Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.08 pm

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time.”

The Road Traffic Act, or RTA, provides for the regulation of road traffic and vehicles.

The most recent amendments were by MOT. In 2017, MOT introduced changes to the autonomous vehicle testing regime. In 2018, the RTA was updated along with the introduction of the Active Mobility Act. MHA also amended the RTA in 2014 to make it an offence for motorists to hold any type of mobile communication device while driving.

While the RTA has been updated regularly, the last comprehensive review was conducted more than 20 years ago, in 1996. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2019 is therefore timely. To make our roads safer, we need stronger deterrence against irresponsible driving. We will do this by: (a) enhancing the criminal penalties for irresponsible driving; and (b) tightening the regulatory regime against irresponsible driving.

I will speak first on enhancing criminal penalties. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, who will be speaking in her Home Affairs capacity, will cover measures to tighten the regulatory regime, as well as other amendments for better road safety.

Let me start with some background. In recent years, the Traffic Police and LTA have stepped up enforcement, education and engagement, to improve road safety. Traffic Police have upgraded and expanded its enforcement camera network. Earlier this year, Traffic Police raised the composition sums for road traffic violations to ensure they remain effective deterrents. LTA has installed new road safety infrastructure. In addition, Traffic Police and LTA ramped up public education and engagement, working with partners such as the Singapore Road Safety Council.

These efforts have shown encouraging results. Over the past five years, the number of fatal road traffic accidents has dropped more than 20%. There are also fewer road traffic accidents resulting in injuries.

However, irresponsible driving remains a big concern. The number of feedback letters received on irresponsible driving has increased by more than 70% in five years. We also see more video footage of such behaviour being shared online.

Why is this a problem? Because irresponsible driving can have deadly consequences. Even if victims survive the accident, they, or their families, may suffer long-term problems – sometimes, medical; sometimes, permanent disabilities.

In February 2016, a 62-year-old rag-and-bone lady was killed after a drink-driver rammed his vehicle into her. The lady was the main caregiver to her nine-year old grandson, who was suffering from a rare auto-immune condition. The driver had been drinking for nine straight hours before the accident. Earlier this year, Staff Sgt Salinah, a Police officer and young mother to three children, was knocked down at a pedestrian crossing. After she was declared brain dead, her husband had to make the difficult decision to take her off life support. Her husband said his children still miss their mother the most around bedtime. These are heart-wrenching tragedies that could been avoided.

Enforcement, education and road safety infrastructure must certainly continue to be improved. But we also need stronger deterrence against irresponsible driving.

MHA reviewed the existing framework of criminal offences and penalties against irresponsible driving. In February this year, we announced our proposals and sought public feedback. In particular, there was broad support for the enhanced penalties. Many felt the move was timely.

We also received suggestions, some of which have been adopted and others which we intend to address. I will highlight these suggestions and clarifications in due course.

Mr Speaker, all of the proposals announced in February have been translated into the Bill. There are three broad categories of changes: first, our overall approach in dealing with irresponsible driving offences, particularly those that result in accidents and hurt; second, enhancements to the criminal penalties for drink-driving and related offences; and third, the introduction of minimum mandatory sentences for the most egregious offences.

I will start with our enhanced approach towards irresponsible driving offences. Today, irresponsible driving offences are prosecuted in two ways. One way is under the Penal Code, for Rash Act and Negligent Act. Another way is under the RTA, for Reckless or Dangerous Driving, and Driving without Due Care or Reasonable Consideration. The penalties differ.

For better clarity and consistency, we propose to consolidate irresponsible driving offences under the RTA. We will also streamline the offences into two classes: the first category is Reckless or Dangerous Driving, which I will refer to as Dangerous Driving in the rest of the speech. The second category is Driving without Due Care or Reasonable Consideration, which I will refer to as Careless Driving.

The definitions of Dangerous Driving and Careless Driving are currently in the RTA. We will maintain the current definitions.

Dangerous Driving is more serious than Careless Driving. The two can be differentiated, on a case-by-case basis. The three main considerations, among others, are as follows.

First, whether the manner of driving predictably puts other road users at risk and cause other road users to be unable to react in time. Examples of driving that are considered as dangerous, as opposed to careless, include swerving across lanes suddenly and without warning, driving against the flow of traffic and speeding.

Second, whether the motorist had driven, even though he should have known he was not in a condition to drive safely.

Second, whether the motorist had driven, even though he should have known he was not in a condition to drive safely. Examples of behaviour that are considered dangerous include using mobile devices while driving and failing to use visual aids such as spectacles even though he is seriously short-sighted.

Third, whether the road situation required the motorist to take extra care but he did not. Examples include when he is approaching a zebra crossing, or a junction where other road users have the right of way.

When determining the punishment, we will look at the circumstances under which the offence is committed. The threshold for Dangerous Driving is higher than Careless Driving; so too the penalties.

Besides looking at the circumstances of the offence, our enhanced approach will also consider the level of harm caused. If the motorist causes more harm, the level of punishment will be higher.

There will be four levels of harm: Death, Grievous Hurt, Hurt and Endangering Life. Such tiering of harm is not new in our laws – the Penal Code already has it.

To summarise, we will enhance our overall approach to penalise irresponsible driving depending on: (a) the circumstances of the offence – whether it constitutes Dangerous Driving or Careless Driving; and (b) the level of harm caused – whether they result in Death, Grievous Hurt, Hurt, or Endangering Life.

Let me move on to the penalties themselves. Today, our penalties for irresponsible driving offences are generally less severe than in other jurisdictions. For example, for Dangerous Driving causing Death. The maximum jail term in Singapore is only five years. It is 14 years in the UK, 10 years in New South Wales in Australia, Hong Kong as well as Malaysia. In most instances, the actual sentences meted out are lower than the maximum penalties. In recent times, there were at least two separate instances of a motorist beating the red light, colliding into and killing another person. In the April 2017 case, a pedestrian was killed. In the April 2018 case, the vehicle collided into another car, killing the rear passenger. Both motorists were charged for the offence of Dangerous Driving causing Death. Their sentences were five and seven months of imprisonment. These are manifestly inadequate. Therefore, we intend to raise the penalties. We also need to raise sentencing norms for egregious irresponsible driving offences, particularly those that result in death or some form of permanent disabilities.

Let me first deal with penalties in general. Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill amend sections 64 and 65 to introduce higher maximum jail terms and fines, where applicable, as compared to the existing penalties under the Penal Code and RTA. We will also introduce additional levers to take irresponsible motorists off the roads more quickly and for longer.

First, we will give Traffic Police the discretion to impose immediate suspension for all Dangerous Driving offences, as well as Careless Driving offences that cause Death or Grievous Hurt. Otherwise, these motorists can continue to drive until such time that they are convicted. Traffic Police already have the discretion to do so for offences that result in death, serious injury or serious damage to buildings. Clause 11 amends section 47C to cover all cases of Dangerous Driving as well.

Second, we will introduce minimum disqualification or DQ periods for offences that cause Death and Grievous Hurt. In exceptional circumstances, such as where the motorist committed the offence while rushing for a medical emergency, the Courts will have the discretion not to apply the minimum DQ periods. Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill amend sections 64 and 65 for these purposes.

Third, the Public Prosecutor may apply for forfeiture of a vehicle used for an expanded group of offences, such as Dangerous Driving causing Death or Grievous Hurt. Clauses 3 and 15 bring this into effect. For these offences, the Courts will have the discretion not to forfeit the vehicle if the offender is not the vehicle owner and had driven the vehicle without the owner’s consent. In addition, for specified offences, the Courts will also have the discretion not to forfeit the vehicle, if there are good reasons. For instance, if the motorist has committed the offence while rushing to the hospital for a medical emergency.

With these changes, for Dangerous Driving causing Death, a first-time offender will be liable for up to eight years of imprisonment, up from five years at present. Repeat offenders will now be liable for up to 15 years of imprisonment. In addition, a first-time or repeat offender could also face a minimum DQ period of 10 years as well as immediate suspension and forfeiture of vehicle.

As we are consolidating irresponsible driving offences under RTA, we should make clear the understanding of “repeat offender”. It will include a person who has a previous conviction for any Rash or Negligent Act offence in the Penal Code where irresponsible driving was involved. Likewise, any Dangerous Driving or Careless Driving convictions under the RTA, or speeding-related convictions are included. Speeding-related convictions will include offences such as Illegal Speed Trials, colloquially known as illegal street racing, which have been tried and convicted by the Courts. However, it will not include speeding-related offences which have been compounded, which is the way most minor speeding offences are settled today.

Mr Speaker, I will now turn to the amendments for driving under influence. Drivers who are drunk or drug-impaired show a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users. They are one of the biggest contributors to serious accidents on our roads. These are also accidents that clearly could have been avoided if the motorist had not come under influence or did not drive. Currently, such motorists typically face the same maximum penalties as other motorists who cause accidents. The judge may take into consideration that the offender was driving under influence during the sentencing itself. But it would be clearer to have our intentions codified in law. In fact, our intention is for offenders driving under influence to face stiffer penalties to signal the aggravated seriousness of their actions.

In August 2013, a motorist drove his car at high speeds, swaying between lanes along CTE. Eventually, he rammed into a group of five, killing four victims. He was sentenced to the maximum penalty of five years in jail for dangerous driving causing death, the maximum punishment available. The Court could not mete out higher penalties even though he had knowingly consumed drugs before driving and was a recalcitrant offender. We therefore propose to introduce additional penalties for a motorist who commit a Dangerous Driving or Careless Driving offence, and who is found guilty for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; or had refused to take a breathalyser or blood alcohol test when directed by Traffic Police. These will be in the form of additional maximum penalties and additional minimum DQ periods.

For example, a first-time offender who causes death by Dangerous Driving and had done so while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs will face an additional maximum jail term of two years, and an additional minimum DQ period of two years. This means that motorists who drink-and-drive, and cause death by Dangerous Driving will now be liable for a maximum jail term of 10 years, and to a minimum DQ period of at least 12 years. Repeat offenders will likewise face higher penalties of up to 19 years in jail and lifetime disqualification from driving. An individual will be deemed a repeat offender for an offence of driving under influence, if he has a previous conviction for driving under influence, for being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or for failure to produce a specimen for a drug or alcohol test.

Mr Speaker, during the public engagement process, respondents felt that even a standalone driving under influence offence where no accident is caused, should attract higher penalties to better reflect its gravity.

We agree with this view. The consumption of alcohol or drugs already makes a motorist a danger to other road users. Section 67 in Clause 17 of the Bill will raise the penalties to about double the current levels. We will also raise the existing minimum DQ period to two years for first-time driving under influence offenders and five years for second-time driving under influence offenders. A lifelong disqualification will be imposed on third-time driving under influence offenders. In addition, we will amend section 47C through clause 11 to allow Traffic Police to impose immediate suspension for all driving under influence offences.

Mr Speaker, some Members may rightly point out that the penalties, particularly those for first-time offenders, are still lower than those in other jurisdictions. How exactly then does MHA intend to raise the sentencing norms for irresponsible driving offences? This is where the last category of changes come in.

We will set benchmarks based on egregious offences where manifestly inadequate jail sentences must be avoided. We will introduce mandatory minimum jail sentences, or MMS, for Dangerous Driving causing Death or Grievous Hurt. With the changes, a first-time offender for Dangerous Driving causing Death will be jailed for at least two years. Repeat offenders will be jailed for at least four years. We will also have mandatory minimum jail sentences for the offences of Dangerous Driving causing Death or Grievous Hurt, where driving under influence is involved. A first-time offender who causes death will be jailed for at least three years. Repeat offenders can face minimum sentences of up to six years in jail.

Take for example, the case of the 62-year-old rag-and-bone lady, whom I mentioned earlier, and she was killed by a drink-driver. The offender had been drinking for nine straight hours and was charged for the offence of causing death by a rash act. During sentencing, also taken into consideration were one count of drink-driving and another count of causing grievous hurt to the dead victim’s husband by a rash act. In all, against a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, he received a term of 10 months and disqualification of eight years. Many people felt rightly that the motorist was let off too lightly. With the changes, the offender will be sentenced to at least three years in jail, if he is convicted of both Dangerous Driving causing Death and driving under influence. The minimum disqualification will also be lengthened to 12 years.

Mr Speaker, after we had tabled the Bill for First Reading, we received additional feedback. Some respondents noted that while mandatory minimum jail sentences were justified for egregious offenders, there may be rare but valid cases where exceptional extenuating circumstances prevail and where imposing the minimum jail sentence may result in an unfair punishment. These concerns are valid. We need not prescribe the extenuating instances in law. Instead, we have introduced an amendment to the Bill to provide the Courts with discretion to deviate from and impose a sentence lower than the mandatory minimum jail sentence terms should there be special reasons to do so. Special reasons must constitute exceptional mitigating factors or circumstances specific to the case. For example, the offender was rushing to send a passenger for emergency medical treatment in a life-and-death situation when the accident occurred.

Mr Speaker, motorists who have a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users should be severely punished. During our public engagement, some respondents asked if punishments for inconsiderate non-motorists should also be increased. The road situation today is more complex as compared to 20 years ago when the last major review was conducted. There are new groups of road users, such as active mobility device users or new types of vocational drivers and riders. Motorists alone cannot be held responsible for the road safety of all road users. These amendments, therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation.

MHA has been working with our counterparts at MOT and MOM, to address other aspects of road safety such as active mobility and vocational drivers. For example, the composition fines for traffic violations by pedestrians and cyclists were raised recently.

As I mentioned earlier, Traffic Police and LTA have taken steps beyond enforcement. Engagement and education do help to rehabilitate errant road users. However, where an act is dangerous and causes harm to others, we should not let it go lightly punished. Doing so will only undermine our road safety regime.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is necessary to help make our roads safer, by enhancing deterrence against irresponsible driving. I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.31 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mrs Josephine Teo, has outlined MHA’s rationale behind enhancing criminal penalties for irresponsible driving. I will now be speaking in my capacity as Senior Parliamentary Secretary for MHA, and explain the Ministry’s views on the remaining amendments.

First, I will cover the measures to tighten the regulatory regime against irresponsible driving; and second, other minor amendments to improve road safety.

The Traffic Police operate the Driver Improvement Points System, DIPS for short. Under this regime, a motorist clocks demerit points when he commits a traffic offence – the more severe the offence, the more demerit points it will attract. Motorists that exceed a stipulated threshold will have their licences suspended.

The DIPS regime is a deterrent against risk-taking behaviour that is dangerous to other road users, such as illegal U-turns, speeding, and beating red-lights.

MHA intends to enhance the DIPS regime to further deter risk-taking behaviour by motorists. There are four key measures. First, to streamline the licence suspension and revocation process; second, to lengthen the licence suspension period for repeat offenders; third, to revoke all of an individual’s probationary licences, as long as any one of them is revoked; and fourth, to allow the Courts to consider past compounded road traffic offences as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing a person convicted of a road traffic offence.

I will cover each of the measures in turn.

First, to streamline the suspension and revocation process. Currently, some errant motorists delay the suspension or revocation of their licences by misusing the appeals mechanism. They file multiple unmerited appeals at different junctures and through different channels. By doing so, they drag out the process, so that they can continue to drive in the interim. But we need to remember, these are irresponsible drivers who have already been picked up for multiple offences leading to a suspension or revocation. To allow them to continue driving while they drag out the appeal process, is to put other motorists at risk.

We will amend the RTA to make it clear that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, or DCP for short, is allowed to effect licence suspension or revocation four weeks from the date of its notice to the affected motorist. Motorists can still appeal to DCP. Police where possible will process and respond to an appeal within two weeks of receiving the appeal. However, DCP will have the power to suspend or revoke the licence four weeks after the date of its notice, even if the appeal is still being processed. For example, there are cases where the motorist only submits an appeal close to four weeks after receiving the notice. The DCP may still suspend or revoke the licence first and subsequently rescind the suspension or revocation if there are valid grounds to do so.

We need to bear in mind that to be facing a suspension or revocation, the errant motorist will already have committed several offences prior.

Mr Speaker, at this point, I would like to highlight that Traffic Police only suspend or revoke an individual’s licence, when there are good reasons to do so.

First, a suspension or revocation is imposed only when objective criteria are met. For suspension, this usually happens when the motorist has breached the demerit point threshold – either 24 or 12 points, depending on how many prior suspensions he has had. For revocation, this happens when he is on probation and has clocked more than 12 demerit points.

Second, for Traffic Police to mete out demerit points to a motorist, one of two conditions must apply. First, the Courts have convicted the motorist of the offence. Or two, the motorist has compounded the offence he is reasonably suspected to have committed. This means that the motorist would have already had a previous opportunity to appeal against these individual offences, by either contesting it in Court or appealing to Traffic Police during an offer of composition, before the demerit points were awarded to him.

Third, motorists who are caught committing a road traffic violation also typically have little reason to dispute against the violation. Traffic Police only take enforcement action when they are strong grounds that an offence has been made out. For a majority of offences, the evidence typically comes in the form of photographic or video evidence or by detection from Traffic Police’s enforcement unit.

I would also like to speak on appeals in general. A number of affected motorists appeal against suspension or revocation on the basis that they need to drive as part of their job. Actually, if an individual depends on driving to make a living, that is all the more reason for him to drive safely and for him to be off the roads if he is unable or unwilling to do so. Traffic Police, as part of the overall road safety strategy, offer motorists the opportunity to improve their driving behaviour through retraining courses.

Firstly, motorists who accumulate more than one-third of the maximum allowable demerit points are offered the opportunity to attend the Safe Driving Course, an early intervention measure for those who have exhibited unsafe driving behaviours. Upon completion of the course, motorists will have four demerit points expunged from their records.

Secondly, motorists who are liable for their first and second suspensions are offered the opportunity to attend the Driver Improvement Point System Retraining Course, also known as the DIPS Retraining Course, which is a rehabilitation course to help errant motorists re-learn and practise safe driving habits. Upon successfully passing the course, motorists will have their suspension periods reduced significantly.

Mr Speaker, I would now like to address the second measure – lengthen the licence suspension period for serial offenders. We propose to amend the RTA to allow Traffic Police to suspend an individual’s licence for up to five years – from up to three years currently. To put this in perspective, the upper scale of the suspension applies to very serious serial offenders. For instance, with the change, motorists who are facing their sixth suspension, which is equivalent to accumulating demerit points from at least seven red-light beating offences in a short span of time, will have their licence suspended for four years. Those who are facing their seventh or more suspension will have their licence suspended for five years. As you can see, these are recalcitrant offenders who are a real danger on the roads to themselves, to other motorists and road users. Subsidiary legislation will be prescribed to stipulate the length of the suspension period based on the number of previous suspensions. That there are drivers who have been slapped with six or more suspensions may sound unbelievable, but I assure you, it is not unheard of. In 2018 alone, there were seven such motorists.

I now move to the third measure – revoking all of an individual’s probationary licences, as long as any one of them is revoked. At present, under certain circumstances, a motorist may continue to hold probationary licences for other vehicle classes even though one of his probationary licence has been revoked.

This is a gap that should be addressed. Traffic Police expect a motorist to take extra care to drive safely when he is on probation, given his relative inexperience. If he breaches the demerit point threshold for any of his probationary licences, for the safety of other road users, he should no longer be allowed to drive any vehicle for which he holds a probationary licence.

The fourth measure is to allow the Courts to consider past compounded road traffic offences as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing a person convicted of a road traffic offence. A person’s record of compounded offences is a useful indicator of his driving behaviour.

Mr Speaker, MHA would also like to make three other amendments.

The first pertains to the definition of animals, and the obligations of motorists when accidents involving animals occur. The current definition of animals, which is restricted to an exhaustive list of farm animals such as cattle, horses and dogs, is archaic and not relevant to our context. We will remove this definition, and instead will rely on the general definition of the word.

Motorists will be obliged to stop their vehicle, only if it is safe to do so, and render any necessary assistance in accidents involving animals in two scenarios.

First, if the body of the animal or carcass is a road safety hazard, motorists should take steps to alert other road users to the obstruction. For example, in road accidents involving wild boars, the carcass is likely to result in some obstruction to vehicles.

Second, if there is reasonable belief that the animal may have an owner, motorists should make attempts to inform the owner or the Police, for example, in road accidents involving dogs that are wearing a collar.

Mr Speaker, the second amendment pertains to physical driving licences. Today, Traffic Police no longer rely on physical licences to ascertain an individual's driving qualifications. Traffic Police can access this information back-end, using an individual’s NRIC and date of birth.

Therefore, as part of the effort towards digitisation, TP plan to issue physical driving licences to motorists only upon request. Hence, we will amend the RTA to remove existing requirements for individuals to surrender their physical licences, if they do not have one.

The third amendment pertains to the penalties for riding without a helmet. At present, section 74 of the RTA subjects motorcyclists and pillion riders who do not wear helmets to a fine of up to $200. This penalty is less severe than those of other similar offences in the RTA such as failing to wear a proper seat belt or making an illegal U-turn, which attract a jail term of up to three months and a fine of up to $1,000. We will raise the penalties for riding without a helmet to the same level.

Mr Speaker, the amendments I have outlined will complement the enhanced criminal penalties against irresponsible driving, as well as our overall strategy towards road safety. This Bill will make our roads safer, by increasing deterrence against irresponsible driving. Thank you.

3.44 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, when a person drives, he or she is in charge of something very heavy and very powerful: able to barrel down the street at great speed. But the road is shared among many users; road conditions dynamic. Dangerous or careless driving puts the driver's own life at risk and pedestrians crossing the road or walking on the pavement at risk. Their actions leave a lasting impact on the victims' lives, their families and even sometimes their own lives.

In May 2018, a driver looked down briefly, veered towards the right, mounted a kerb, colliding into the centre median, a sign and a couple of railings. The accident left his passenger tetraplegic and bedbound, a condition likely to be permanent. In June 2018, while en route home to Singapore from Malaysia, a family got into an accident. The parents passed away from the accident, leaving behind two young children. In June 2014, a five-year-old boy had to spend more than 100 days in hospital and was permanently paralysed on the right side of his body after a delivery driver failed to keep a proper look-out or a safe distance on the expressway.

These real life stories drive home the importance of driving responsibly.

This Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill prevents and deters road traffic offences as well as calibrates the punishment to achieve a more accurate form of justice in the particular situation.

Allow me, Sir, before I move on to other aspects of the Bill to also speak up on behalf of drivers and pedestrians. PMDs travelling fast and recklessly, sometimes dart out onto the road from pavements. Such a startling appearance on road crossings causes immense danger to the drivers of vehicles and other road users, and can cause death or serious injury.

Pedestrians too suffer at the hands of reckless PMD users. So, while the focus of this Bill, which I support, is to make driving more safe, I hope the authorities and the Courts can consider the serious role of reckless PMD users in causing accidents on our roads and on our pedestrian or road crossings. That should reduce the culpability of the driver of the vehicle.

The other concern I have, before going in particular the details of this Bill, is about turning into a road where the traffic light is green, while at the same time a green man allows a pedestrian to cross the same road. The presence of a green light and a simultaneous green man can cause confusion and accidents can happen. To avoid such confusion, would the rules allow for a green arrow to be coupled with a red man, or a green man to be coupled with a red arrow? This will make the road safer for drivers and pedestrians, if needed this is possible and the traffic flow allows for such permutations.

Sir, this Bill prevents further road traffic offences by providing for disqualification for longer periods and for more offences in clauses 13, 14 and 17. Such offences include certain instances of dangerous driving, driving without due care and drink-driving. There are also longer suspension periods under clause 8. In particular, the new section 46(2)(b) also allows a licence to be suspended after the person completes a prescribed course on safe driving. This prevents further road traffic offences not just by taking the driver off the road for a certain amount of time but also by correcting certain driving practices.

In relation to disqualification periods, is there supposed to be a difference between how the new section 65(6) and the new section 64(2D) operates? The words of both proposed sections are the same but the relevant paragraphs in the explanatory statements are different. The second paragraph on clause 13 in the Explanatory Statement states that the disqualification periods "serve as a guide to the court as the court retains discretion whether to order the disqualification or depart from what is in the section." On the other hand, the second paragraph on clause 14 says that "Under the amended section 65, a court that convicted a person of an offence under subsection (1) must in certain cases order that the person be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period starting on the date of the person's conviction, or the date of the person's release from prison." Would the Minister or the Senior Parliamentary Secretary kindly clarify how these proposed sections would operate?

Disqualifications do not just prevent future traffic offences, they also deter potential traffic offences from happening. This second theme of the Bill can also be seen in enhanced punishments and the forfeiture of vehicles.

One of the crimes that has enhanced punishment is section 67 driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Every month for the first nine months of 2018, one person lost his or her life to an accident related to drink-driving. Although the number of persons arrested for drink-driving decreased by 3.7% in 2018 compared to 2017, if I am not mistaken, the number of drink-driving accidents increased by 17.3%, with the proportion of motorcyclists increasing by 51.3%. Under clause 17, the punishment for drink-driving is roughly doubled. Instead of a minimum period of 12 months disqualification, the amended section 67(2) provides for two years for a first offender and five years for repeat offenders. The new section 65AA under clause 15 also provides for forfeiture of the vehicle in certain circumstances, such as where the driver was drink-driving and whose reckless driving or driving without due care caused death or grievous hurt.

Besides ensuring that there is sufficient deterrence against drink-driving, we should also ensure that the victim of a drink-driving accident can obtain compensation. When I asked the Minister for Transport in October last year during a Parliamentary Question, the reply was "Insurance policies cannot be restricted from paying out for such liabilities incurred from drink-driving." However, at least some motor insurance policies have exemption clauses that say that the insurance company "shall not be liable in respect of: 1. Any accident, loss, damage or liability caused sustained or incurred:… (b) whilst any Insured Vehicle in respect of which indemnity is provided by this Policy is: …(iii) being driven by the Policyholder or by any person on the order of or with the permission of the Policyholder whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs."

The victim in drink-driving accidents are put in a hard position as the drink-driver may not have enough money on hand to pay the victim. This would be exacerbated if the drink-driver’s vehicle is forfeited under clause 15 of this Bill as the drink-driver would be less able to secure a loan. I am not saying that you should not forfeit the vehicle. I am in favour of forfeiting the vehicle. My concern is for the victim of a drink-driving accident being compensated.

Therefore, I ask the Ministry does the Ministry have any plans to ensure that there is support for victims of drink-driving accidents, whether it be ensuring that there be financial compensation or whether it be counselling to overcome any trauma from the incident?

Besides controlling the situation through the introduction of deterrent, preventive and calibrated punishment regimes, what is the demographic of the drivers for the bulk of accidents and apprehensions made due to traffic offences? According to the General Insurance Association’s review in 2018, the 4% dip in accident reports was largely attributable to fewer private-hire cars and taxis on the road. How are road safety education and campaign efforts effectively targeting these more "at-risk" demographics? What are the common root reasons for accidents? When there is change in traffic lights or roads, what is being done to lower the risk of accidents happening? Also, what plans does the Ministry have to enhance road safety to keep up with changing challenges such as a possible increase in delivery motor-bicycles, cyclists and even users of e-scooters or other personal mobility devices who choose to flout the rules against riding on the roads?

Another group of offences with enhanced penalties I would like to draw attention to is that of driving without a licence, or employing or permitting another to drive without a licence, under suspension, or under disqualification. The punishments have been raised significantly. For example, in the case of driving without a licence or permitting or employing someone to drive without a licence, the current section 43 of the Road Traffic Act does not specify a penalty. According to section 131, the penalty for offences without a specified penalty would be a fine not exceeding $1,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding three months for the first offence and a fine not exceeding $2,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding six months for subsequent offences. A lot of "not exceeding" in that sentence.

But clause 2 of the Bill raises the penalty for these offences to a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding three years for the first offence and a fine up to $20,000 and/or imprisonment up to six years for subsequent offences. What is the rationale for raising the penalties? Will the proposed enhanced punishment be overly harsh on individuals who may have unknowingly driven a vehicle without a licence? For example, those above the age of 65 who were unaware that their licence had expired, or whatever the age cap for that is.

The third theme of the Bill I want to speak on is calibration. This Bill better calibrates the punishment meted out for the particular circumstance. This is most evident by the punishment regime in clauses 13 and 14 relating to dangerous driving and driving without due care in sections 64 and 65. The Bill calibrates it according to culpability, aggravating factor of drink-driving or some other serious offence, gravity of hurt caused, and whether or not the offender is recalcitrant.

Why is unauthorised speed trials and competition pegged to driving without due care or reasonable consideration under the new section 65(5)(a) and (b) and not reckless or dangerous driving under the new section 64(2C)(a) and (b)? There is a question mark after that.

Unauthorised competitions are deliberate and extremely dangerous, sometimes clocking speeds that more than triple the prescribed speed limit. Although clause 15 provides that a vehicle may be forfeited for certain driving dangerously or without due care, they focus on drink-driving and are ill-suited to address illegal racing as racers may not be drunk when driving. Is it the case that the prosecution has to choose between possible forfeiture of the car and a higher possible sentence of reckless driving when charging for a situation involving illegal racing?

Another way this Bill allows punishment to be better calibrated is by providing for compounded offences to be taken into consideration for sentencing in the new section 139AA, clause 21 of this Bill. This would give the Court a clearer picture of the driver’s driving practices and habits so that the various principles of sentencing can be more accurately weighed out.

In closing, Sir, I hope that educative aspects of prevention will also supplement these changes in the law to enhance the consequences of certain offences for deterrence and prevention.

In the whole, this Bill prevents and deters road traffic offences and provides for a better calibrated punishment system and, therefore, I support it.

3.57 pm

Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I had not originally intended to speak on the Road Traffic Amendment Bill but life clearly had other plans for me. Last month, I was knocked down by a bus, a big, lumbering double decker to be exact. On the evening of 13 June, at about 8.15 pm, I was crossing the road at the junction of Upper Changi Road East and Somapah Road on my way to the Singapore University of Technology and Design to meet my students. They had developed a game to educate the public about fake news and were excited to demonstrate it to me. And by the way, the game is brilliant.

Coming back to me at the road junction, I had waited for the light to turn green in my favour and proceeded to walk once it did so. I assure the Members of the House that at no point was I using my phone and that I was single-mindedly focused on making my way across as briskly as possible. When I was about three quarters of the way to the other side, I suddenly felt something very large looming over me and I turned to my left to see a double decker about this close to me. I was stunned and I even made eye contact with the driver and caught his horrified expression as he saw me. The next thing I knew, I had been thrown onto my back and I felt my head hitting the road very, very hard. At that point I literally saw stars, those in my head and those in our beautiful night sky although I could not quite tell which was which. Thankfully, I did not lose consciousness and managed to scramble to the side of the road while the bus driver pulled over. He alighted to inquire as to my well-being and we exchanged information.

In spite of my shocked and injured state, I felt profound sympathy for the bus captain. He looked highly stressed, likely worried about the consequences of the accident. As an occasional driver myself, I certainly do not wish to be in that position. Luckily for the both of us, I walked away from the accident largely unscathed. I endured severe aching for the next few days but fortunately did not suffer from any fractures or concussions. Indeed, I am truly grateful that I can stand here today to deliver this speech.

My accident gave me much to think about, but especially in relation to road safety. What could have caused the bus captain to completely overlook my presence on a well-lit road when traffic was light, I clearly had right of way, and also had ample time to cross the junction? Was it a case of a driver whose shift was too long or who had had insufficient days of rest? Or was it an issue of the discretionary right turns leading drivers to make a quick turn when there is no on-coming traffic but forgetting that pedestrians too have the right of way?

What exactly are the safeguards we have in place to prevent an accident like mine from recurring? Indeed, my friends remarked that had I been a child or a senior citizen that the impact of the accident would have been that much more severe.

I therefore reached out to the bus company to understand more about their safety procedures. The company was forthcoming. Two members of its senior management met with me and addressed all my queries. They were able to account for the bus captain's years of experience, driving schedule, daily working hours, break times and shift duration – all of which were well within mandated industry standards. They also shared with me their company’s proprietary telematics system that monitors every bus captain for every journey, tracking data such as their driving and turning speeds and instances of sudden braking. Such information helps the company determine how reckless or safety-conscious their drivers are. Using such data, bus captains are effectively graded for their driving performance and the information is conveyed to them via a mobile app so that they can regulate and modulate their own driving as necessary.

After my accident, the bus captain was immediately suspended when the investigation established that he was at fault and that there were no issues with the bus. Following the suspension, he underwent a day of retraining where his driving was assessed by a supervisor, before he was deemed road worthy and returned to service. Incidentally, the telematics data revealed that he was consistently one of their safest drivers, which perhaps helps to explain why I am still here today!

As a regular public transport commuter, I am reassured that this much attention is paid to safety. Furthermore, it is encouraging that we have harnessed technology to better guide our bus captains, helping them to maintain good safety habits and driving standards.

And yet, accidents do and will happen, and we should strive to further reduce their number. I therefore wish to delve more deeply into the issue of discretionary right turn lanes. I am heartened that LTA has concrete plans to discontinue most discretionary right turn junctions within the next five years. Indeed, when I mentioned my accident to friends and acquaintances, they immediately raised the problem of discretionary right turn junctions without my prompting. Colleagues and students who also use the junction where my accident occurred mentioned witnessing many near misses between cars and pedestrians, and cars and PMD riders.

Discretionary right turn junctions are fundamentally problematic. Drivers wait anxiously in the right turn box and make a dash for it when they note the absence of oncoming traffic, overlooking the fact that there could also be pedestrians crossing at the same time. In 2016, the hon Member Dr Chia Shi-Lu had inquired about accidents at right turn lanes and in his reply, Minister Khaw revealed that between 2011 and 2015, there were a total of 14 fatalities and 319 injuries involving pedestrians and cyclists being hit by right-turning vehicles at such junctions. I am not aware of the latest figures since that period but my accident surely was not the only one. In fact, in February this year, policewoman Mdm Salimah Mohamad was killed by a car turning right at such a junction in Shenton Way when the driver failed to keep a proper lookout.

Clearly, such junctions that allow cars and people to cross simultaneously present distinct hazards. They require alertness and concentration on the part of everyone. But when we factor in that drivers, pedestrians and PMD riders may be increasingly distracted by their mobile devices, we have a veritable formula for disaster.

LTA has introduced various safety enhancements to such junctions including traffic light timings that give pedestrians a head-start in crossing the road and Silver Zones where speed limits are lowered to cater to the large number of senior citizens in these areas. Such initiatives are indeed helpful but I would like to urge the LTA to shorten the timeline for discontinuing these discretionary right-turn junctions from the projected five years, so that more accidents and fatalities can be prevented.

My accident left me with several important takeaways. The first is that we have a public transport system that prioritises and invests in safety, of which we can be justifiably proud. The second is that we should consider whether public buses can be equipped with superior sensors to better alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians and other vehicles so as to avoid collisions as far as possible. The third takeaway is that in our Smart Nation efforts, urban analytics can be strategically marshalled to more accurately track vehicular and human traffic at all junctions, so that we can optimise traffic light timings to allow drivers and pedestrians to share the road efficiently, but also safely. With such analytics, we can better design junctions to allow for smooth flowing traffic, without increased cost to human lives.

A well-functioning transport network is critical not just to our economy but also to the well-being of our citizens, ensuring that people and places are connected seamlessly but also safely. The Road Traffic (Amendments) Bill will notably introduce stiffer penalties for reckless driving that will encourage drivers to be more mindful and conscientious. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I strongly support this Bill and further measures that will help to boost safety on our roads.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.02 pm until 4.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill

Debate resumed.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, allow me to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: I have read the news report on a survey conducted by the Traffic Police recently that involved 1,000 road users. The results of this survey revealed that most car users thought positively of themselves when asked to rate their level of safety and graciousness on the roads. However, they felt that the level of safety and graciousness of other drivers were not that good. This is quite worrying because it reflects the mentality and attitude of drivers in Singapore. If all drivers only think of themselves, this will result in more hazards and accidents on the roads. I think that it is important for us to continue encouraging positive behaviour on the roads.

In addition, I have also read a report about the increase in feedback on irresponsible drivers. Although the number of accidents have declined between 2014 and 2018, the number of feedback received by the Traffic Police about irresponsible drivers have more than doubled, from 6,900 to 18,500. Between 2015 and 2018, the number of summons issued has increased from 152,700 to 181,000.

Although the number of accidents may have gone down in general, every accident is one too many. Serious accidents can cause injuries and death and we must do our best to avoid them. One way is by strengthening legislation to stop bad behaviour on the roads. Therefore, I welcome today’s Bill. I hope that apart from legislation, we can also double our efforts to enhance awareness and educate the public about the importance of safety and graciousness on the roads.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in English. I read with interest the news report on the outcome of the survey conducted by the Traffic Police recently. The nationwide study which involved 1,000 respondents from various groups including car drivers, taxi drivers and the elderly revealed that most car users thought positively of themselves when asked to rate their level of safety and graciousness. However, when it came to rating the behaviour of others, most thought negatively of other drivers.

I find this both slightly amusing and worrying. Amusing as it is not unfamiliar. I drive and when I am on the road, there would be instances when I felt that the drivers are so inconsiderate especially when they do not give way to me. However, I am sure, there may be moments when others would have thought the same of me too. On a more serious and at a deeper level though, this finding reflects the mentality of Singaporean drivers and I feel that it is important to continue to nudge behaviours and develop a culture of safe and gracious driving.

I also note an earlier news reports sharing that the penalties for irresponsible driving in Singapore is less severe than in some other jurisdictions. Further, it was mentioned that although the number of traffic accidents has dropped, the feedback on irresponsible driving has gone up. The annual statistics from the Traffic Police showed that while there were fewer traffic accidents last year, the number of drink-driving accidents and motorists who ran red lights went up. The number of drink-driving accidents increased by 17.3% to 176 cases last year, from 150 in 2017. Motorcyclists who were drink-driving and got involved in accidents increased by 51.3% to 59 cases in 2018, from 39 cases in 2017.

However, the number of people arrested for drink-driving decreased despite an increase in the number of drink-driving enforcement operations conducted in 2018. The number of red-light running violations spiked by 15.7% to 53,910 cases. This is 7,311 cases more than 2017's 46,599 violations. Accidents caused by red light running increased slightly by 2.6% to 120 accidents, from 117 accidents in 2017.

Statistics aside, traffic accidents can have severe consequences. In the more serious accidents, lives are lost and one life lost is one too many. It is therefore important to continue to encourage safe driving and shape the behaviours of road users.

Our traffic laws and rules are indeed one way to shape behaviours on the road and it may be time to further strengthen the penalties to target the egregious offences. I welcome the enhancements introduced in this Bill. I would like to, however, make some comments on the amendments.

Firstly, in respect of the amendment to section 35B of the Bill, I note that before revoking a person’s driving licence, the Deputy Commissioner of Police must give a notice to the driver and the notice period must be at least four weeks before the revocation date. The proposed amendment also sets out a framework for the submission of any representations or objections. I note from the proposed sections 35B (2) and (3) that the Deputy Commissioner of Police could proceed to revoke the licence on the proposed revocation date if the appeal is rejected.

I would like to seek a clarification on whether the Deputy Commissioner is at liberty to give any further notice or time to the driver before the revocation. I ask because there may be some people who depend on driving for their livelihood. They may still remain hopeful after submitting representations and may need further time before the final implementation for the revocation. I note that there needs to be a balance between the need to quickly take errant drivers off the roads and to ensure fairness in the process. I would just like to seek clarification on whether the Deputy Commissioner of Police has the discretion to extend the notice period before revocation.

My second point also relates to those who drive for a living. I suspect that because of the length of time they spend on the roads, because they may be subjected to the vagaries of passenger demands and road conditions or because they may have become over-confident as they are quite familiar with driving, they may statistically be more likely to commit more traffic offences. I wonder if we have done any analysis on the circumstances of the traffic offenders so that there could be a more targeted approach to address the issue. Because I believe that aside from creating deterrence and penalties, we really should look into the shaping the behaviour of drivers and understanding perhaps some of the challenges drivers face and address them. Perhaps there could also be efforts in rehabilitating bad behaviour very early on. I believe that the Driver Improvement & Points System or DIPS was one good way to encourage good behaviour. Could there perhaps be some enhancements to this programme to provide more specific support and motivation to these drivers?

My third point is a general point related to the above. As noted earlier, alongside the enhancements of penalties, I believe there is a necessity to strengthen awareness and encourage safe driving. I am happy to hear that the Singapore Road Safety Council will be ramping up its efforts to raise awareness on safe and gracious behaviour on the roads. I think perhaps we could look at generating strong awareness of driving etiquette in specific situations. For example, I am not sure if many Singaporean drivers follow the “zipper rule”. According to the rule, when traffic merges, drivers merging from the left and right should alternately give way to one another so that traffic flows smoothly. I am sure a lot of things are taught before one gets a licence; however, the lived experience on the roads may be different. So, I hope that all parties and agencies will continue in the effort to create awareness and build better habits and culture on the roads in Singapore.

Notwithstanding the above, I stand in support of the Bill.

4.37 pm

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir. What must we do to make our roads safer? This Bill seeks to do so through covering more road offences and issuing harsher punishments. I feel emphasis should also be placed on three other areas. One, educating road users; two, improving road engineering; and three, having safer features in vehicles.

On the first point on education. As mentioned by the hon Member before me, Ms Rahayu, we should do more to push out the message on the importance of being responsible road users. To this end, I hope the regulators can strengthen the role played by and properly resource the Singapore Road Safety Council. This will allow it to mount publicity programmes to educate the public and road users and do so sustainably.

Over the weekend, I attended a road safety event by the Council in the Orchard Road area. That is a good initiative and more can be done. Perhaps more so in the neighbourhoods and in schools. Perhaps also consider participating in the National Day post-parade event whereby we can get all the different road users to do a safety march with regard to sending the message about road safety.

But going upstream then, what can we do? We should review the current driving course content to ensure new learners and drivers who are taking refresher courses appreciate the need for safer driving habits. I read that in some cities, it was even reported that serious road offenders are made to visit the hospital morgue to realise the severity of their actions. We can probably drive the home the same point on the importance of safe driving through either video replays or re-enactments in our training courses on how careless driving can result in serious accidents.

My residents and workers driving for a living also shared that it will be a useful reminder if the current Notice of Offence letters can also state the number of demerit points generated by the individual driver as well as the remaining threshold before suspension or revocation of licence kicks in.

Commuters travelling in a taxi or private hire car can also do their part. I recently had an accident whereby a private hire driver collided into the rear end of my vehicle. He mentioned that he was distracted by his passenger who suddenly at the last minute to ask him to change direction. As he was listening to the passenger, he did not pay attention to the road and the vehicle in front of him.

Mr Speaker, a lot of risks on the road can be avoided if the drivers and commuters show more understanding to one other.

On engineering, the design of roads can also affect the safety of road users. LTA conducts regular reviews, for which we are grateful for, to ensure our roads are safe for motorists and pedestrians. For example, under the Black Spot Programme, accident-prone locations are identified and safety measures such as special signs, and clearer road markings are implemented.

We have seen examples such as Silver Zones for the elderly and School Zone programmes for school students. We should continue to identify and add such features in more of our estates.

More recently, LTA has started to roll out more Red Amber Green (RAG) arrows at major traffic junctions. Recently, we recalled an accident at Clementi Road whereby one of the undergraduates had a tragic accident. Motorists have to wait for the arrow to turn green before making a right turn. I am glad to know that LTA has been conscientiously installing road safety features including turning pockets, lighted road studs, “Give Way to Pedestrian” signs to ensure safety and smooth traffic flow.

Mr Speaker, I think we can also consider using data analytics whereby the regulators can work towards identifying vulnerable zones or roads with higher frequency of accidents. Today, accidents that do not involve injuries are sometimes not reported to the Traffic Police. So, I wonder how do such data of vulnerable roads or roads with more accidents are being collated to understand whether or not such interventions such as road designs or re-engineering can slow down vehicles and minimise accident rates.

The third suggestion I have is equipment. That entails having more safety features in our vehicles. Some new vehicles today are fitted with safety devices such as auto-brake functions that automatically slow down the vehicle if they sense a pedestrian or car in the path of travel; or adaptive cruise control which automatically adjusts the vehicle speed to maintain a safe distance from vehicles ahead. Some owners install radar sensors or cameras to help them gauge and monitor the safety distance between vehicles. Others rely on reverse sensors which alert the driver when the car is about to hit an object. Such devices serve as safety features that help drivers to navigate in a safer manner.

We should also leverage on telematics to reinforce good driving habits. I recently spoke to the third party private hire app called Grab. They send day-to-day weekly driving reports to their drivers to nudge them towards safer driving. To increase the level of road safety and adoption, can the Traffic Police or LTA work together with vehicle fleet owners to consider perhaps things like rebates when a vehicle owner installs safety-enabling technologies in their vehicles?

Today, we have such a scheme called the early turnover whereby we encourage early replacement of polluting vehicles. Surely, safety vehicles should be the next in line.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

Beyond the law, I believe we can channel our efforts to cultivate responsible road users and for everybody to have a safer commute. Cost considerations can be overcome if appropriate rebates and nudges can be put in place to speed up the adoption of safer vehicles.

I found a recent example whereby an insurance company has offered lower premiums to motorists if they respond accurately to a series of questions on safer driving. That is a wonderful nudge for many who may not be able to be prompted to understand the importance of safer driving. Such ground-up efforts are indeed welcomed. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.44 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill will amend the Road Traffic Act to further improve safety by enhancing criminal penalties to deter irresponsible driving.

Singapore is one of the safest countries for road travel. In the 2018 Global Status Report on Road Safety, the World Health Organization reported that the average global road traffic fatality rate per 100,000 people was 18.2 in 2016. Singapore’s fatality rate was 2.51 in 2016 and has since improved to 2.20 in 2018. We do have some gaps – such as our policies allowing carriage of passengers in the cargo space in goods vehicles, and our new vehicle standards, which do not require the latest electronic safety advances such as electronic stability control.

Many of these advances are mandated in the US and European Union. But overall, we compare well in road safety even when compared to highly developed countries. A key part of maintaining road traffic safety is how we manage routine traffic offences.

Sir, in 2018 the Singapore Police Force reported 156,157 cases of speeding violations and 53,910 cases of red light violations. The vast majority of these offences will have been dealt with by composition offer, or fine penalty. Fines are an important part of our road traffic safety system. As part of the same review that led to this Bill's amendments to the Road Traffic Act, traffic offence fines were recently revised in April 2019. This was the first review in nearly 20 years. Unsurprisingly, because incomes have gone up since then, fines were raised across the board, with the steepest increases for the most severe offences.

I wish to discuss two issues. First, can we design an optimal traffic fine schedule, based on evidence and economic principles; and second, can we improve equity and efficiency by implementing fines that step up, linked to the income or wealth of the offender?

The economic principle for fine setting, as laid out in 1974 by the Nobel prize winning economist Gary Becker, is that the expected fine – the penalty adjusted by the the probability of being caught – should equal the social costs caused by the offence. The reason is that many crimes are actions which have private benefits but which produce external social costs.

Consider speeding on the roads. We speed because we enjoy a private benefit from getting to the destination faster, or because we enjoy driving faster. But because we are speeding, we impose an external social cost on others from the increased accident risk. There is also the risk of injury to the speeding driver, but that is a private cost. The optimal fine makes the potential speeder realise that if they speed, they must pay the external social costs of doing so, which then deters them from speeding.

Applying this principle of aligning fines to the marginal social costs is quite difficult in practice. We know that speeding is dangerous, but I do not think any country has attempted to seriously quantify the cost of speeding and link these costs to fines. One complication is that the relationship between speed and the risk of injury and death is non-linear and it increases sharply with speed. In the report I referenced earlier, the World Health Organization states that, in principle, a 1% increase in mean speed produces a 4% increase in the fatal crash risk, and a 3% increase in a serious crash risk. This means that optimal fines should increase significantly as the rate of excess speed increases.

Do we reflect this principle in our fine schedule for speeding? Exceeding the road speed limit by 31 km/h to 40 km/h carries double the fine and demerit points at $300 and eight demerit points, than exceeding the speed limit by 1 km/h to 20 km/h does, at $150 and four demerit points. An evidence-based optimal fine setting policy would examine whether the harm caused by speeding 31 km/h to 40 km/h above the limit is, in fact, larger than double that of speeding only 1 km/h to 20 km/h. The fines and demerit points should be revised upwards according to the actual risks. It would be useful if the Ministry could publish the results of any studies conducted that would show the evidence basis for our recent revisions to the fine schedule.

A second issue with setting optimal fines is that motorists differ greatly in their income and wealth. However, fines are generally equal when different motorists commit the same offence, which creates a problem. A fine that is large enough to be meaningful and appropriate to punish the average motorist may be too large for lower income motorists and too small for the richest motorists. This is an obvious limitation to optimal fines in practice. Fines do not work if they are so large that people cannot pay and fines also do not work if they are not meaningful deterrents.

Elected Members know that many appeals at Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) are for traffic and parking offences. In most cases, the resident admits to committing the offence, but they appeal for leniency because the fines will cause them financial hardship. This creates a challenge when we want to increase fines to appropriately deter unsafe driving. Sir, our vocational drivers – our taxi drivers, private hire drivers, delivery drivers and so on – they are generally low- to middle income earners. While all motorists should drive safely, we must be mindful that a significant penalty for the average private car driver is actually an immense sum for the vocational driver.

There is evidence that fines do deter unsafe driving and that fines have price effects, that is, higher fines are more effective at deterring unsafe driving, as long as the driver feels the pinch from paying the fine.

In a study by Bar-Ilan and Sacerdote published in the Journal of Law and Economics in 2004, the authors studied what happened after Israel raised the fine for red light violations by 150% in 1996. The authors had demographic data of drivers, which allowed them to understand which groups of motorists changed behaviour more.

Overall, red light violations in Israel fell by 30% after the fine was increased. But what is interesting is who was affected more. Young drivers, those aged under 30, were more than twice as likely as older drivers to reduce offending, although young drivers offend more to begin with. And, drivers with newer cars were both more likely to run red lights and they were less responsive to the fine increase. I interpret these results as supportive of the theory that fines do deter unsafe driving, and moreover, the deterrent effect of fines depends on the income or wealth of the offender. Richer offenders simply feel the pinch of a fine less.

One way of ensuring that fines have the appropriate deterrent effect, while keeping the financial impact on vocational drivers in mind, is to calibrate fines based on the income or wealth of the offending motorist. In 2015, the New York Times reported that a businessman in Finland received a fine of 54,024 Euros for exceeding the speed limit by traveling 64 miles per hour in a 50 mile per hour zone. Not all speeders in Finland pay so much. A more typical motorist would have paid only 345 Euros for the same offence. The reason why the unfortunate businessman paid so much is that he was one of Finland's highest income earners.

Speeding is an offence which is punishable by day-fines in Finland. A similar day-fine system is in use in a number of countries, mostly Scandinavian. The legal history is that a fine represents a payment in lieu of jail, and being locked up is more costly for a high-income offender, because the lost income is larger. So, the fine paid "per day" of jail should be scaled to income. The Finnish businessman's speeding offence was rated at eight days' worth of fines, and given his high income, this worked out to 54,024 Euros.

In case anyone is thinking I am suggesting we charge S$50,000 speeding fines, let me state for the record I think this is probably too high, even for our "fine city". But we could revise our traffic fine penalty system to ensure that fines appropriately deter high-income motorists, while being fair and reasonable for lower income motorists.

One practical way of doing so might be to scale the traffic fine based on the offending vehicle's Open Market Value, for privately-owned passenger cars. These form most vehicles on the road, and differences in the income of drivers of private cars can be very large in Singapore. I think it is reasonable to presume that the driver of a large luxury car is able to pay more than one driving a cheaper vehicle, and they would likely regard the demerit points and other consequences of an offence as far more serious than the fine itself. In fact, insofar as many luxury cars are marketed as safer than less well-equipped cars, there is even more reason to increase the optimal fine as a deterrent, since the perceived risk of injury to the driver themselves will be lower and luxury car drivers may be more inclined to speed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore's road traffic safety standards will be improved by this Bill. But there is room for improvement in how we design our fine penalty system, which is a major component of road safety. We should examine the evidence basis behind the social cost of unsafe driving and design fines, particularly for higher speeds, to reflect the actual risks more appropriately. We can also improve equity and efficiency by calibrating fines according to the income or wealth of the offending motorist. As road traffic safety is an evolving problem, I hope the Government will study these issues when planning the next revision of the Road Traffic Act. I support the Bill.

4.55 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the key amendments proposed by this Bill make our roads safer by deterring dangerous and risky behaviour on the road through heavier and broader criminal and administrative penalties.

I stand in support of the general rationale behind the amendments but would like to seek clarifications on two areas relating to the obligations of drivers in accidents involving animals and the legal effect of compounded offences under the Road Traffic Act (RTA).

Sir, for more than six years, I have been campaigning to amend the definition of "animals" in the Road Traffic Act. The campaign started before I was elected as a Member of Parliament and continued when I became a Member.

I have raised this issue in this House in 2016 and then Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee replied that the definition of "animals" in the RTA will be reviewed.

I am delighted that we are now proposing amendments to this.

The current definition no longer makes sense. "Animal" means any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog. Under the RTA, motorists are required to stop and help these animals if they are knocked down. I understand that "The original intent of that legislation was to ensure restitution to their owners should an accident occur".

But the days of having horses, cattles, asses, mules, sheep, pigs and goats on our roads are long gone. As such, our legislation needs to be updated to keep up with times. The unfortunate reality is that we now have other animals on our roads, a lot of them. It is a long list of animals including cats, civets, pangolins, wild boars, monkeys and snakes. The other unfortunate reality is that these animals are often knocked down. At times, they are not killed and could recover if help is provided.

As the Minister had previously stated, "The question is whether we should now mandatorily require all motorists to stop, should they hit an animal. The primary requirement must be safety. They should stop, if it is safe to do so. If the motorist requires assistance in relation to attending to the animal, he can contact the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) or Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)." They can also call ACRES.

The Bill proposes to remove the definition of "animal" under section 84(6). This creates a catch-all provision in relation to a driver's obligation to stop in the event of an accident involving an animal. This is in line with what the animal welfare groups have called for, but I have some concerns about this amendment and would like to seek some clarification.

The effect of the current amendment is that a driver who runs into any animal may have an obligation to stop regardless of the species of the animal. An animal could be anything from a dog to a lizard. Taken to the extreme, this provision could have ridiculous implications. I agreed that we need to expand the definition of "animal" beyond the current definition but I also appreciate the difficulty of coming up with a definition to limit the scope of this provision.

However, removing the definition altogether seems to be a blunt measure. It simply shifts the burden of making this difficult judgement to the driver. We are asking a driver, driving a fast-moving vehicle, to make an instantaneous judgement on whether the animal is likely to have an owner, or whether the injured or dead animal would pose a safety hazard to other road users. Is it really safer to require a driver to divert attention away from the road to making this judgement call?

Would there be a loophole in that a driver can just say that it was not safe to stop so he or she did not stop?

To provide some guidance for drivers, can the Minister or the Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide more clarification on how a driver can determine if an animal is likely to pose a safety hazard and how it intends to enforce this provision? How will the Traffic Police determine if it was safe for a driver to stop and render assistance?

Would it be better to amend the definition of "animal" to include more animals rather than remove the definition altogether?

Next, the new section 139AA comes in the wake of the High Court decision in Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam Huat. In that case, the Court decided that it may take into account compounded offences under the RTA for the purpose of sentencing as they form part of the offender's bad driving record. The new section 139AA affirms and gives statutory force to this High Court decision.

This may raise some concerns because of the prevailing legal principle that compounding an offence amounts to an acquittal in law.

This is expressly stated in sections 241 and 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) for Penal Code offences. This rule equally applies to non-Penal Code offences as held in the High Court decision of Rajamanikam Ramachandran v Chan Teck Yuen.

In May 2015, during the Second Reading speech for the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, explained that the legal effect of composition is that "the alleged offender is taken not to have been convicted of the offence."

Can the Minister confirm that the new section 139AA will not have the effect of changing the existing legal position that compounding an offence, whether under the RTA, the Penal Code or other statutes, amounts to an acquittal?

Allowing a compounded offence to be taken into consideration for sentencing removes another distinction between an acquittal and a conviction that may be perceived as an erosion of the presumption of innocence.

Minister Mr K Shanmugam said in an oral answer to a Parliamentary Question in August 2008, “the presumption of innocence is an important and fundamental principle, and is one of the foundations of our Criminal Justice System. The Government is absolutely committed to upholding the presumption of innocence, as a core principle in our commitment to the Rule of Law.”

Can the Minister clarify what the remaining practical differences are between a composition and a conviction under the RTA?

Further, can the Minister clarify if the new section 139AA is intended to be a statement of the general legal principles of composition beyond the RTA? In other words, is it the case that compoundable offences, whether under the RTA or other statutes, can be taken into account for the purpose of sentencing?

Finally, when making an offer of composition in the Notice of Traffic Offence, will the Traffic Police inform the individual that compounded offences may nonetheless be taken into consideration for sentencing in future offences?

The Judge in the case of re Lim Chor Pee noted that, “There are multiple reasons why a person may wish to compound an offence, whether it be an income tax offence or an offence compoundable under the Penal Code, without any admission of guilt.”

Hypothetically, an individual who has been charged but had not in fact committed the offence may agree to pay the composition fee and dispose of the matter out of expediency. They may do so believing that there would be no adverse impact if composition amounts to acquittal. Their decision may change if they are now told that the compounded offence remains on the record and may affect sentencing for future offences.

Sir, these clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill. I would also like to thank MHA for responding positively to the concerns raised by the animal welfare groups.

5.02 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice dealing with, on occasions, traffic matters.

I support the aim behind the Bill which is to deter irresponsible driving that may lead to harming of innocent lives and damage to property. I applaud the Ministry for obtaining feedback from public before presenting this Bill for consideration in Parliament. In particular, in this Bill, I support the calibration of punishment depending on the harm caused by the motorist in driving his vehicle dangerously or carelessly. Indeed, I note that the Supreme Court, in several recent decisions dealing with sentencing of motorists who are convicted for offences such as drink-driving, dangerous driving and careless driving, already apply an analytical framework which requires a consideration of the harm caused by the motorist as well as his culpability.

I have a query on the proposal to provide for enhanced punishment for a "serious offender" who commits the offence of dangerous driving or careless driving. "Serious Offender" is defined in the Amendment Bill as a person convicted for drink-driving or, alternatively convicted for refusing to give his breath sample. Under the proposed sections 64 and 65, if the same person is convicted for dangerous driving or careless driving, he is subject to an extra punishment which is in addition to the punishment for dangerous driving. So, for example, under the proposed section 64(2)(b), if hurt is caused, where a offender is a serious offender, he is to be punished with a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 12 months or to both in addition to the punishment for dangerous driving charge.

On the face of it, there is a possibility that the serious offender may be punished twice. This is because, as mentioned before, in the current sentencing framework, the harm and culpability of a drink-driver would be taken into consideration in relation to a sentence imposed on a drink-driver under section 67. Sir, I do appreciate that this scenario would only be triggered if a person faces two charges: that of drink- driving as well as that of dangerous driving. But we cannot have one analytical framework for sentencing in relation to drink-driving if a person is charged singly as opposed to another situation if he is charged for drink-driving as well as dangerous driving. So, I would welcome a clarification from the hon Minister as to what is the Ministry's expectation in relation to sentencing under the proposed sections 64 and 65.

The next query I have is in relation to the applicability of community sentencing options. I have previously spoken about the desirability to widen sentencing options during an Adjournment Motion in this House on 11 September 2017. I pointed out that then, for drink-driving cases, the person on conviction would not be liable for community sentencing but a motorist who was convicted for causing death by a negligent act under the Penal Code was imposed a community sentence of a short detention order. This was because the sentence for drink-driving offence under the Road Traffic Act was fixed in law with a minimum mandatory sentence of a fine.

In my respectful view, for traffic cases involving people behaving negligently or not realising that they exceeded the alcohol limit but who have caused low to medium levels of harm to life and property, community sentences may be a good option for them in terms of addressing the sentencing principles of deterrence as well as just deserts. Subsequently, in March 2018, this House passed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code to expand the list of offences for which community sentences may be imposed.

Under the amended section 337(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a Court may impose a community work order even if the offender is convicted of an offence for which a mandatory minimum sentence of a fine is prescribed by law. One example is the offence of drink-driving. I would welcome the hon Minister’s confirmation that this comports with the policy intent behind this Amendment Bill.

I may be wrong but one community sentencing option which does not appear to be open for offenders under the Road Traffic Act in relation to offences under proposed sections 64 and 65 is the short detention order. If a person is imposed with a short detention order, unlike an imprisonment, his conviction would not constitute as a registrable crime under the Registration of Criminals Act. I would have thought that particularly for lower level culpability acts leading to medium level harm, a short detention order should be considered as a suitable punishment so that the accused would not be delivered with a disproportionate crushing blow vis-a-vis his prospects in the future. I wonder why this option is not provided for in this Bill.

The next point I wish to make relates to the fact that the sentencing provision in section 69 of the Road Traffic Act, which deals with administration of preliminary breath tests, is being retained in its current form even though the sentencing provisions for section 67 are proposed to be enhanced. Currently, there is a parity of sentence under section 67(1), which deals with drink-driving and under section 69(4) of the Road Traffic Act, which deals with refusing to give a breath specimen for a preliminary breath test. In both situations, a first timer would be liable to a conviction to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. A repeat offender would similarly be liable for a fine of not less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months.

In the Bill, the sentencing provisions for section 67(1) are proposed to be enhanced. However, the same is not proposed for section 69(4) of the Road Traffic Act.

I do appreciate that if a person does not provide a breath sample for a preliminary breath test, he may be arrested nonetheless and be required to submit a breath sample for the prescribed breathalyser test at the police station. If he again refuses to provide the breath sample, he will be presumed to have committed the offence of drink-driving and charged separately for that offence. However, given that there is currently an existing parity between the sentences provided for both provisions and the aim of this Bill is to deter motorists from irresponsible behaviour, I wonder what is the policy reason for not similarly proposing to amend the punishment for section 69(4) of the Road Traffic Act.

I also would like to ask if we have sufficiently leveraged on advances made in technology.

The prescribed breathalyser test was introduced in 1996. It was contemplated then that the test has to be administered in the police station. The motorist has to be transported to the police station for this. Now, there are police-grade mobile prescribed breathalyser machines readily available which provide very accurate readings and can be administered at the roadside. There is also a potential for removing the need to administer preliminary breath test. What we will then get is a reading of the alcohol level of the motorist at an earlier time which probably will be a better gauge of what his alcohol level was at the time he was driving or was in charge of his vehicle. I also note that in France, drink-drivers, especially repeat offenders, would be required to fit their cars with vehicle ignition breathalysers or ignition interlock which require them to take a test before they can start their car. They will also be required to blow on a second occasion at a random time to limit the chances of others blowing into the breathalyser for them. I would be grateful for an update from the hon Minister on this front.

The final point I wish to make relates to making owners and operators of vehicles who cause death or injuries as a result mechanical failure arising from negligent maintenance of their vehicles, especially heavy vehicles. I have spoken on this topic in this House recently. I appreciate that these amendments are being introduced by the Minister of Home Affairs and the focus is therefore on driver conduct. I would respectfully suggest that MOT take a look at the Road Traffic Act with a view to tighten the framework so that such owners are held responsible for death and injuries arising from their neglect.

I also suggest that the Ministry consider making some safety measures mandatory to protect other road users and this is a call that was made by the hon Member Mr Ang Hin Kee as well as the hon Member Assoc Prof Walter Theseira. It could consider measures taken overseas. For example, in the US, it is compulsory to install rear view cameras. There are also discussions in several countries about making the installation of dash cams compulsory too. Dash cams can be a deterrent against irresponsible driving too. The hon Minister mentioned about video footage being referred to the Police for investigation. They are also are a good source of evidence for investigation into Road Traffic Act offences. Some dash cams have anti-collision sensors and could have made a difference, for example, in relation to the accident that the hon Nominated Member of Parliament Prof Lim Sun Sun was involved in. I am so glad that she is none the worse for it.

Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.

5.12 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, road traffic casualties often have severe implications on victims and their families. If the victim is injured, it means that he has to take time off work, which could result in loss of income or employment. In more serious cases when the victim sustains a disability, or even death, entire lives and families are damaged irreversibly.

I had a bubbly young resident in her mid-30s. She rode a motorbike to work. She was a restaurant manager in the country club in Jurong area. One night, her parents waited and waited. She never made it home. On her way home to Yishun, at the traffic junction of Lentor Avenue and Yio Chu Kang Road, when the traffic light turned green in her favour, she want straight towards Khatib but a car turned right hastily and knocked her down. She was killed. The whole family was so distraught. Her mother fell ill soon after that and passed away. This is how a reckless driver ruined a family.

Meanwhile, perpetrators might get off with a fine. In this case the driver was fined $8,000, and suspended for five years and that happened in 2013 which means he got to drive again since last year. The penalties for dangerous driving are simply disproportionate to the impact of their actions. That is why I agree with the proposed amendments for new mandatory minimum jail sentences to penalise dangerous and careless driving that cause death and grievous hurt. I hope they will deter people from driving dangerously.

I also commend the change of law to immediately revoke the licences of people charged with dangerous driving, those with previous offences and those doing illegal racing. Indeed, such people are a menace on the roads and should have their licence revoked immediately.

Very often, my residents told me that their sleep was interrupted by the noise from the racing vehicles along Yishun Avenue 1, Yishun St 51 and Yishun Ring Road. This happens especially on Friday night and Saturday night. They need not sleep but my residents need to sleep. Certainly, I hope to see more enforcement.

Besides the obvious examples of dangerous driving, there have been previous grievous accidents which occurred because the driver did not have sufficient rest or was driving while on medication that would impair driving ability or if the vehicle was not maintained in good condition. In a recent high-profile accident, a veteran rugby coach was fatally hit by a runaway tyre while riding a motorcycle. Would such cases be classified as dangerous driving? I note that there are no specific regulations or benchmarks when it comes to determining such conditions. Will the Ministry look into this?

At the same time, we need to have a public conversation about dangerous and careless driving. The number of summonses issued to motorists increased from 152,700 in 2015 to 181,000 in 2018. Even as we move towards a car-lite society, it is concerning that there are more incidents of dangerous and careless driving. What are the reasons for this increase in road accidents? What can be done about it? Given that the top cause of accidents in Singapore is failing to keep a proper lookout or distracted driving, how can we better enforce the ban on using smartphones while driving?

A survey last year revealed that nearly one in two Singapore drivers feel that the roads have become less safe than they were three years ago and the reasons for these include more aggressive drivers, more non-motorists on the roads, including cyclists and PMDs, and more private-hire vehicles. Is it time to examine the need to strike a healthier balance among the types of users on the roads? We should also look into addressing the increase in aggressive driving, whether it is due to frustration at the road conditions or due to stress and other personal reasons.

Although PMDs, aside from bicycles and e-bikes, are not explicitly covered under this Bill, I would like to remind the Ministry that some PMDs do go onto the roads, whether legally or not. The survey I cited just now show that drivers feel unsafe because of them. So, they do impact road safety. Many drivers have seen them zig-zagging in many parts of Singapore. How many such drivers have been caught by the Traffic Police?

I would like to once again call for measures to manage PMDs. Countries like Germany and Peru have banned PMDs on footpaths and France has just announced that they will ban PMDs on footpaths from September. Many cities have built dedicated cycling and PMD lanes on the roads. That would help both drivers and pedestrians feel safer. I would like to urge MOT to seriously consider these measures for the safety of our pedestrians. How can a 3-year-old kid hit by an e-scooter in a shopping mall? How can our commuters feel so unsafe while waiting for public transport at bus stops?

Also, motorised PMDs should be licensed and have their licence revoked if they hurt someone, just like in this act of zig-zagging on the road or at the bus stop. I hope the Active Mobility Act will take some lessons from the Road Safety Act and implement stricter deterrent measures.

Next, I would like to talk about jaywalkers. Jaywalking also causes road accidents. There seems to be not much enforcement. Is this no-man's land? Who is supposed to enforce? A resident shared with me that he was involved in a road accident because of a jaywalker. If I may use his language, he said:

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: "(The jaywalker) didn't cross the road earlier or later; he happened to cross the road right in front of my car!” So an accident happened. According to what my resident had told me, the Traffic Police only warned the jaywalker, but my resident was prosecuted in Court. Is this fair? I would like to ask the Minister, under the amended law, if a jaywalker is hit by a car and dies afterwards, would the driver be jailed immediately?

This amendment will allow us to deal with reckless driving more quickly and severely. I fully support it. I hope the Government can also explore the following areas.

The first is relating to driving without sufficient sleep, under drug influence or when the vehicle condition is bad. If we can specify the rules and clearly forbid these behaviours, a deterrent effect can be achieved.

The second is about PMDs. According to surveys, motorists have expressed that PMDs on roads make them feel unsafe. Therefore, we should check more frequently whether there are PMDs riding on roads illegally. When we build new towns, we should have designated bicycle and PMD lanes. I think that PMDs should be licensed. If there is an accident, the licence can be revoked. This can have a deterrent effect.

In Singapore, there are more and more traffic offences. Compared to 2015, there are 30,000 more summons in 2018. Half of the motorists said that they feel the roads are getting more unsafe. People waiting at the bus stops also feel that it is no long safe to wait at a bus stop. This is really worrying. I hope the Government can do something to reverse this trend.

5.23 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a timely Bill and I fully support the efforts of the Traffic Police to make our roads safer for all. Despite recent measures, such as more intense enforcement, the installation of more red-light and speed cameras, new and on-going public education and engagement initiatives, the number of summonses issued for motorist offences has gone up, from over 150,000 in 2015 to more than 180,000 in 2018. Last year, the number of drink-driving accidents went up by 17% and red-light running offences also increased by 16%. Hence, the heavier penalties, including longer imprisonment and disqualification from driving, should have a stronger deterrent effect. However, it would be better if we could put in place preventive measures to minimise the possibility of drivers from committing offences in the first place.

One problem, which has persistently bothered me and many of my present and former parliamentary colleagues, is the hazardous practice of having Green Man and lights for both pedestrians and turning vehicles at junctions. While I am heartened by LTA’s announcement last April to introduce Red-Amber-Green (RAG) arrows at most junctions by 2023, where drivers have to wait for the arrow to turn green before making a turn, I think it is important that all, not most, but all junctions should have RAG signalling and, when pedestrians may cross, no vehicles should be permitted to turn. These signals should be consistent to reduce confusion among motorists who now encounter different signalling at different junctions. I also appeal to LTA to expedite the installation of RAG.

The Traffic Police had noted in their 2018 Traffic Accident Situation news release that accidents involving elderly pedestrians who jaywalk remain a concern, as 25% of all accidents involving pedestrians involve our elderly pedestrians. I would like to ask the Minister if the Traffic Police could have greater involvement in the earlier stages of new town and estate planning so that they can provide their input on the upcoming infrastructure. Greater consultation with the Traffic Police, who understand how the increasing population of elderly pedestrians behave on roads, would be most helpful. Their input would inform planners, for example, on placement of pedestrian crossings, and where to build overhead bridges with ramps or elevators, since the elderly would have difficulty with steps. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: The Traffic Police had noted in their 2018’s Traffic Accident Situation news release that accidents involving elderly pedestrians who jaywalk remain a concern, as 25% of all accidents involving pedestrians involve elderly pedestrians. I would like to ask the Minister if the Traffic Police could have greater involvement in the earlier stages of new town and estate planning so that they can provide their input on the upcoming infrastructure. Greater consultation with the Traffic Police, who understands how the increasing population of elderly pedestrians behave on roads, would be helpful. Their input would inform planners, for example, on placement of pedestrian crossings, and where to build overhead bridges with ramps or elevators, since the elderly would have difficulty with steps.

(In English): Finally, I would like to raise my concerns over speeding heavy vehicles. I have observed and received feedback from my residents that many of these vehicles are regularly driving at above our speed limits. I seek clarifications on what is done when they are caught speeding. What is the time lag between a speeding vehicle captured on our road cameras and the update to the Traffic Police database, so that timely enforcement can take place? Does the Ministry have statistics on such drivers and their vehicles for the past five years? Sir, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

5.28 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. According to the annual road traffic accident situation report issued by the Singapore Police Force, while there were fewer road traffic accidents in 2018, the number of fatal road accidents had increased when compared with 2017. The Police also noted an increase in the number of drink-driving accidents, as well as red-light running violations and related accidents. These are serious traffic offences and are often a result of irresponsible driver behaviour. The proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act are, therefore, timely as the harsher punishments would help deter irresponsible driving. However, I would like to provide additional suggestions to help make commuting on our roads safer.

I support MHA's proposal to enhance criminal penalties to deter irresponsible driving, such as those who drink and drive. Drink-driving incidents are preventable, one hundred percent. We just simply do not drink and drive. And I believe that we can do more to deter people from driving under the influence of alcohol. Currently, the proposed measures in the Bill only targets the driver. I propose that those who knowingly assist incidents of drink-driving, such as handing a drunk person the keys to the car, should also be made culpable of aiding and abetting drink-driving under the law. This would serve as both a legal deterrent as well as shape societal dynamics by making it a joint responsibility for others to stop someone from drink-driving.

Technology can also be a key enabler in preventing drink-driving. Countries, such as Australia, the Netherlands and the United States, have passed laws to mandate the installation of ignition-interlock devices in vehicles of convicted drink-driving offenders. Such drivers are required to take a breathalyser test, installed into the vehicle, prior to being allowed to start their vehicles. Such devices would help lower incidents of drink-driving, especially by repeat offenders. I would, therefore, like to suggest that we emulate this by mandating the installation of such ignition-interlock devices for vehicles owned or driven by past drink-driving offenders.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while I recognise that the intent of this Bill is to tighten our regulatory regime to deter irresponsible driving, the truth of the matter is that raising penalties can only accomplish so much to prevent road accidents from happening. We need to go beyond our usual business-as-usual practices of raising penalties and conducting enforcement operations. I propose that we look at how to improve the safety of our roads through enhancing road infrastructure.

An infrastructure enhancement that we can make is in the area of our traffic junctions. First, let us simply do away with discretionary right turns. Two high profile accidents in 2018, one along Clementi Road and another at the junction of Jalan Anak Bukit and Jalan Jurong Kechil, which saw two separate fatalities, bring to mind the danger of discretionary right turns. In both cases, the drivers appeared to have had an error of judgement in making the right turn. Earlier, we have also heard similar cases by Members Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Prof Lim Sun Sun. So, while I am encouraged that there are plans to install more non-discretionary right-turn arrows, I would like for us to go one step further and convert all right-turn arrows into non-discretionary. This would certainly go a long way in making our roads a safer place.

Second, we should include countdown timers at all traffic junctions. This is not my first time raising this and I note that LTA, in their reply, said that they had conducted a small-scale pilot at the junction of North Bridge Road and Rochor Road over a period of six months in 2003. In that pilot, LTA found that there were no significant improvements to road safety. But many countries have since implemented such countdown timers as they view that it improves road safety. In 2017, a study published by the Oregon State University had also found that such countdown timers lead to safer responses from drivers as it reduces mistakes made in what is called the "dilemma zone", which is the area in which a driver is not sure whether to stop or keep going when the light turns yellow. We need to revisit the conclusion of the pilot trial that LTA had conducted over 15 years ago. I believe that the experiences of other countries are sound and there is potential for such countdown timers to further reduce traffic accidents, given the increase in red-light running violations. I hope that the Traffic Police and LTA can conduct a new trial of traffic countdown timers. Perhaps, the agencies can consider Orchard Road, which is within my constituency, which has many traffic junctions – at least eight – and which has significantly heavy traffic flow, for this new trial.

Mr Deputy Speaker, statistics have also shown that cyclists, motorcyclists and their pillion riders are most at risk of injury and fatality in the event of a traffic accident. We need to do more education to teach both cyclists and motorcyclists on the importance of defensive riding, as they are our most vulnerable group of road-users. It is not unusual to see motorcyclists riding in between lanes, especially during peak-hour traffic. Some would even manoeuvre at a fast speed zig-zagging across lanes and in between vehicles. This put them at risk of being side-swept by vehicles if they are in a blind spot. More needs to be done to educate our motorcyclists on the danger of riding between lanes. Correspondingly, we need to educate other drivers on the importance of checking their blind spots constantly before making a turn or making a lane change.

Next, I would like to make another pitch again to disallow cyclists from plying our bus lanes during operating hours. Many cyclists do not cycle in a single file and, even if some do, the bus lanes are simply not wide enough to provide a safety distance between the bus and the cyclist. Many bus drivers that I have spoken to, tell me that it is very difficult to manoeuvre the big bus past a cyclist, more so if it is a group of cyclists. It is obvious that it is practically not possible to keep the bus within the bus lane and get past the cyclists. Let us, therefore, separate the big bus from the small bicycle before we end up with another tragic accident.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the need to enhance our regulatory regime against errant drivers and to deter irresponsible driving. However, we can only accomplish so much just by raising penalties. We need to go beyond our business-as-usual mentality and relook at some of our previously held assumptions and conclusions regarding road safety. I hope the agencies would consider my suggestions which I believe would serve to further make our roads safer. With that, I support the Bill.

5.36 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the proposed amendments as they are in line with protecting the rights and safety of road users. Yet, protecting the rights of all road users while continuing to enhance accessibility have increasingly come into tension. This is not unique to Singapore but certainly more challenging for us, given our high density urban environment of 7,804 people per sq km. These challenges will only exacerbate, with one in four Singaporeans to be aged 65 and above by 2030. Including persons with disabilities, this figure reaches a third of our residential population.

As the amendments proposed in this Bill seek to adjust penalties and improve regulatory regimes to manage this tension, I take this opportunity to speak up for the elderly and disability population to engage in the conversation of road rights and how Singapore can best enjoy limited shared spaces in a way that protects all, especially vulnerable members of our population with greater accessibility needs. Penalties and regulations are important in ensuring the safety of all road users, but they must also be complemented by understanding and acceptance by the public, which will only be possible if we have these conversations that cultivate cultural acceptance.

I acknowledge that our various public agencies recognise these needs, as reflected in the latest Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) 2040 and URA Draft Master Plan 2019. Yet, we can, and must, do more to build an inclusive, accessible Singapore while navigating the tension between safety and accessibility. We cannot have a conversation on the tension of accessibility and safety without bringing up the PMDs.

At the risk of going off-road here, pun intended, I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I offer another – but important – consideration, on behalf of our elderly and persons with disabilities regarding PMDs. PMDs have grown in usage and already play an important role in the lives of people who depend on them for various forms of participation in society, especially by the elderly and differently-abled. As 76-year-old retiree, Madam Angie Ng shared, the most life-changing decision was getting a motorised scooter which allows her to go out marketing, visit friends and have a meal — tasks previously virtually impossible because of her osteoporosis which made it extremely painful for her to walk. Other examples include Ms Juni Syafiqa Binte Jumat who landed a job with GrabFood with her electric wheelchair.

It is clear the rapid proliferation of specific PMDs amplifies the need to develop a culture of safely sharing limited spaces between users going at different speeds. Previously, unregulated PMDs led to persistently high accident rates, with 2,500 active mobility offences recorded between May and December 2018 alone. On 28 May, a news article noted that HDB void deck areas were exempted from the Active Mobility Act and Town Councils can impose their own rules. Fifteen Town Councils then said that they would not rule out banning PMDs from void decks. This is despite recent regulatory reductions of the speed limit of PMDs on footpaths from 15 to 10 km/h.

While the Government works towards having every household within 300 m of an MRT station, the elderly and differently-abled still rely on their PMDs to enjoy the same privilege of access to public spaces and transport. The physical and psychological benefits which PMDs bring cannot be underestimated. An outright ban on PMDs on footpaths or void decks may be a convenient but also a blunt solution. A more effective and calibrated approach would be to institute a different extent of regulation for different PMD user-groups as well as, perhaps more importantly, cultivating a path-sharing and safe riding culture.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we also cannot have a conversation on road rights and sharing limited spaces without talking about Autonomous Vehicles (AVs). AVs have opened up new possibilities to meet mobility needs. And to the vulnerable segments of our population, especially the elderly, AV deployment can both be a cause for celebration and a concern. With one in four of our population being 65 and above by 2030, many who have always enjoyed the freedom of mobility are now and will be less able to. AVs can cover the short distances to visit grandchildren who live close-by without having to navigate stairs, walkways without handrails, or traffic junctions. AVs feature in our near-term future mobility plans as dynamically routed services to be piloted in Punggol, Tengah and the Jurong Innovation District by 2022, a mere three years away. LTA's vision for a car-lite Singapore includes low-speed self-driving pods for neighbourhoods. Both these initiatives can really benefit our seniors with more point-to-point, short-route services.

Nevertheless, AVs, are moving vehicles which pose a risk to road users and pedestrians. We must, therefore, ensure that we balance the design and deployment of AVs with safety and mobility. Whether or not AVs bring about higher accessibility for the elderly will clearly depend on whether we have designed the vehicles, network and system to their needs and challenges. Reviewing the current use cases and testing compiled by Smart Nation SG, I have to humbly suggest that we may have to do more for our growing numbers of seniors.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me highlight the road rights and accessibility considerations relating to the elderly and AVs in two aspects: the elderly as pedestrians and the elderly as passengers.

First, as pedestrians, the elderly are more likely to be at risk with AVs. Pedestrian safety studies emphasise the driver-pedestrian interaction and provisions of cues for decision-making. In the absence of a driver, the elderly pedestrian can only rely on cues from the vehicles. The elderly have slower reaction times and could require both enhanced visual and audio cues to be aware of on-coming traffic. Given our rapidly ageing population, AVs should be designed and tested with consideration to these safety needs. This could include braking reaction time, as well as exterior vehicle design and vehicle sound levels.

As passengers, the elderly can benefit from the convenience and safety provided by AVs. However, familiarity with the technology, awareness of benefits and user-centric design are all critical aspects to acceptance of this technology. Testing has so far been at One-North, University campuses as well as Gardens By the Bay. These are not areas where the elderly population frequent, limiting their awareness of this technology and its benefits. As always, it is better to "show them, not tell them". Providing opportunities for the elderly to experience the technology is important. Entities involved in testing could be required to explore locations and methods to ensure the elderly are part of the testing population in future trials.

While supportive of AV deployment, I cannot help but come back to the complexity around road rights. For example, should a slower-moving AV providing point-to-point service be afforded preferential road rights to other motorised vehicles? Should there be dedicated road space? Do we carve out more space from sidewalks or from motorised roadways for new pickup points? How should we make these choices? These are difficult but important questions for our society and policymakers to grapple with. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pre-empting the new Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill that has just been tabled for First Reading today but I think it is safe to say that we must learn from what we have experienced with the PMDs by involving the elderly and vulnerable populations early on with AVs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with only 700 sq km of land that is our home, truly, our challenge will always be about space: how do we share space amongst competing users, humans or otherwise, in that perennial creative tension of road rights as well as ensuring the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists?

Recognising the diverse needs for accessibility across all user groups, new modes of transportation should be harnessed to enable all Singaporeans to lead healthier, happier lives while protecting vulnerable road users. As much as my heart aches for the lives affected and lost through misuse and accidents from the new devices, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater either. Diverse mobility options are clearly the future that we need to embrace but this future can only be realised if and when we rigorously test and design for the diversity of user experiences and needs.

We cannot neglect the discussion of fair allocation, safety and well-being. The elderly and the differently-abled must be invited and included to participate in and negotiate on their rights as users of our shared spaces, roads and pathways. Active participation at the community level will encourage grassroots and ground-up actions, including locale-specific solutions, that help to cultivate the gracious culture of space sharing that we aspire towards.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our biggest challenge is not in adopting the latest mobility technologies for improved accessibility nor crafting and updating laws to protect the safety of road users like this Bill seeks to do. Our biggest challenge will be in achieving true inclusivity in urban and transport planning as well as fostering a healthy culture of sharing our limited spaces in a way that keeps each other safe as new mobility technologies emerge. This must, therefore, be our priority in our quest towards being a sustainable smart nation for all Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

5.47 pm

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, road safety is as much about user behaviour as it is about good infrastructure and design. We have conducted decades of public education and made continuous investments in road networks and technology to enhance safety of all users. However, the most important component of road safety is still the behaviour of our motorists.

Unfortunately, many motorists still have some way to go in terms of safety awareness and etiquette. In recent years, the number of summonses issued for traffic offences and feedback letters sent to the Traffic Police have been increasing. More worryingly, we are seeing a jump in the number of drink-driving accidents. With lives and limbs at stake, heavier penalties, as proposed in this Bill, are necessary to serve as stronger deterrents to motorists who drive irresponsibly and dangerously.

Longer jail terms and periods of disqualification from driving (DQ) will certainly help to keep such hazardous drivers off the roads. My concern is that quite a number of disqualified drivers are not compliant. The Traffic Police have been catching more motorists driving without valid licences in the last few years, from 921 in 2014, to 1,435 in 2018 and there are probably quite a number who got away, considering the difficulty of detection. As a result, the effectiveness of DQ, as a deterrent and punishment, could be undermined.

Hence, I would like to propose that the Ministry also consider restricting offenders' access to vehicles. This can be partly achieved by prohibiting vehicle ownership for various durations, depending on the severity of their offences. This would mean that offenders might even have to transfer or sell their vehicles, resulting in potential inconveniences and, perhaps, financial losses. They should not be allowed to transfer to anyone without a driving licence, of course. And while this is an unpalatable measure, such a punishment may be a more effective deterrent and much easier to enforce.

I note that, already in this Bill, there are a range of offences which can result in a forfeiture of vehicles, for example, dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt. However, I am not sure if these offenders would be prevented from acquiring another vehicle and I would like to seek some clarifications on this.

In addition, anyone, such as family members and friends, who willingly or unwittingly provide access to vehicles should also be made to bear varying loads of penalties, so that they will be more vigilant in keeping these offenders out of the drivers' seats.

The Ministry should also provide car leasing companies with greater support and tools to ensure that they lease vehicles to only motorists with valid licences. And I do applaud the move to make the licences virtual. These companies should be able to perform cross-checking in real time and be provided updated data.

Next, I would like to request that the Ministry consider following the measures by the EU to install speed limiters in all new cars. These devices automatically prevent drivers from exceeding the speed limit. It might be even better if we could take it one step further and require all vehicles to be fitted or retrofitted with such devices.

The EU will also be introducing other safety measures which will be mandatory by 2022. These include automated emergency braking, electronic data recorders and features to be built into bigger and heavier vehicles like lorries to improve visibility of cyclists and pedestrians around them. We should consider incorporating these ideas as well. In addition, we should make it mandatory for motorists to install and maintain approved models of car cameras. And these cameras can help to moderate driving behavior and detect other irresponsible motorists.

Finally, we should be paying attention to the growing segment of elderly drivers as our population is ageing rapidly. Adjustments to infrastructure and additional training will help keep our senior drivers safe on our roads. We should take heed of the experiences of other countries with significant elderly populations.

In June, the Lianhe Zaobao reported on an NHK article about the severe problems caused by elderly Japanese motorists. The traffic accidents they are involved in have the highest death rates. The main cause for the group aged 75 and above who are involved in fatal accidents was "inappropriate vehicle operation". Therefore, I urge the Ministry to consider implementing perhaps more stringent and frequent cognitive tests and health checks for all elderly motorists. These assessments should be annual or perhaps bi-annual for those aged 75 and above, as functional health can potentially decline steeply from this age. Efforts would have to be made to persuade older drivers of the benefits of these assessments as they will enhance their own and other road users' safety. I would like to conclude by voicing my support for this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.

5.53 pm

Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. While Members recognised the importance of enforcement measures to deter irresponsible driving, many also highlighted the need to go beyond enforcement and take a wider approach to ensuring road safety, to make use of other levers, such as education and engagement. Mr Deputy Speaker, we fully agree with these views.

I will respond to questions on our regulatory regime, as well as our general approach to road safety. Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mrs Josephine Teo, will then address questions on criminal offences and touch on emerging road traffic issues.

First, on our amendments to tighten the regulatory regime against irresponsible driving. On the streamlined licence suspension and revocation process, Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked whether the Deputy Commissioner of Police, or DCP, may have the discretion to extend the notice period before suspension and revocation. The DCP can extend the notice period for suspension, but only for the suspended motorist to attend the DIPS Retraining Course. This is because, in this case, the motorist is taking steps to address his errant behaviour. Thus, where a licensee has indicated to Traffic Police that he intends to take the DIPS Retraining course and the course date is later than the date when the suspension is supposed to take effect, he will have the effective date of the suspension pushed back. This is so that the licensee may complete the course and have the suspension period reduced. It bears remembering that for a motorist to be facing suspension and revocation, he would have committed several offences before and he would have had opportunities previously to appeal against those offences. We have to ensure that our processes are implemented fairly and consistently, a point that the hon Member Ms Rahayu also mentioned in her speech.

There were also questions on obligations for motorists in accidents involving animals. We will have to balance between animal welfare and the safety of road users. That is why the Bill obligates the motorist to stop only when it is safe to do so. We do not want to be too prescriptive in the law by stating when it is safe or unsafe, as it is not possible to cover all situations and accurately describe when it is safe or unsafe. Similarly, it is not possible to be exhaustive in listing out all the types of animals that motorists should stop for in accidents involving animals. The Police will take a practical approach and the Courts will decide, depending on the facts of the case.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would now like to speak on our wider approach towards road safety. Members spoke on the progress of existing road safety measures and made new suggestions to improve road safety. I will address these issues in turn.

First, on existing road safety measures. Members spoke on the need to calibrate our approach to different road user groups. We fully agree. Allow me to explain how we have done so.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the measures that have been taken to target "at-risk" road user groups. Mr Melvin Yong also pointed out the need to educate and engage with motorcyclists as an "at-risk" group. We agree. In recent years, the Traffic Police have identified vulnerable road user groups, such as elderly pedestrians and motorcyclists, and taken an increasingly calibrated approach to working with these different road user groups. For example, the Traffic Police regularly engage these groups through targeted regular road safety dialogues as well as outreach events, such as the annual Singapore Ride Safe. The TP also developed the Road Master Test Kit to help elderly road users assess their eyesight, hearing and reaction times and to share safe road use habits with them.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the need to engage and shape the behaviours of vocational drivers. We agree. And the Traffic Police work closely with agencies, such as MOM, MOT and LTA, to introduce measures for vocational drivers. For example, the Traffic Police work with the Workplace Safety and Health Council to remind heavy vehicle drivers and their employers regularly on the importance of adopting safe driving practices. Under the Workplace Safety and Health Council's Drive Safe, Work Safe campaign, more than 200 heavy vehicle fleet-owners have pledged to implement measures to encourage safe driving by their employees.

The Traffic Police also engage taxi and private-hire car drivers, their companies, as well as the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association on safe driving practices. To remind taxi drivers to stay alert and drive safely when they approach high-risk areas, the Traffic Police worked with taxi companies to incorporate the locations of high-risk areas in the Mobile Data Terminals of taxis.

Members also spoke about the need to continually update our measures. The Traffic Police and LTA have stepped up enforcement, education and engagement to improve road safety. We conduct periodic reviews to ensure our measures are effective.

Mr Ang Hin Kee asked to conduct periodic reviews of driving course content and to increase engagement initiatives to raise awareness among different road user groups. We agree. The Traffic Police regularly update the driving course curriculum. It is through these reviews that we have decided to introduce simulator training for all new learner motorists towards the end of the year. This is to allow them to practise safe driving habits in a controlled environment. On engagement, we agree that this is important and MHA and the Traffic Police are working on extending our outreach to as many road users as possible.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu spoke about the need to cater to an ageing motorist population. He suggested to make adjustments to our regime, such as customised training and health assessments. We agree. At present, we already have calibrated health checks for motorists. Motorists above the age of 65 are required to undergo and pass a medical examination every three years. Heavy vehicle drivers have added responsibilities and are required to do so every year. We will study Dr Chia's suggestion.

Second, Members recognised the need to explore new solutions and have raised new suggestions to improve road safety.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira suggested to scale road traffic fines according to income, to improve deterrence and allow equity in the administration of justice. We note that some other jurisdictions, such as Finland, have implemented such an income-based system. Other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, have piloted trials that were, unfortunately, eventually discontinued. MHA will study the suitability and impact of implementing a similar system.

Ms Joan Pereira suggested for the Traffic Police to be involved in the earlier stages of infrastructural road planning. Indeed, this is being done. TP works with HDB and LTA in the early stages of planning for new estates. Traffic Police assess the likely traffic and pedestrian flow in the new HDB estates and provides advice on the specific locations where enforcement cameras ought to be installed. One recent example is Bidadari New Town where the Traffic Police assessed and decided to install two red-light cameras. Likewise, the Traffic Police provide inputs, where required, to LTA's road safety infrastructure plans. Most recently, the Traffic Police worked with LTA to reduce the speed limits at two Silver Zones from 40 km/h to 30 km/h.

Members also made various other suggestions, such as Mr Ang Hin Kee’s suggestion to issue rebates to car dealers who install safety-enabling technologies in their vehicles and provide training for vocational drivers. Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Prof Lim Sun Sun, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Murali Pillai suggested to leverage on new technologies, such as urban analytics, ignition-interlock devices and speed limiters. Mr Christopher de Souza suggested providing support for victims of drink-driving accidents. Prof Lim Sun Sun and Ms Joan Pereira also suggested to expedite the installation of Red-Amber-Green arrows at all right-turning junctions. Dr Chia Shi-Lu suggested to restrict offenders’ access to vehicles. Mr Melvin Yong suggested for LTA to consider the installation of countdown timers and to disallow cyclists from bus lanes. Mr Murali Pillai suggested for MOT to tighten the framework such that owners are held responsible for death and injuries arising from their neglect to maintain their vehicles.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their suggestions. We agree with the Members that a wider approach to ensuring road safety is important. MHA will consider these suggestions with the relevant agencies for future reviews.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Josephine.

6.03 pm

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. Prof Lim Sun Sun had an unfortunate accident. She did not tell me when I met her yesterday. I think we are all relieved that she has recovered and joined Members to make an important contribution to this debate.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has addressed some of the Members’ questions and suggestions. I will deal with those regarding the enhanced criminal penalties and then emerging road traffic issues.

First, the definition of Dangerous and Careless Driving. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah raised two examples – accidents caused by drivers who had insufficient rest; and accidents caused when there is a mechanical failure of a vehicle, which Mr Murali also asked about. How will we deal with them?

On driving while sleep-deprived, the Courts have ruled that doing so can be considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing. In general, driving when one is not in a condition to do so is more likely to be considered as dangerous rather than careless. Having said that, other factors, such as the manner of driving, will also be taken into account. AGC will consider the facts of each case when determining the appropriate offence.

On Er Dr Lee’s second example of mechanical failure of a vehicle, this will not be classified as dangerous nor careless driving offence, as the mechanical fault is not linked to the manner of driving. However, failure to maintain one’s vehicle is already an offence under the Road Traffic Act. In addition, under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, employers have a duty to ensure the safety and health of their employees at work. This includes proper maintenance of vehicles. Failure to do so will also be an offence.

Second, the penalties for specific offences. Mr Christopher de Souza shared his concerns that the increased penalties for Driving without Licence and Permitting or Employing Another Person to Drive without Licence may be too harsh on individuals who may have unknowingly driven a vehicle without a licence. For example, a person may not be aware of the need to certify his fitness to drive and renew his licence when he turns 65. We understand the concern. The Police and the Public Prosecutor will look into the specifics of each case to decide the appropriate charge.

Another question Mr de Souza raised had to do with the treatment for motorists when the victim also violated traffic rules and contributed to the accident. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about accidents caused by jaywalkers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, when assessing whether a motorist should bear liability for an accident, Traffic Police's key consideration is whether the motorist was driving safely. If the motorist had abided by the traffic rules, for example, keeping within speed limits and checking clear before making turns or changing lanes and yet still knock into the victim, for example, a PMD rider or jaywalker, because the latter had appeared suddenly on the road and left him with insufficient time to react, the motorist will not be liable for an irresponsible driving offence. That part is clear.

Conversely, if the motorist was not driving safely, for instance, he spotted a pedestrian jaywalking but decided to speed up in a bid to drive past the pedestrian before the pedestrian can reach the lane his vehicle was on and hit the victim as a result, he will be prosecuted. But, of course, the jaywalker may also be taken to task. So, I hope this part is clear.

Mr Murali Pillai asked about Driving Under Influence offences. He asked about the additional penalties for Dangerous and Careless Driving offences, for motorists who had done so while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and whether this would mean that a person is punished twice for the same act. There is no double penalty. Consider two actions. The first, a motorist was driving under influence. The second, a motorist was driving dangerously or carelessly. A motorist committing the first action, driving under influence, will be liable for penalties even if he was not driving dangerously or carelessly. If he was also committing the second action, that is driving dangerously or carelessly, he would be liable for penalties under Dangerous or Careless Driving instead of Driving Under Influence per se. However, the offence of driving dangerously or carelessly while under influence carries higher penalties.

Mr Murali asked if the penalties for failing to provide a specimen for a preliminary breath test should be increased. As the proposed penalties are lower than that for the offence of Driving Under Influence, he worries that this may create an incentive for a motorist not to provide the specimen. There is no such incentive. At present, the Traffic Police subject motorists to two tests for suspected Driving Under Influence offences: first, a preliminary breath test to check if the breath alcohol content is beyond the legal limit; and, second, a test to measure the exact alcohol content of the motorist. A motorist who refuses to take the preliminary breath test will be arrested by the Traffic Police and required to take the second test. If the motorist also refuses to take the second test, he will be liable for the offences of: failure to provide specimen for the preliminary breath test; and failure to provide a specimen for the second test, which has an equivalent penalty to the offence of Driving Under Influence. I would also like to assure Mr Murali that the Traffic Police are now able to conduct the second test on the spot with the mobile Breath Evidential Analyser.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked if there would be a difference in the way disqualification periods operate for the offences of Dangerous and Careless Driving. The answer is no. There will be no difference in the way disqualification periods operate. The Court will have the discretion to depart from the minimum stipulated periods, if there are special reasons to do so.

Mr de Souza also asked about the illegal speed trials and the alignment with the penalties for Dangerous and Careless Driving offences. Given the lower penalties for illegal speed trials, he asked if it will be the case that the prosecution will have to choose between forfeiting the vehicle for an illegal speed trial offence as opposed to the higher penalties for a Dangerous Driving offence.

The offences mentioned are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a motorist to be charged for both the offence of Dangerous or Careless Driving and the offence of Illegal Speed Trial. Motorists who drive in a dangerous or careless manner will be liable for the offence of Dangerous or Careless Driving whether or not they are involved in an illegal speed trial. Motorists who partake in illegal street racing will be liable for the offence of Illegal Speed Trial, even if they were not driving dangerously or carelessly.

Mr Murali Pillai asked if community sentencing options, such as Community Work Orders, apply to the RTA. Community Work Orders are meant for reparation and restoration and are only limited to a prescribed list of offences. RTA offences are not in the list. However, we do have rehabilitative measures, before an accident even occurs, to help encourage safe driving behaviours by motorists. For example, motorists who have clocked a number of demerit points may choose to attend the Safe Driving Course, which helps them learn and practise safe driving habits.

Mr Murali had also asked if short detention orders can apply to RTA offences. The answer is yes, if the offence and offender meet the requirements set out under the Criminal Procedure Code, such as not having a specified or mandatory minimum imprisonment. One example is the offence of Careless Driving as well as first-time Driving Under Influence offenders.

Third, let me address the questions on compounded offences.

Mr Louis Ng highlighted that some individuals could have compounded an offence without intending to admit guilt. He asked if composition offences in the RTA amount to an acquittal. A person who is charged in Court and appeals may be offered composition. In such instances, once the charge is withdrawn via a discharge amounting to an acquittal, the composition amounts to an acquittal.

However, the current case law states that past composition can be treated as an aggravating factor. The new section 139AA makes it clear that the Courts may take the composition of an offence as a possible aggravating factor when a Court sentences for a later RTA offence. It does not matter how the composition came about. The Courts should be able to consider an individual’s history of past compounded offences, for example, whether he had one or many past compositions. In any case, this will only apply within the RTA. As Mr Ng mentioned in his speech, this is in line with the decisions made by the High Court that compounded offences in the RTA may be taken into account for sentencing.

Moving forward, people who choose to accept composition should do so with the awareness that the composition could be treated as an aggravating factor in a future conviction. To be fair to them, due warning will be given at the point the composition is offered.

Mr Ng also asked about the practical differences between a composition and conviction under the RTA. Apart from the typically lower penalties for compositions, compositions will also not be considered as part of an individual’s criminal records.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me deal briefly with emerging road traffic issues, such as the use of active mobility devices and autonomous vehicles, or AVs. These emerging issues are increasingly complex. To chart the way forward, several Ministries and stakeholders must work together to tackle the issues from different angles.

Mr Christopher de Souza, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Anthea Ong spoke on the need to ensure riders behave responsibly. We fully agree. MHA and Traffic Police work closely with MOT and LTA to dovetail our road safety and active mobility policies. We already regulate the use of active mobility devices through a comprehensive set of measures. At this stage of development, the measures cannot be static. However, as Ms Anthea Ong reminds us, an outright ban may be too blunt an act to take because the elderly and the differently abled have benefited from the use of active mobility devices and so, therefore, it is probably better that the measures be continually updated and improved upon.

This Bill does not focus on active mobility devices and, in any case, MOT oversees this area. I will therefore speak more on the approach taken on the road safety front.

On the roads, there have been rules on the use of active mobility devices such as bicycles. In February this year, the Government introduced new rules including the mandatory use of helmets by cyclists on roads. Now, active mobility users at pedestrian crossings must also "stop and look" before crossing. In April 2019, MHA and Traffic Police increased the composition sums for cyclist offences on the roads. We have also ramped up public education to raise awareness among active mobility users. Examples of such measures include Traffic Police’s "Use Your RoadSense" campaign and LTA’s "Safer Together" campaign. These efforts will have to continue.

Ms Anthea Ong spoke on the need to ensure that AVs are deployed safely. Indeed, self-driving technology has the potential to radically transform our transport system and improve our living environment. But we must ensure technology implementation does not endanger human lives. MHA and Traffic Police are working closely with MOT to ensure that the AV testing regime is rigorous and the deployment of AVs is done in a cautious and safe manner, taking into account the impact on other road users including the elderly and differently abled. Likewise, we will continue to evaluate different technologies as they are made available. In fact, like AVs, these different technologies are probably on trial already one way or the other. So, let me reassure Members if the technologies improve road safety and are feasible to implement, we will find ways to promote their adoption.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to successfully tackle all our road safety challenges, a good road safety culture is essential. If I may quote Mr Ang Hin Kee, he says: "Beyond the law, I believe we can channel our efforts to cultivate responsible road users and for everybody to have a safer commute."

Indeed, we all have a shared responsibility for road safety. Yet, this may also be where we most fall short. Er Dr Lee had asked about the underlying causes of unsafe and discourteous road behaviours. We too want to know. So, Traffic Police recently conducted a nationwide study involving different road user groups. Three findings stood out.

First, road users tend to prioritise their own needs to get to their destinations at the fastest speed and the shortest time possible.

Second, as highlighted by Ms Rahayu, most road users rate their personal safety and graciousness positively, but rate the personal safety and graciousness of other road users negatively.

And so, the third finding, unsurprisingly, is that the road users tend to feel that it is the responsibility of others to make the road safer.

So, this is the situation that we have to deal with.

The findings tell us that we have some way to go before the culture of responsible and gracious road use takes root among Singaporeans. Dr Chia Shi-Lu felt this way too and this is why the Traffic Police's effort has always been gone beyond enforcement measures, to encourage a safe road use cultural change through engagement, through education and, of course, also infrastructural improvements. This is also advocated by Members like Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Joan Pereira.

As I mentioned in my earlier speech, Traffic Police and LTA’s recent road safety efforts have shown encouraging results. The road safety situation remains stable and the number of road traffic accidents has decreased. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira had also, of course, cited some very useful statistics to compare how we fare relative to other jurisdictions. However, there is still a need for continual review and improvement; and this Bill is another step in this direction. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 –

The Chairman: Clause 13. Minister Josephine.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment in clause 13 is to allow for the Courts to have discretion to deviate from and impose a sentence lower than the minimum mandatory sentence if there are special reasons to do so.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 16, after line 19: to insert —

"(7) Where subsections (2) and (2A) prescribe a minimum term of imprisonment on conviction of an offence under subsection (1), the court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment that is equal to or greater than that prescribed minimum term of imprisonment unless the court, for special reasons, thinks fit to order a shorter term of imprisonment."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 21 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: The consequential amendment* to be made will be made.

*The consequential amendment read as follows:

In page 16, line 20: to renumber subsection (7) as subsection (8).

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.