufficiently long response windows.
“Drivers can wait until it is safe before responding to job offers. Drivers should not be penalised for putting their safety first,” she added.
Addressing MPs’ concerns, Ms Sim said the government will work with industry stakeholders and partners to communicate the new requirements clearly to drivers ahead of the amendments’ operationalisation in early 2027.
The government will run publicity campaigns mainly on social media channels and deliver targeted communication through key partners such as NTUC, platform operators and taxi associations. It will also update the driving school curriculum to reflect these changes.
New law has disproportionate impact on vocational drivers: MP
MPs highlighted the disproportionate impact of the new law on vocational drivers, including bus captains, taxi and private hire drivers, and those in the delivery and logistics sectors.
Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio GRC), Ms Mariam and Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC) asked the government to consider a differentiated regime for vocational drivers under the revised Driver Improvement Points System.
Mr David noted that operational drivers spend substantially more time on roads than average motorists and are therefore more likely to accumulate demerit points through sheer exposure alone.
Ms Mariam cited Spain as an example, where a sustained period without traffic-related offenses restores available demerit points for drivers.
She asked if Singapore could adopt the same mechanism for all drivers or, at minimum, for vocational drivers who face the sharpest livelihood consequences and have the most to gain from a system that rewards years of safe driving with real headroom.
In response, Ms Sim said the Government had considered a differentiated demerit points 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,” she said, adding that the Government agrees it will be good to ease the transition wherever possible.
