On 7 October, Parliament debated a Bill that, for the first time, regulates batteries for e-scooters, power-assisted bicycles and mobility scooters. I supported it, and asked three questions about what it leaves out: the charger. Both fires in my speech started while a battery was charging on a charger without the SAFETY Mark. The Senior Minister of State's reply is at the end.
My questions at a glance
Will the Government, with the Competition and Consumer Commission, require the charger for a power-assisted bicycle or mobility scooter to be the model tested with it, as it already does for e-scooters and other personal mobility devices?
Will the prescribed criteria for a compatible battery require it to prevent unsafe charging with an incompatible charger, set as an outcome to be tested rather than a single method?
Will chargers for these devices be brought within the Bill's provisions on online marketplaces? If not, which agency will act on a charger listed by a seller overseas, and under which law?
The speech, as delivered
Second Reading of the Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill, 7 October 2026, from Hansard. Section headings and words in [square brackets] are added for readers.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. My short speech is about chargers for PMDs [personal mobility devices, such as e-scooters], PABs [power-assisted bicycles] and mobility scooters. The Bill does not explicitly cover these chargers, and in the spirit of fire prevention I believe it should. My colleague, Mr Abdul Muhaimin, has spoken on the electric-car chargers in Part 2.
Two fires
An 18-year-old student who did delivery work part-time bought a second-hand electric scooter from a stranger, which was unregistered and non-compliant, and came without a battery. He bought one from an online marketplace seller, choosing the cheapest, and borrowed a charger from a friend. That charger was made for a higher-voltage battery and carried no SAFETY Mark, the mark that shows that an electrical product has been tested and registered for sale in Singapore.1
On 9 March 2022, the first time he charged the battery, it overcharged and caught fire in a flat in New Upper Changi Road. A woman aged 26 died. In January, he pleaded guilty to causing death by a negligent act and was jailed for seven months.2 So, the Court has dealt with that part. But this case raises questions about what our rules say about the charger.
The fire safety guide that LTA [the Land Transport Authority] and SCDF [the Singapore Civil Defence Force] publish describes another fire in Bedok North Road. The owner of a power-assisted bicycle had left its battery charging unattended. He was woken by the sound of an explosion and saw smoke coming from the battery. A fire broke out and attempts to put it out failed. Investigations found that the fire started at the battery while a non-original charger, bought from an online marketplace seller and again without the SAFETY Mark, was in use. The guide adds that, on SCDF and LTA's investigations, most fires involving these devices started while a device with non-original parts was charging.3
What the Bill does
So, Part 1 regulates batteries for these devices for the first time. A battery is compatible if it was fitted in and tested together with the device, or is the same brand and model as one that was. Before sale, the seller must display or publish a specification notice naming the compatible devices, the battery's brand and model, and its voltage and capacity. Selling a battery knowing the buyer means to fit it into an incompatible device becomes an offence, as does riding a device powered by such a battery.4
I support these provisions. A battery sold online, as in the one in the New Upper Changi Road case was, will now come with a notice saying which devices it fits. But it says nothing explicit about battery chargers.
Why the battery is not enough
The Ministry may say that regulating the battery is enough, because a compliant battery's management system stops charging when it is full, even on the wrong charger. So, a good battery is the main protection and I agree the Bill should start with it. But it is not enough on its own.
The safety standards treat the battery and charger as one system. UL2272, which LTA requires for PMDs, tests them together and checks that the device stays safe if one part of its charging control fails.5 A wrong charger is one possible failure. So, if the battery's own protection then fails too, nothing stops the overcharge. UL tells users to use only the listed charger,6 and Britain's Office for Product Safety and Standards warns that "not all e-bike and e-scooter batteries and chargers are safe when used together".7
Of the seven fires in the Government's guide, the Bedok North fire is the one where the non-original part was actually the charger. So, rules on batteries alone would not have stopped that charger from being used.8
E-scooter chargers only
Our rules already require a charger to be tested with its device, but only for one kind of device. The Consumer Product Safety Office, under the Competition and Consumer Commission, registers a charger for a PMD under the SAFETY Mark scheme, only if it is the model tested with that device under UL2272.9
But there are no such rules for the chargers of PABs or mobility scooters, which are registered on their own. Yet, EN15194, the European standard LTA applies to power-assisted bicycles, already tests the original charger with the bicycle,10 and the Bedok North fire involved a power-assisted bicycle.
So, my first question: will the Government, with the Competition and Consumer Commission, require the charger for a power-assisted bicycle or mobility scooter to be the model tested with it, as it already does for PMDs?
Preventing unsafe charging
In July 2025, the Consumer Product Safety Office tightened its rules for the tap-off unit, the socket that plugs into a power track. It must now be tested with its track in every position, and one that lets live and neutral swap places can no longer be registered.11
The same approach can apply to batteries. Since clause 7 defines a compatible battery and allows a criterion to be prescribed for it, those criteria could require the battery to prevent unsafe charging with an incompatible charger. They should set that outcome and test it, and leave the method to manufacturers. The methods already exist. Under EnergyBus, a communication standard for light electric vehicles, the battery sends the charger its voltage, current and temperature limits before the charger switches on. Connectors can also be designed to prevent incompatible connections. The Consumer Product Safety Office already lists both as options for high-power adaptors.12
So, my second question: will the prescribed criteria for a compatible battery require it to prevent unsafe charging with an incompatible charger, set as an outcome to be tested rather than a single method?
Chargers sold from overseas
The duty to register a charger falls on an importer or manufacturer in Singapore with an Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority certificate, so one shipped straight to a home by a seller overseas has no registered supplier here. The Consumer Product Safety Office warns that products from overseas may not meet our safety requirements, and that buyers may have limited recourse.
Clause 7 defines an online marketplace by what is sold on it: devices, its components and batteries, but not explicitly chargers.13 My colleagues, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Fadli Fawzi, have asked how LTA will enforce the online provisions against overseas sellers and large platforms. My question is similar. My third question is: will chargers for these devices be brought within the Bill's provisions on online marketplaces? If not, which agency will act on a charger listed by a seller overseas and under which law?
Close
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications on chargers, I support the Bill.
What the Senior Minister of State said in reply
Senior Minister of State Baey Yam Keng replied for the Government at the end of the debate. These are the passages that bear on batteries, chargers and online sellers, verbatim from Hansard, 7 October 2026.
On the battery rules
I thank Members including Mr Kenneth Tiong and Dr Charlene Chen for their support of the battery safety rules.
There were 49 AMD [active mobility device] fires in 2025 alone. A battery that is safe on its own is not necessarily safe when used with a particular device. We must establish that the battery and device can operate safely together. Retailers are responsible for the accuracy of specification notices, and must substantiate their claims if investigated by LTA, such as with information from device or battery manufacturers.
Ms Gho Sze Kee and Ms Hazlina Halim suggested a simple way for users to check if a battery is compatible with a device. LTA already publishes an online list of compatible batteries for approved PAB models and intends to publish similar lists for whitelisted e-scooter and mobility scooter models before the new rules commence. This will provide consumers and retailers with a common reference.
On online and overseas sellers (question 3)
Foreign-based sellers who are not Singapore-connected persons are generally beyond the reach of our laws. Where sellers are within our jurisdiction, LTA can direct them to remove offending content or disable access to users in Singapore. The Bill is calibrated to manage the compliance burden on online marketplace operators. Primary responsibility for compliant sales listings and advertisements rests with sellers. Platforms need not pre-screen listings but must not knowingly participate in publishing unlawful advertisements.
The Bill also allows LTA to require platforms to provide information on sellers. It does not provide a general power to direct platforms to take down listings.
To Mr Ang Wei Neng's and Mr Gabriel Lam's questions on other measures to curb non-compliant devices, existing import controls will remain the main safeguard against access to and use of such devices in Singapore.
Enterprise Singapore media release, 28 March 2025: buyers should check for "the SAFETY Mark, which indicates that the product has undergone safety-related testing and certification". CPSO, Shopping for safe products online, updated 19 May 2026: "General household items such as electrical, electronic, and gas appliances must carry a valid SAFETY Mark before they can be sold in Singapore." The CPSO Information Booklet (p. 2): "The CPSO is an office of the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore ("CCS")".
IBTimes Singapore, 28 January 2026; the same proceedings were reported by The Straits Times and carried by Singapore Law Watch. The accused pleaded guilty before District Judge Shen Wanqin on 28 January 2026 to causing death by a negligent act and was sentenced to seven months' jail; the prosecution had sought four to six months. The fire, on 9 March 2022 at Block 27 New Upper Changi Road, killed a 26-year-old woman. He was then 18, "then a student who did delivery work part-time", and had switched from a bicycle to an electric scooter "for convenience". The e-scooter was "secondhand, unregistered and non-compliant", bought from an unknown seller. The battery was bought "from the online marketplace Carousell for S$290, choosing it solely because it was the cheapest option". The charger was "borrowed from a friend", "was not registered with Enterprise Singapore and did not carry the required safety mark", and "was meant for batteries with higher voltage, resulting in the battery being overcharged and going into thermal runaway".
Active Mobility Fire Safety Taskforce, co-chaired by LTA and SCDF, Be Device-Safe infopack. P. 2, Case Study 1, Bedok North Road: "Investigations revealed that that fire originated from the battery of the PAB and a non-original charger (without Safety Mark) bought from an online marketplace seller was used at the time of the fire." The infopack gives no date for the fire. The case study begins: "The owner was awoken by the sound of explosion and saw smoke emitting from his Power-Assisted Bicycle (PAB) battery which was left charging unattended. A fire broke out from the device and attempts to put out the fire were unsuccessful." Also p. 2: "Based on investigations conducted by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA), majority of active mobility device-related fires originated from charging of devices with non-original parts. This includes modifications to batteries, device electrical circuitry, and irresponsible charging behaviours." Of the guide's seven case studies (pp. 2-7), Case Studies 2, 4, 5 and 7 name a non-original battery, Case Studies 3 and 6 name modifications to the device's circuitry or controller, and Case Study 1 names the charger. P. 10: "Do use a power adaptor that carries the Safety Mark and is recommended by the manufacturer." P. 11: "if an active mobility device causes a fire that results in property damage or death, the owner may face further prosecution by the relevant authorities."
Bill 21/2026, clause 7, new definitions in s29(1) of the Active Mobility Act 2017: for a personal mobility device or a PAB, a "compatible mobility device battery" is "a mobility device battery fitted in and tested together with" the device (or another of the same brand and model) "to meet the safety standards prescribed", or "another mobility device battery of the same brand and model", in each case one "which meets the prescribed criteria (if any)"; for a mobility vehicle, the battery installed by the manufacturer, one "endorsed by the manufacturer as being suitable for use with the mobility vehicle", or one of the same brand and model. Clause 11, new s31A: a seller at premises must display, and a seller through an online marketplace (whether or not in the course of business) must publish before purchase, a specification notice that "sets out the prescribed information relating to the mobility device battery, including but not limited to" the brand and model of every device for which it is compatible, the brand and model of the battery, and its voltage and capacity (s31A(7)(a)). Clause 16: new s34A (fitting a non-compatible battery, or riding or using a device powered by one: up to $2,000 or 3 months) and s34B (selling a battery knowing, or reckless as to whether, the buyer intends to fit it into a device for which it is not compatible: up to $20,000 or 24 months for an individual). Part 1 of the Bill does not mention chargers.
UL Standards & Engagement, E-scooter Hazard Sheet, on the overcharge test in UL 2272: it "Evaluates an e-scooter's ability to withstand overcharging under non-fault and single-fault conditions in the charging control circuitry. The device is charged until the voltage has reached 110% of the maximum specified voltage limit and/or until two hours after monitored temperatures return to ambient or steady state conditions." UL describes UL 2272 as evaluating "the safety of the electrical drive train system and battery and charger system combinations" (UL, Introducing UL 2272, 1st edition, 2016). LTA's guidance: "Ensure that the PMD complies to the UL2272 standard, i.e. PMD should be in original/stock condition" (Be Device-Safe infopack, p. 10). The step in the speech from this test to a wrong charger, that a charger made for a different battery uses up the single fault the test allows for, is the speech's reasoning from the design of the test, not a statement by UL.
UL Standards & Engagement, Buying an Electric Bike for Your Teen? Read This First, 4 May 2026: "Only use the charger that comes with the e-bike or e-scooter. Don't be tempted by cheap replacement chargers as they can present a fire risk if they are not compatible with the batteries."
Office for Product Safety and Standards (United Kingdom), Buy safe, be safe: avoid e-bike and e-scooter fires, updated 24 October 2024: "Make sure your charger is suitable for your battery, as not all e-bike or e-scooter batteries and chargers are safe when used together." Also: "Connecting the wrong charger to a battery can pose serious fire risks."
Active Mobility Fire Safety Taskforce, co-chaired by LTA and SCDF, Be Device-Safe infopack, pp. 2-7: of the guide's seven case studies, Case Studies 2, 4, 5 and 7 name a non-original battery, Case Studies 3 and 6 name modifications to the device's circuitry or controller, and Case Study 1, Bedok North Road, names the charger.
Consumer Product Safety Office, Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations Information Booklet, edition updated 24 June 2026, additional requirement #20 (p. 24; #17 in editions before June 2026): for an "AC adaptor to be used with/ bundled together with Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs)", the Registered Supplier "shall declare the model of the AC adaptor" and "shall provide the UL 2272 test report as a supporting document, showing that the listed AC adaptor in the UL 2272 test report is the model declared to be used with/ bundled together with the PMDs". UL describes UL 2272 as evaluating "the safety of the electrical drive train system and battery and charger system combinations" (UL, Introducing UL 2272, 1st edition, 2016). Appendix E, item 4 (p. 59): registration of an adaptor "does not cover the other products", and a shared package must state "This SAFETY Mark applies to the AC Adaptor only".
The CPSO Information Booklet contains no counterpart to its requirement #20 (note 9) for the chargers of PABs or mobility vehicles; AC adaptors are medium-risk Controlled Goods (p. 9), and IEC 60335-2-29 is the standard listed "for battery chargers" (p. 11). LTA requires PABs sealed and registered from 1 July 2021 to comply with EN 15194:2017 (LTA OneMotoring, power-assisted bicycles, updated 3 July 2026); the standard's scope covers "electrical circuits including the charging system" (the scope as BSI publishes it for the 2009 edition, amended 2011).
CPSO Information Booklet (as above), additional requirement #34 (p. 28; #31 when it was added), with effect from 1 July 2025 (Appendix O, item 9, p. 73): the testing laboratory must "test the tap off unit together with its track for any reversal of live-neutral polarities in all orientations", and "A tap off unit that allows reversal of live-neutral polarities in its sockets is not allowed to be registered." The booklet lists the "Power track's socket outlet tap-off unit" among portable socket-outlets (p. 15).
The "prescribed criteria (if any)" appear in each limb of the definition of "compatible mobility device battery" (clause 7). EnergyBus is described as "a CANopen-based communication standard" for light electric vehicles: the battery controller "reads the relevant data from the battery and writes them into the charger", including the "Type of battery", "max/min voltage", "max current" and "max/min temperature", and "At start-up of the charging procedure the voltage of the charger is switched on" (EnergyBus charging procedure, embedded-communication.com). The IEC published two technical specifications on such communication on 18 July 2023: IEC TS 61851-3-4, which "applies to CANopen communication for the conductive transfer of electric power between the supply network and an electric road vehicle or a removable rechargeable energy storage system (RESS)" (IEC webstore), and IEC TS 61851-3-5, on "Pre-defined communication parameters and general application objects" (IEC webstore). A battery protection chip of the kind used in such packs, such as Texas Instruments' BQ76952, a "3-s to 16-s high-accuracy battery monitor and protector", monitors cell voltages, current and temperature and switches off the charging path on over-voltage, over-current or over-temperature; recognising an incompatible charger before charging starts is a further design step, which communication of the EnergyBus kind provides. A matching connector prevents only the mismatches it is designed to prevent: a charger built with the same connector is not thereby electrically compatible. For a related risk, CPSO's circular CPSO-070923-11 (booklet, Appendix I, pp. 64-65) requires suppliers of AC adaptors that can deliver more than 100W, tested to IEC 62368-1 edition 3.0 or earlier, to give assurance that the adaptor will only be used with suitable equipment, by "handshaking methods such as Extended Power Range (EPR)", by "Designing the AC adaptor's connectors such that it can only be connected to intended equipment", by a warning label, or by supplying the adaptor only bundled with specified equipment; suppliers "may propose alternate methods". The circular mandates neither method generally, and under edition 4.0 of the standard it expects most such adaptors to comply without further requirements.
Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations, regulation 5(1): the duty to register falls on "Any importer or manufacturer in Singapore who intends, in the course of any trade or business, to supply or advertise for supply any controlled goods in Singapore", and the CPSO Information Booklet (p. 36) requires a certificate "issued by ACRA". CPSO, Shopping for safe products online, updated 19 May 2026: "products from overseas may not meet Singapore's safety requirements. You may also have limited recourse if issues arise." The Bill's "online marketplace" (clause 7) is a platform that allows a person to sell "(a) any personal mobility device, PAB, bicycle or mobility vehicle; (b) any component intended for assembly with any vehicle mentioned in paragraph (a); (c) any mobility device battery".