On 12 January 2026, the government introduced the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill (2026) – which amongst other existing laws, aims to amend the Active Mobility Act (2017).

The amendments to the Active Mobility Act (2017), presented by the Land Transport and Related Matters bill (2026), primarily aims to put into law new regulations on the use of personal mobility aids (PMAs) and mobility vehicles – which includes the use of mobility scooters, motorised wheelchairs, or any other motor vehicles designed to carry an individual who is unable to walk or has difficulty in walking.

The new amendments aim to:

• Implement a requirement where individuals must be granted a valid Certificate of Medical Need to drive or ride a mobility scooter on public paths
• Mandate the registration of mobility scooters, to strengthen enforcement.
• Impose dimension limits on PMAs used on public paths
• Decrease the speed limit for PMAs from 10km/h to 6km/h
• Make it an offence to not only use but also keep non-UL2272 e-scooters.

Such regulations have the potential to limit PMA use to people who need such mobility vehicles for medical or disability purposes which in densely-populated Singapore, is an understandable intent. Additionally, regulations such as the prohibition of not only the use but the keeping of non-UL2272 e-scooters is important to avoid potential hazardous situations.

However, the new amendments – especially on the requirement of medical certification and registration, along with the new requirements on dimensions and speed limits raises important questions especially on how the new amendments will be implemented and enforced.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has noted that more specifics on the implementation and enforcement of such regulations will be announced after the amendments are passed.   

As a result, we outline some of our questions and recommendations on the bill’s implementation and enforcement. In total, we outline four recommendations pertaining to the following three areas:

1. Attaining a Certificate of Medical Need

In the new amendments outlined in the bill, individuals will be required to attain a “certificate of medical need certifying that the individual has a medical need to drive or ride a class or description of mobility vehicle for the validity period of the certificate of medical need”. As outlined, the bill defines “mobility vehicle” to include mobility scooters, motorised wheelchairs, or any other motor vehicles designed to carry an individual who is unable to walk or has difficulty in walking.

The bill further notes that the certificate of medical need must be issued by a “specified assessor” which the bill notes are persons who are “prescribed as a specified assessor” and who after “conducting a clinical assessment”, grant the certificate of medical need.            

The bill allows some provisions for platform workers. However, other than such and similar other provisions, under the new amendments, if one uses a PMA/mobility vehicle without the valid certificate of medical need, there could be a penalty of a fine up to $2,000 or $5,000 depending on first or repeat offense and/or potential imprisonment terms.

Given the financial and judicial penalties, it is important that the process of attaining a certificate of medical need is as inclusive, straightforward, and clear as possible as to not unfairly penalise persons with disabilities who require the use of PMAs and mobility vehicles.

We thus recommend:

RECOMMENDATION 1: For MOT, LTA, and the relevant government ministries and agencies to optimise inclusivity of documentation that qualifies as, and the process for assessment in attaining, a valid certificate of medical need

The bill currently does not specify what counts as a valid certificate of medical need – but merely states that it has to be granted by a “specified assessor” and certifies the existence or presence of a medical need for the individual driving or riding that class or description of mobility vehicle they are driving or riding. It does not specify for instance that it has to be a particular doctor’s certification, etc.

The Ministry of Transport (MOT) noted in Parliament that “those who were prescribed a mobility scooter subsidised by the Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund, SMF, under the Agency for Integrated Care, or the Assistive Technology Fund, ATF, under SG Enable, will automatically be certified without having to do anything”.  

While this is important, we recommend that MOT and LTA consider extending what can be classified as a valid certificate of medical need to ease the process as optimally as possible.  

In addition to certification under the ATF or SMF, MOT and LTA should consider, for example, recognising registration that persons with difficulty walking already may have with relevant organisations to count as a certificate of medical need to drive or ride a PMA/mobility vehicle.

The bill does include an important provision that such certification of medical need can be granted in “digital form” and “displayed on a mobile communication device or other electronic device”. This will increase the means of issuing a certification. However, while this is important to address the disbursement/issuance of the certificate, it does not specify as to the process of attaining a certificate, and hence would recommend such processes be multi-modal and allowing various avenues to ease the process.

Moreover, while the bill notes that a specified assessor grants the certificate of medical need “after conducting a clinical assessment”, it is important that any clarifications on what constitutes a “clinical assessment” lead to assessments that are inclusive and considerate of the diversity of disability experience especially in the following two ways.

Firstly, it is important that such assessments be inclusive of both private and public options, and that grants or subsidies be established to assist or cover any potential costs of such assessments especially for those who are struggling financially.

Secondly, it is important that a “clinical assessment” need not equate to a formal medical diagnosis – but rather there is simply documentation from the specified assessor noting need for the use of a PMA or mobility vehicle. This point cannot be emphasised enough. We at DPA have come across persons with less common and even rare disabilities and conditions who have shared with us the tedious, tiresome, and (in several cases) still on-going process of attaining a formal medical diagnosis of their condition. For a few of such individuals, their condition, while yet to receive a formal medical diagnosis, has led them to experience difficulty walking. If a “clinical assessment” equates to the requirement of a formal medical diagnosis, it will lead to such individuals not being able to use the important PMAs and mobility vehicles that they may need to navigate Singapore.  

By allowing various forms of documentation to be classifiable as a “certificate of medical need”, and by allowing flexibility in attaining a “clinical assessment”, LTA will be easing the process for individuals in attaining the certification that can be rendered as valid, and thus diminishing any potential barriers.

RECOMMENDATION 2: For MOT, LTA, and the relevant government ministries and agencies to maintain inclusivity in the definition of medical need      

The bill does not explicitly outline what constitutes as a “medical need”, and thus we recommend that any further clarifications from LTA that outlines any definition of “medical need” be done on an inclusive basis. As outlined, “medical need” should not equate to a formal medical diagnosis, but in addition, there are persons with disabilities who have difficulty with walking due to a wide range of disabilities and medical conditions. It is thus important that “medical need” not be based on a narrow or exhaustive list of conditions or disabilities.

Moreover, it is important that “medical need” not be determined by the amount of frequent usage needed for the PMA/mobility vehicle. In other words, one’s difficulty with walking from a medical condition should permit them to use a PMA/mobility vehicle whether one’s difficulty with walking requires them to use the PMA/mobility vehicle on a temporary, occasional, frequent, or full-time basis. There are persons with disabilities who have difficulty walking due to their disabilities, but who can still walk short distances or at times may still be able to walk longer distances and hence may only occasionally require the use of a PMA/mobility vehicle. It is important for such individuals to also be eligible for PMA/mobility vehicle use under the new amendments.   

2. Transition Period

In addition to the requirement to attain a valid certificate of medical need, PMA and mobility vehicle users will be required to register their mobility vehicle with LTA. LTA noted that this new registration will first apply to new mobility vehicles sold, and “give existing users time” before implementing the registration requirement.

While LTA noted that they will provide existing users enough time, LTA noted in a CNA article that the implementation of the new amendments will likely be in mid-2026. However, as outlined below, it is questionable if a six month transition period is sufficient.

The new amendments in the bill outline potentially significant changes for Singaporeans who wish to use PMAs and mobility vehicles on public paths.

First there is the process of attaining a certificate of medical need – which as outlined, if the means of doing so are not inclusive, straightforward, and clear as we have recommended, it could instil unnecessary barriers for Singaporeans who have difficulty walking.

Then, there are the new requirements that PMAs and mobility vehicles have to be registered. While LTA has noted that more information on the registration process will be provided after the codification of the new amendments, the information provided in the bill outlining the new amendments raises important questions as to what the nature and duration of the registration process will entail.

For example:

• The bill alludes that there is the necessity for “documents to accompany an application to register a registrable personal mobility device”. If this applies to mobility vehicles, what are the required documents and what is the process of attaining such documents – including the time frame?
• The bill outlines that as part of the registration process, LTA issues a registration mark indicating a registration code – what is the timeline for the issuance of the code?
• The bill outlines that LTA has the authority to refuse registration of a particular mobility vehicle – if there is disagreement between the user and LTA as to the decision behind the refusal, what is the appeals process or procedure and what would the length of time be in terms of navigating such a process?

As illustrated by such questions, there is the potential for this registration process to require substantial time investments on the part of the individual.

Even if LTA formulates a registration process that is simplified and requiring limited time investments (which we recommend), there is the question of individuals who currently use PMAs or mobility vehicles that will not be recognised and, not registered, and hence not be able to be utilised under the new amendments.

For those who do not experience difficulty with walking, this may not be an issue, and the ability to utilise alternative means other than their PMA and mobility vehicle is an option. However, for persons with disabilities who require the use of their PMA or mobility vehicle for daily navigation, such an option may not be possible. For such individuals, they will have no choice but to purchase a new PMA or mobility vehicle that fits the new amendments.

To this, not all persons with disabilities will have the immediate financial resources to purchase a new PMA or mobility vehicle. While the ATF is a much important aid in this regard, navigating the ATF in order to purchase a new PMA or mobility vehicle within a six month time frame may still present challenges for some.

For example, while SGEnable notes that it takes approximately 15 working days to process an application, there are various steps one must undergo in preparing the necessary documents for the application – including scheduling meetings with a therapist or social worker (known in the process as assessors and application admins respectively) who are necessary in filling out the required paperwork when applying for subsidies under the ATF.

While MOT noted in Parliament that they will allow PMAs that can go above the 6 km/hour speed limit to still be used till 2028, they note that this extension does not apply to the new requirements pertaining to the dimensions of the PMA. This means PMA/mobility vehicle users with PMAs/mobility vehicles that do not meet the dimensions specified under the new amendments will still need to purchase a new PMA/mobility vehicle by mid-2026.

All of the above taken into consideration points to the need for there to be ample time in the transition period before the new amendments go into implementation and enforcement.

We thus recommend:

RECOMMENDATION 3: For MOT, LTA, and the relevant government ministries and agencies to extend the transition period to at least one – two years (comparable to other legislation) before the new amendments go into implementation and enforcement

When taking the above into consideration, it is questionable as to whether the six month transition period is sufficient. This is especially the case when comparing the six month transition period for the amendments under the bill with transition periods that have and are currently being allowed for other laws the government has passed.

Take the Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) for example – which was passed in January of 2025 – with subsequent amendments added in November 2025. The WFA prohibits discrimination in the workplace – which as we have highlighted, while an important piece of legislation, the WFA is limited in its scope compared to anti-discrimination laws around the world. For example, the WFA only prohibits direct discrimination, and does not cover common forms of discrimination such as indirect discrimination or the denial of reasonable accommodations.

Direct discrimination is arguably the most straightforward form of discrimination to detect and hence to formulate policy to address. While employers are to also put in place items in their HR policy such as grievance handling policies as part of requirements under the WFA, the WFA also leaves room for employers to be flexible in the wording or implementation of such policies. Notably, workplaces with 25 or fewer employees are exempted from the law.

Yet, despite the fact that provisions under the WFA are fairly and comparably straightforward and are only relevant to workplaces that have sufficient manpower to put in place the necessary requirements to comply with the law, the WFA has been granted more than a two year transition period since the law’s codification before it goes into enforcement at the end of 2027.

Thus, individuals who already tend to face inequities and societal barriers should be afforded similar graces when navigating important regulated changes to essential assistance that affect them on a daily basis.

While we note and are appreciative of LTA’s plans to reach out to disability organisations to inform persons with disabilities of the new regulations, taking the above into consideration, we thus recommend that LTA extends the transition period to one – two years (comparable to other legislation as outlined) before the new amendments go into implementation and enforcement.

3. Enforcement

Lastly, we would like to seek further clarifications on how the bill will be enforced – particularly when (a) determining whether a PMA/mobility vehicle user is an unlawful user under the new amendments, and (b) enforcing the new speed limit of no more than 6km/hour.

Firstly, pertaining to determining whether a PMA/mobility vehicle user is an unlawful user under the new amendments:

The bill contains provisions for the LTA to address documentation that may be fraudulent. While there is proper reason for such powers and provisions, it is vital that this must not lead to unintended barriers for persons with disabilities who already may face misjudgements from society on a regular basis.

As we have previously highlighted, many in society – including in the media and those in positions of power – have unfortunately used problematic language when describing potential errant users of PMAs and other mobility vehicles. For example, it is unfortunately not uncommon to hear authorities and members of the press noting potential errant users of PMAs and mobility vehicles solely because such users were “young and seemingly able-bodied”. As we have outlined, there is no one way to “look disabled” and persons with disabilities – including those who require the use of PMAs and mobility vehicles – are represented in various age groups including amongst the younger generations. As we highlight above, there are persons with disabilities who can still walk short distances but may occasionally still need to rely on a PMA or mobility vehicle.       

It is thus important that the enforcement of the new amendments not lead to a person with disability who requires the use of a PMA or mobility vehicle being arbitrarily or unnecessarily stopped, questioned, or interrogated by local officials or law enforcement simply because they are young, still can walk short distances, or conform to arbitrary and inaccurate perceptions of “able-bodiedness”.

Secondly, pertaining to the new regulated speed limit of 6 km/hour:

Akin to determining errant or unlawful users of PMAs, there must be caution when enforcing the new speed limit of 6 km/hour.

MOT has noted that the reasons for the new speed limit is because “6 kilometres per hour is the same speed as a brisk walker, so that is a reasonable top speed allowable since PMAs are meant for those with walking difficulties”.   

However, as we have previously highlighted, as there are no regulations or laws banning non-disabled people from running or jogging on public pathways, it is understandable as to why some would render the new speed limit as arbitrary. The purpose of a PMA or mobility vehicle is precisely to assist persons with disabilities who have difficulty walking to travel at paces comparable to non-disabled individuals.

There thus needs to be caution and discretion on how such a speed limit will be enforced.

We thus recommend:

RECOMMENDATION 4: For MOT, LTA, and the relevant government ministries and agencies to establish clear guidelines, the appropriate training, and public education campaigns on the standards that should be utilised when identifying errant and unlawful PMA and mobility vehicle users, as well as to use reasonable discretion when enforcing the new speed limit of PMAs and mobility vehicles.   

LTA and the relevant government ministries and agencies need to develop clear guidelines on how an errant and unlawful PMA/mobility vehicle user will be identified under the new amendments. Such guidelines should clearly outline the methods law enforcement and other officials will use and must not be based in arbitrary perceptions of able-bodiedness. While LTA plans to educate members of the disability community on the new regulations, it is just as important for LTA and the relevant government ministries and agencies to educate the public and to develop public education campaigns to avoid or minimise instances where disabled PMA and mobility vehicle users are wrongly accused of being an errant or unlawful PMA/mobility vehicle user. 

Additionally, we strongly recommend enforcement officials to exercise flexible and reasonable discretion when enforcing the new speed limit. As outlined, over the next few years, PMAs and mobility vehicles that can travel up to 10 km/hour will still be allowed on public pathways given that users of such PMAs and mobility vehicles keep to the 6 km/hour limit. Akin to non-disabled people, disabled PMA and mobility vehicle users will experience moments where travelling at a faster pace is necessary – whether it be for time constraints or in moments of emergency. Disabled PMA and mobility users should not be unfairly penalised in such circumstances.        

—

Building a fairer and more just society means levelling the playing field for those who typically face inequities and societal barriers. This includes establishing policy that makes it easier not harder for groups such as persons with disabilities – including disabled PMA or mobility vehicle users – to navigate our island nation.

The new amendments outlined in the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill (2026) have the positive intent of increasing overall safety – which is important. However, if not enforced or implemented properly, the new amendments may inadvertently lead to disabled PMA and mobility vehicle users experiencing more difficulty and barriers in navigating Singapore.  

We believe the recommendations outlined above are important to minimise any negative unintended consequences from the new amendments and hope that MOT and LTA and the relevant government ministries and agencies strongly consider such recommendations when designing and outlining the implementation and enforcement of the new amendments.