Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.

3.40 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The last comprehensive review of the Road Traffic Act, or RTA, was conducted more than five years ago, in 2019. It is timely that we do another review. The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) 2024 Bill seeks to: firstly, recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality for RTA offences; and secondly, enhance powers to enforce against errant motorists.

Let me start by setting out the context.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) works closely with the Ministry of Transport (MOT) to keep our road users safe. Our strategy is underpinned by five pillars. First, stiff penalties for irresponsible driving offences. Second, firm enforcement against errant motorists. Third, regulations, such as the demerit points regime, to discourage risk-taking behaviour. Fourth, appropriate road infrastructure to ensure road safety, such as red-amber-green arrows restricting discretionary right turns, as well as Silver Zones and School Zones. Lastly, public education and engagement, including targeted initiatives for vulnerable road users.

We regularly take stock of our efforts and make further improvements where necessary. Most recently, in 2024, we commenced the mandatory installation of speed limiters in lorries and activated the speed enforcement function in red-light cameras. We have also assessed that refinements are required in relation to certain offences and penalties in RTA. Members will recall that in 2019, we made comprehensive amendments to RTA, of which, three are relevant to today's Bill.

First, we enhanced the punishments for two classes of irresponsible driving offences, that is, dangerous driving and careless driving. Dangerous driving refers to driving a motor vehicle on a road recklessly or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public. Careless driving is less serious than dangerous driving. It refers to driving on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. Dangerous or careless driving offences are punishable with a longer maximum imprisonment term and a higher maximum fine, than the corresponding Rash Act or Negligent Act offence in the Penal Code.

Second, we introduced a tiered approach for the penalties for these offences, based on the level of harm caused. In addition to circumstances where there has been no hurt caused, the three levels of harm are death, grievous hurt and hurt. The more serious the harm, the more severe the penalties. Additional penalties apply for repeat offenders of certain driving offences and those who drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol, whom we refer to as "serious offenders".

Third, we introduced mandatory minimum sentences and minimum disqualification periods, for offences causing death and grievous hurt. For these offences, the law requires the Court to impose a minimum imprisonment term and minimum period of disqualification from driving, save for the exceptional circumstances, such as when responding to a medical emergency.

The 2019 amendments sent a clear message: irresponsible driving will not be tolerated. This message has not changed. We remain committed to deterring and punishing irresponsible driving behaviour. That said, MHA has observed the impact of the 2019 amendments and identified areas where we should recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality, particularly in cases where the circumstances of the offence indicate that the offending motorist might have a lower level of culpability.

I will first speak about the amendments to recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality. These are reflected in clause 5 of the Bill.

First, the Bill will remove mandatory minimum sentences and disqualification periods for first-time offenders. This will give our Courts greater discretion to determine the appropriate sentence based on the circumstances, instead of the current situation where there are prescribed mandatory minimum sentences. To be clear, first-time offenders will still face penalties. These penalties will be determined based on factors including the nature and severity of the harm caused to the victim, and the level of culpability of the accused.

Members will be aware that the vast majority of criminal offences in our laws do not prescribe any minimum penalty. The Courts have discretion to impose a just sentence up to the statutory prescribed maximum. These amendments therefore bring the approach for first-time traffic offenders closer to the norm.

Let me illustrate with an example, which is adapted from an actual case. A taxi driver, who is a first-time offender, beat a red turning arrow signal and collided into an oncoming motorcyclist who was speeding across the junction on an amber signal. As a result of the accident, the motorcyclist had pain, scratches and abrasions to the neck and shoulder, and received a total of 25 days of medical leave. If the taxi driver is convicted for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, the current law requires the Courts to impose a minimum of one year imprisonment and a minimum disqualification from driving of eight years. However, it can be argued that the taxi driver is not as culpable because the motorcyclist had been speeding across the junction on an amber signal. The accident might not have occurred if the motorcyclist had slowed down and prepared to stop when the traffic light turned amber.

The Government's view is that the Court should have the discretion to decide if a lesser sentence would be more proportionate to the culpability of the taxi driver and the extent of injuries suffered by the motorcyclist. Put simply, in circumstances where the victim had also contributed to the accident, the Court should have the flexibility to impose a sentence lower than the current statutory minimum.

For the avoidance of doubt, these amendments do not necessarily mean that the offending motorist will face a sentence lower than the current mandatory minimum of one year imprisonment. The Court, having full regard to the facts of the case, will ultimately decide the sentence, which may even be higher than the current statutory minimums. The key point is, with the amendments, the Court will not be constrained by the statutory minimums.

With the removal of the minimum sentences for first-time offenders, we will make corresponding changes to lower the mandatory minimum imprisonment term for repeat offenders. Specifically, for dangerous driving offences causing death for repeat offenders, the mandatory minimum imprisonment term will be lowered from four years to two years. For dangerous driving offences causing grievous hurt, it will be lowered from two years to one year. This adjustment aims to create a more gradual progression in sentencing between first-time and repeat offenders under the new regime.

The intent of these amendments is not to signal a more lenient stance towards repeat offenders. Repeat offenders will continue to be subject to mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and disqualification periods, and where warranted on the circumstances, the Courts may in fact impose sentences higher than these mandatory minimum terms.

I want to also emphasise that there is no change to the way we are treating serious offenders, especially those who drive irresponsibly while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. They will continue to receive severe penalties, as well as mandatory minimum penalties where grievous hurt or death is caused.

Let me illustrate a case for which the current proposed amendment will have no impact. The driver failed to stop when ordered by a Traffic Police officer. In the subsequent pursuit, the driver drove dangerously by filtering lanes rapidly and collided into a pedestrian crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian sustained multiple fractures. The offending driver is charged with dangerous driving causing grievous hurt. He is a first-time offender. After the proposed amendments to the RTA are operationalised, there would be no mandatory minimum imprisonment sentence or disqualification period applicable to this offender. However, given the aggravating factors in this case, including the failure to heed a Traffic Police officer's instructions and engaging in more egregious behaviour that increased the risk of harm to the Traffic Police officer and other road users, the offender can expect to be sentenced to imprisonment and disqualified for periods that are longer than the mandatory minimums today.

I emphasise that there are no changes to the maximum penalties for dangerous or careless driving offences, which could include lifetime imprisonment and lifetime disqualification from driving in highly egregious cases. The Sentencing Advisory Panel, chaired by Justice of the Court of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang, is looking at issuing guidelines for dangerous and careless driving offences, to enhance sentencing consistency and public understanding of the range of sentences that may be imposed under various scenarios.

Second, the Bill will provide the Prosecution flexibility to proceed on a "hurt" charge, even where "grievous hurt" has factually been caused. Because of the manner in which the dangerous and careless driving offences are presently structured in the RTA, the High Court has ruled that where an injury designated as "grievous hurt" was factually caused as a result of the accused's driving, the Prosecution can only prefer a charge of dangerous or careless driving causing "grievous hurt" and not a charge of causing simple "hurt". As a result of this ruling, if a driver drove carelessly and caused a pedestrian to sustain a fractured finger, the Prosecution presently does not have the discretion to proceed on a charge that is anything less severe than a "grievous hurt" charge.

The Government's intent has always been to allow the Prosecution to exercise its discretion to prefer the appropriate charge – be it a "hurt" or "grievous hurt" charge – after taking into account the circumstances of each case. This amendment restores the policy intent, and in my example, allows the Prosecution the discretion to proceed on a simple hurt charge if it assesses that it is in the public interest to do so. It also promotes consistency with our other penal provisions, by clarifying that "hurt" has the same meaning in the context of both the RTA and the Penal Code. This will also align the position for road traffic accidents with the Penal Code, where the Prosecution has the discretion to proceed on a "hurt" charge even if the assailant had, in fact, caused "grievous hurt".

Third, the Bill will adjust how a motorist's track record will count towards being classified as a repeat offender for a dangerous or careless driving offence. Being classified as a repeat offender leads to enhanced penalties for the offence. Today, a motorist is classified as a repeat offender if he has a prior conviction of dangerous driving, careless driving, speeding or illegal speed trial offence, colloquially known as illegal street racing.

Specific to a prior conviction of a speeding offence, we will amend the RTA such that a motorist will only be classified and charged as a repeat offender if he satisfies two criteria: first, the motorist had at least two prior speeding convictions in which he had sped in excess of 40 kilometres per hour (km/h) of the road or vehicle's speed limit; and second, at least two of those prior speeding convictions occurred within the five years preceding the motorist's current dangerous or careless driving offence.

The threshold of 40 km/h in excess of the relevant speed limit is not new. Today, most speeding offences are minor in nature and typically resolved with composition sums. Typically, only those who sped in excess of 40 km/h of the speed limit are charged in Court.

This amendment allows us to focus on offenders who have exhibited a pattern of risk-taking driving in recent times, without overly penalising offenders for mistakes committed more than five years ago. For the avoidance of doubt, any relevant antecedents from more than five years ago can still be taken into account by the Court as an aggravating factor when deciding on the sentence, but it will not attract the enhanced penalties that the RTA provides for those classified as repeat offenders. There is no change to how prior convictions of other offences, such as dangerous and careless driving, will count towards a motorist's classification as a repeat offender.

Let me now move on to the other proposals in the Bill. Clauses 3, 11 and 14 of the Bill streamline the commencement date of the disqualification period for both the RTA and the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act. Today, for some offences, the commencement date of the disqualification period starts from the date of conviction, whereas for others, it starts from the date of release from prison. In yet other cases, it may not be specified in the law.

The Bill will make clear that: if the offender is imprisoned for any offence, the disqualification period will commence from the completion of the sentence. If the offender has an existing disqualification order and is imprisoned for any offence, the disqualification order will be suspended during the term of imprisonment and will resume immediately after the date of release from the sentence. If the offender does not receive an imprisonment term, the disqualification period will commence from the date of conviction. This will ensure consistency and parity across the various disqualification regimes and remove irresponsible drivers from the roads in a timely manner.

Clause 4 will also enhance the Traffic Police's immediate suspension powers by ensuring that a motorist's licence remains suspended until he is fully convicted or acquitted, including during the period of appeal.

Today, the Traffic Police can immediately suspend the driving licence of any motorist under specific circumstances. This includes where there was serious injury or death to a person or serious damage to buildings and structures. However, the suspension automatically lapses by law once the motorist is convicted or acquitted by the Court. This means that if the motorist appeals, he can resume driving pending the determination of his appeal. As the suspension automatically lapses upon conviction, and he has been convicted, his suspension lapses by law, even though his appeal is pending. The same can happen if the disqualification order against the motorist is deferred by the Court to start at a later date.

Clause 4 of the Bill will ensure that the motorist's licence remains suspended, until the final decision is made on the sentencing, or until the disqualification order has commenced, whichever is later. This will close the above gaps. To be clear, if a motorist has been acquitted by the Court, regardless whether the Prosecution appeals against the acquittal, the suspension order will no longer be in force.

Clause 9 will empower an immigration officer to administer breath tests at the border checkpoints and their vicinity, to detect and take prompt preventive action against errant drink-drivers driving into our checkpoints. This will enable the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to more holistically discharge their protective security functions at the land and sea checkpoints, which they have taken over from the Police.

Clause 10 will amend the RTA to incentivise owners to collect their seized vehicles in a timely manner and streamline the subsequent disposal process. The RTA currently only allows the Traffic Police to dispose of any vehicle within one month of its detention, if no owner comes forward to claim it. However, there are vehicles that cannot be disposed of, as the vehicle owners have laid claim to them but have delayed collecting them.

To address this issue, the Bill will require a vehicle owner to take delivery of a seized vehicle within a specified period. The Traffic Police can recover storage costs from the owner if the owner fails to collect the seized vehicle within the collection period. The Traffic Police will be able to dispose of the seized vehicle one month from after the expiry of the collection period.

There are also several miscellaneous amendments to improve the Traffic Police's operational efficiency, such as clause 12, which amends section 131A of the RTA to allow summonses which are not punishable with imprisonment to be served by email. The summons may only be served by email if the person on whom the summons is to be served gives prior written consent and specifies in the written consent the person's email address to which the summons is to be sent.

Lastly, clause 15 repeals the School Crossing Patrols Act 1955. The Act is obsolete and the policy intent to ensure safe school crossings has been met by other means.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the amendments proposed in this Bill are the result of careful consideration. They are necessary to make our laws fairer while ensuring that those who engage in egregious road behaviour continue to be punished severely. Madam, I seek to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

4.02 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have a few clarifications on the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to ensure that the changes serve our residents effectively and achieve their intended outcomes.

First, Mdm Deputy Speaker, dangerous driving has no place on our roads. It is not just a rule of law. It is a matter of life and death. The proposed amendments aim to strike a balance between deterrence and proportionality, giving the Courts more flexibility in sentencing. This is a good step forward, but it raises some questions.

When this Bill was announced, Yio Chu Kang residents have asked me, "Are we sending the wrong message? Are we going soft on offenders?"

Removing mandatory minimum sentences might unintentionally be perceived as leniency even if that is not the intent. This could undermine public trust and undo years of effort to foster safer driving habits.

Residents are also concerned about consistency and fairness. How will the Ministry ensure that sentencing decisions are equitable and reflect the severity of offences? How will our Courts be guided on the minimum sentences for offences, now that it is removed? Could lighter sentences also embolden risky behaviour? Could they lead to more repeat offenders? These are real risks that we cannot ignore and may be exploited by offenders. The Ministry must monitor the impact of these changes to ensure they do not compromise public safety.

Education is just as critical as enforcement. Stronger penalties should go hand in hand with public campaigns to hammer home the message – reckless driving destroys lives. Let us make it clear that dangerous driving will not be tolerated. Clear communication about the gravity of penalties is essential to maintain public trust in our justice system.

Second, Mdm Deputy Speaker, empowering immigration officers to conduct breath tests at checkpoints is a logical and necessary move. Drunk driving is a menace that knows no borders. But as with any enforcement, the devil is in the details.

How will officers be trained to exercise their powers impartially? Residents have expressed concerns about potential profiling, which could erode public trust. Clear guidelines and robust training must be non-negotiable.

Another worry is the perennial issue of delays at checkpoints, especially since our Woodlands Checkpoint is one of the busiest land crossing points in the world. Many people commute across these borders daily for work or family obligations. Adding breath tests could slow things down. Can the Ministry leverage technology to speed up the process while ensuring strong enforcement? The goal must always be to achieve safety without undue inconvenience.

Likewise, how does the Ministry plan to deal with foreign vehicles that may have been caught committing traffic offences, especially speeding, illegal parking or beating the red light? How many foreign vehicles have been caught with traffic offences in 2023 or 2024 alone?

Clause 2 allows for ICA to deny entry or exit for vehicles which have offences. How does the ICA plan to enforce these fines and ensure that they are paid? Across the border, our neighbours have already used various methods to ensure that Singaporean drivers pay up their fines. Are we doing something similar considering that our roads also have a number of foreign vehicles plying them? Do we similarly enforce our laws on these foreign vehicles?

Third, Mdm Deputy Speaker, digitalising summons delivery may be a step into the future, but we must ensure no one is left behind in this transition. Not every resident has email or the digital literacy to navigate online systems. Seniors, in particular, are at risk of being excluded.

Using email for those ready and physical mail for others ensures fairness during the shift to a digital process. This dual system approach would be a practical way to cater to the diverse needs of our population.

Scams is another significant concern. Fraudulent summonses could trick people into revealing sensitive information or paying bogus fines. We need robust safeguards to protect against this. Equally important is clear communication with the public about how to identify legitimate summonses.

In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill addresses three critical aspects of road safety: deterrence, enforcement and modernisation. Each is essential to creating a safer and fairer road traffic system for all.

On dangerous driving, we must ensure penalties serve as a real deterrent while giving the Courts the discretion to impose sentences that match the severity of the harm caused. This flexibility recognises that driving is a complex task requiring skill, focus and experience, and that mistakes can happen even to the best of us. By striking this balance, we strengthen the rule of law while upholding fairness.

On enforcement, empowering officers at checkpoints to combat drink driving is a necessary move. But it must be implemented with care, ensuring fairness, impartiality and efficiency. Clear guidelines and robust training are non-negotiable to maintain public trust. Leveraging technology can help minimise inconvenience for commuters.

On modernisation, transitioning to digital summons delivery is a step forward, but we must ensure inclusivity. Seniors and the digitally disadvantaged must not be left behind and cybersecurity measures must be in place to protect residents from scams. A hybrid approach during this transition is not just practical, it is essential to maintaining public confidence.

Ultimately, this Bill is more than a collection of amendments. It is a commitment to protecting lives and livelihoods, especially those most vulnerable – our elderly, our low-wage workers – and those who depend on the road for their daily bread.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we owe it to our residents to get this right. Behind every traffic law is a family waiting for their loved ones to return home safely. Behind every enforcement action is a promise to uphold justice. And behind every decision we make here is the opportunity to build a road system that does not just move people but safeguards lives. I support this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

4.09 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, road traffic regulations play a very important role in protecting the safety and well-being of our vulnerable road users in our neighbourhoods, including the elderly and young children. As such, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has some concerns with the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act that we hope the Government can address today.

Members of the public have expressed concern about the removal of the mandatory minimum jail term and mandatory minimum disqualification period for first-time offenders, even in cases of reckless or dangerous driving leading to death. PSP agrees with these concerns.

The Government's justification for making these amendments is that the current mandated minimums are too harsh and may cause some drivers to be overly punished as a result. However, it is important to note that section 64 on reckless and dangerous driving already carries a higher level of culpability than driving without due care and attention in section 65. Drivers who run red lights or drive recklessly at dangerous speeds are knowingly and wilfully putting other road users at risk.

In justifying the amendment, MHA have shared several examples where the current laws as applied would be too harsh. Two can be found in Annex A from MHA's press release on the Bill published on 11 November 2024. Another can be found in MHA's response on 29 November 2024 to letters from the public on The Straits Times Forum.

As it is currently not clear if these cases are purely hypothetical or based on actual cases, can the Minister clarify whether these examples are based on actual cases?

Furthermore, none of these cases mentioned involved fatalities as a result of dangerous or careless driving. Will the Minister be able to share with this House some recent cases of dangerous driving leading to death where they believe the mandated minimum jail term of two years was too harsh?

Many Singaporeans are baffled by the timing of this decision to do away with mandatory minimum penalties. Online and offline, many members of the public have shared that the proposed changes would make the roads feel less safe for themselves, especially pedestrians and cyclists, and are concerned that the change would lead to a rise in the number of dangerous driving cases. These concerns are understandable given that there has been an increasing trend in the number of fatal accidents in recent years.

The mandatory minimum sentences for dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt had been introduced in 2019 in order to increase the sentencing norms for irresponsible driving offences and to avoid manifestly inadequate jail sentences for egregious offences.

During the Second Reading debate, then Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mrs Josephine Teo, said that irresponsible driving remained a big concern. She said, "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."

From time to time, we hear of terrible tragedies on the road. Last year, on 22 April, a driver sped and ran a red light in Tampines. Six vehicles were involved in the accident and two people died. Mdm Norzihan Juwahib had just bought a new flat and celebrated Hari Raya there the day before the accident. Afifah Munirah Muhammad Azril was a 17-year-old student at Temasek Junior College who was described as a high flier in school. Their lives came to a tragic end because of irresponsible driving.

Strong deterrence is needed against irresponsible driving behaviours leading to death, which is irreversible.

In 2019, Mrs Teo said, "motorists who have a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users should be severely punished" and "to make our roads safer, we need stronger deterrence against irresponsible driving". So, why is there an apparent policy U-turn by the Government today with the removal of mandatory minimum jail terms for first-time offenders even in cases of reckless or dangerous driving leading to death?

Based on figures from the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the number of fatal accidents dropped in 2020 when compared to 2019, but thereafter increased every year from 2021 to 2023. In its mid-year report in August 2024, it was revealed that when comparing the first half of 2024 with the first half of 2023, the number of traffic accident fatalities increased by 2.8% and the number of fatal speeding accidents almost doubled from 13 to 25.

Last year, we debated the issue of dangerous driving in this House after the six-vehicle crash in Tampines on 22 April 2024 where a driver sped, ran a red light and caused the tragic deaths of two persons. At the time, the Government rejected calls to consider introducing stiffer penalties for road traffic offences. Now, we hear that the Government is, in fact, going to do the opposite, by removing the mandatory minimum penalties for first-time offenders.

As we work towards a car-lite society, where the privilege of owning and driving a car is for the minority, we must consider the interests of road users who are not motorists. By retaining mandatory minimum jail terms, we send a clear message to motorists that they have the responsibility for helping to keep other road users safe and there would be serious consequences should they wilfully fail to do so.

We support the other amendments in the Bill, which include, streamlining the commencement dates of disqualification periods and strengthening the Traffic Police's suspension powers. However, PSP cannot support the amendment to remove mandatory minimum sentence and mandatory minimum disqualification periods for first-time offenders at a time of rising traffic fatalities and fatal speeding accidents. We urge the Government to maintain the current mandatory penalties in cases of reckless or dangerous driving leading to death. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill being read for the Second time today seeks to remove the mandatory minimum jail term and mandatory minimum disqualification period for first-time offenders who commit dangerous or reckless driving leading to death or grievous hurt. PSP cannot support this change.

According to Police data, there has been a significant increase of fatal traffic accidents from 2020 to 2023. If you compare the first half of 2024 to the first half of 2023, the number of fatalities from traffic accidents increased by 2.8% while fatal speeding accidents nearly doubled from 13 to 25 cases. Many citizens are, therefore deeply concerned about road safety.

In 2019, the Government implemented mandatory minimum sentences for reckless driving behaviour.

Then Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo said that drivers who blatantly disregard the safety of other road users should be severely punished. She also said to make our roads safer we need to strengthen deterrence against irresponsible driving behaviour. So, why is the Government now reducing the deterrence effect of this policy at the time when our road safety is in fact deteriorating?

PSP opposes this amendment.

(In English): Madam, we oppose the Bill in its current form, but will support the Bill if amendments are made to retain the current mandatory penalties for reckless or dangerous driving leading to death.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

4.18 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill today proposes to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960 and to repeal the School Crossing Patrol Act of 1955.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill but I would like to speak on the proposal to remove or lower mandatory minimum sentences. Essentially, today's amendments will remove the mandatory minimum sentence and disqualification period for first-time offenders who are convicted of dangerous or careless driving offences. The mandatory minimum sentence for such repeat offenders will be halved.

In justifying the reason for the amendments, MHA has, in its advisory in November 2024, explained that today's amendments were part of their regular review, the last being done in 2019. We are told that the amendment is required as there is a need to adjust the Act to balance deterrence and proportionality, which applicable sentencing principles which the Court will abide by. Importantly, MHA has explained that the changes will ensure that behaviour that is relatively less egregious is not overly penalised, while the law can still be used to penalise egregious offenders. For example, the Court will be able to give lighter sentences where other road users have also behaved irresponsibly.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think there are different responses from Singaporeans to the proposed changes. On one hand, there are Singaporeans who are concerned that the removal of the minimum sentences will represent a relaxation of the laws on careless or reckless driving. Such concerns are understandable, especially bearing in mind recent high-profile serious road traffic accidents, such as the road accident at the junction of Tampines Avenue 1 and Tampines Avenue 4 in April 2024, where a driver failed to stop at the traffic junction and caused an accident involving five other vehicles and leading to the unfortunate death of two persons.

It was also reported, more recently on 18 December 2024 that a driver was sentenced to a year's imprisonment and disqualified from driving for eight years after he pleaded guilty to three charges of causing death of a pedestrian in October 2022 by driving without due care and attention, failing to render assistance and obstructing the course of justice. The driver was previously fined $500 and handed 12 demerit points for speeding just a month before the fatal accident. The victim was a 26-year-old pharmacist and who was a Hougang resident of mine.

In fact, in light of similar serious traffic accidents in recent years, some Singaporeans have asked whether we should enhance our laws to deter reckless driving and serious road accidents. Following the accident at Tampines Avenue 1, I and some other Members of this House have asked questions, and the Government addressed some of such concerns in Parliament. I trust that the Government will assure Singaporeans today that the proposed changes in this Bill will not lead to a relaxation of the law or the enforcement efforts against careless or reckless driving and result in a worsening of the present situation.

Under this Bill, the prosecution will be able to proceed with a charge of causing hurt and are not grievous hurt if the victim's injuries meet the legal definition of grievous hurt. Grievous hurt is defined under section 320 of the Penal Code and it can include fractures or dislocations and when the victim cannot follow his or her ordinary pursuits for at least 20 days.

MHA explained that the change under this Bill will better allow the Prosecution to take into account the nature of the injury caused and whether other road users share responsibility for the incident. The definition of repeat offender will also be narrowed. Currently, a motorist is a repeat offender if he or she has been convicted previously of any one of the following: dangerous or careless driving, conducting illegal speed trials or speeding.

The Bill proposes that a motorist facing a dangerous or careless driving charge will only be considered a repeat offender vis-a-vis his speeding convictions only if he or she has: one, at least two prior speeding convictions in which the driver sped in excess of 40 km/h of the roads or the vehicle's speed limit; and two, at least two of the prior speeding convictions occurred within the past five years before the motorist's current driving offence.

May I ask the Minister of State to explain the rationale for the limit of previous speeding in excess of 40 km/h? I ask this as some Singaporeans will regard speeding in excess of lower speed ranges, such as between 20 and 39 km/h, or 30 and 39 km/h, to be already excessive and deserving of the current minimum punishment under the present law.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, such concerns are understandable. Singapore still suffers from a significant number of deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents. According to the SPF's Annual Road Traffic Situation 2023 report, Singapore suffered about 136 deaths in 2023 due to road traffic accidents. Road traffic accidents in 2023 also caused 8,931people to suffer non-fatal injuries. According to the Annual Road Traffic Situation Report 2023, road traffic fatalities have increased year-on-year since 2020, from a low of 83 during COVID to 136 in 2023. The current number of annual fatalities are also higher than the pre-COVID numbers: 136 in 2023 versus 118 in 2019. Similarly, the traffic accident cases involving injuries have similarly increased year on year since 2020, from 6,669 in 2020 to 8,931 in 2023.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would also like to ask the Minister: beyond the proposed amendments, do the authorities have any other plans to curb the continuing increase in the number of accident cases involving fatalities and injuries in the next few years? MHA also mentioned two past cases justifying the Government's intention to remove minimum sentences.

Two examples: the first case involves a taxi driver who fails to conform to a red-light signal at a T-junction and collides into an oncoming motorcar, which has the right of way. The victim sustained neck and shoulder pain with numbness in one half of his body and received a medical certificate (MC) for 25 days. But a subsequent medical assessment finds that the victim has made a full recovery. Because the victim has received at least 20 days of MC and section 320 of the Penal Code defines grievous hurt as, among other things, any hurt that causes the victim to be unable to follow his or her ordinary pursuits during the space of 20 days.

This meant that the injury to the victim in the cited case was regarded as grievous hurt under the law. This is notwithstanding that the overall injury sustained, suffered, was not actually that severe, having regard to the initial injury report and the victim's full recovery. The driver who caused the injury was, upon conviction, subject to a mandatory minimum of one year's imprisonment and eight years' disqualification.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are also critics who feel that the removal of the mandatory minimum sentencing should be objected to on other grounds. For example, the driver in the first example may be regarded as objectively reckless in running the red light and it may be argued that whether the victim is more or less injured is just a matter of fortuity.

Another criticism is that the problem may not be the minimum sentence itself, but the definition of grievous hurt under section 320 of the Penal Code, especially as we now see how it has applied to the Road Traffic Act. For example, the factual scenario seen in the first example cited by MHA. Further, there is also the issue of whether the length of an MC necessarily commensurate with the seriousness of the injury caused and has a definitive bearing on, say, permanent incapacity.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are also Singaporeans who agree with the proposed amendments and take the view that the Court should have a wider judicial discretion which would enable the Court to punish more appropriately in accordance with the circumstances of each case. A more restricted discretion may result in drivers being penalised unnecessarily or unnecessarily harsh. In some cases, the punishment may have more serious consequences or resulting in loss of jobs and/or deprivation of employment income and resulting financial hardship.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as a lawyer, I have full confidence that our Courts will ultimately be able to achieve that desirable calibration between different cases when exercising their discretion. It is, however, important for the Courts to create clear guidelines after the law is amended so that drivers are punished more appropriately according to what they have done and are not overly punished.

I am, therefore, heartened to hear the Minister of State sharing just now to the House that this will be carried out by the Courts. I also agree with MHA's explanation in their second example where a driver collided with a cyclist who failed to give way to the driver and cross the road. I am of the view that in accidents where both a driver and the other road user, could be a motorist, failed to give way to each other or were both guilty of different traffic offences, resulting in a collision. MHA should not over penalise one party merely because another party was physically injured.

Using the second case example given by MHA, the primary consideration upon which punishment should be imposed should first be the primary wrongfulness, if any, of both parties leading to the accident, rather than merely of the cyclist being injured. In MHA's example, there is the failure of the cyclist to stop and give way and there is also the failure of the driver to keep a proper lookout for a cyclist in breach of the cyclist's own legal obligations. There should be greater and appropriate proportionality given to both road users for their respective breaches.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we do see many cyclists breaking the law by not following traffic lights or road traffic rules and this is something I have spoken about in the past. If they are more seriously taken to task when they are found to be in breach, this may encourage a change in our riding culture on the roads and enhance the safety of our roads and accidents can be minimised or prevented.

Further, it is also not uncommon for parties involved in accidents to latch on to the Traffic Police's charges against particular motorists to argue that their opponent's case may be weaker. If successful, this, together with the law of contributory negligence, may mean that in the ensuing civil claims, a motorist may be the ultimate paying party in such a case where another road user who also blatantly breaks the law is injured.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would next like to share some feedback from our residents. One of our residents, a first-time offender with 45 years of unblemished records shared that he was charged for careless driving causing grievous hurt under section 65(1)(b) of the RTA. The accident involved a side swipe with a motorcyclist, resulting in the latter suffering a fracture. Our resident was fined $4,000 and sentenced under the mandatory disqualification regime to 60 months and still has to serve a remaining period of about 29 months.

Our resident would like to know whether people like him who were previously sentenced to the mandatory disqualification regime under the existing law will be allowed to have their period of disqualification reduced once the law is passed.

Another resident said that with the change, there may be the anomaly arising from those who were more recently punished under the RTA 2019 coming out from their disqualification period even later than those who may be sentenced under the RTA 2024, assuming that this will be passed in the near future.

Given the change in law and the rationale given by MHA for the change, there may be an issue of fairness. As such, will the Government address the above concerns?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we also have feedback from residents regarding the harshness of such offence being a registrable offence and for a five-year period. The argument is that such offences should be distinguished from other crimes if such offences arose purely as an accident, that there was no deliberate intent to break the law or to commit the offence, and there was no premeditation. There may be consequences or burdens on the convicted in terms of employment or travel when declarations for such convictions are required. I hope MHA will consider this feedback.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns and feedback I have raised as well as the clarifications I have sought, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

4.33 pm

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

The proposed amendments have two primary aims: first, to recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality; and second, to enhance powers to enforce against errant motorists.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, to assist to achieve the first aim, the Bill seeks to remove mandatory minimum sentences and disqualification periods for first-time offenders. This proposal reflects a positive shift from current practice and demonstrates a more sophisticated approach to justice and sentencing.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, no two crimes are alike and not every offence fits neatly into predetermined sentencing brackets. Context matters and judges should always have discretion in sentencing. Defendants before a Court should always be allowed to present and have considered mitigating circumstances.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we do, however, need to be vigilant to community attitudes and perceptions. Roads are public and shared spaces where mistakes can have devastating consequences. We all know of someone who has been impacted by the behaviour of other drivers or even ourselves. It is understandable that the community want to see justice done if and when a crime occurs.

I am not saying that court processes, including sentencing, should be determined by community outrage or preference, but the views of the community need to be acknowledged and considered. Perhaps it would be appropriate for these proposed amendments to be accompanied by a public awareness campaign, reinforcing the message that the removal of mandatory sentences for first-time traffic offenders is not going soft on crime or letting people get away with things, but is instead an evidence-based sentencing practice that leads to greater desistance and reduced recidivism. We need to inform the public that the primary aim of these changes is to make our roads safer.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we also need to ensure that the removal of mandatory sentences for first-time traffic offenders does not inadvertently result in unwarranted leniency or inconsistency between courts. MHA has highlighted that they would monitor and report on sentencing patterns. However, it would be good if it could look at the trends over time and look at the trends because courts as well. Alternatively, perhaps the Ministry could consider establishing dedicated traffic courts, presided over by specialist magistrates. This would assist to ensure that the sentencing of traffic offenders is nationally appropriate and consistent.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, it would also be useful to understand the short- and long-term impact of the proposed changes on offending driver behaviour. Perhaps the Ministry could commit to an evaluation of the impact of the proposed changes after, for example, one, three or five years.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the World Health Organization predicts that by 2030, traffic accidents will rank as the fifth leading cause of death globally. Traffic accidents are already the top killer of children and young people aged between five and 29 years. In Singapore, while the number of road traffic accidents overall decreased in the first half of 2024, casualties and fatalities have continued to rise and, concerningly, fatal accidents related to speeding and drink driving have risen over the last three years.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we need to do to everything we can to slow or ideally, reverse these trends. Our roads should be safe for everyone and just like Singapore has zero tolerance for drug use, we should also have zero tolerance for injury and fatality caused by traffic or road accidents.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the causes of traffic and road accidents are complex and require a multi-pronged response. Some accidents are simply mistakes – a momentary lapse of reason and judgement by an otherwise responsible driver. Others are a lack of awareness about traffic and driving safety or an over confidence or lack of awareness about personal skill and competence. Far too many others are the result of predominantly young men showing off in front of their friends, thinking that reckless driving or behaviour is cool or exciting or that they are invincible to such harms on the road. Some are the result of deliberate, repeated and purposeful behaviour.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the enforcement of road rules and issuing penalties are central elements in deterring and changing offending behaviour and are strategies that continue to be used across the world to modify driver behaviour.

According to deterrence theory, individuals make behavioural choices based on their perceptions of the threat posed by penalties. This perceived threat is influenced by the likelihood of being caught, or perceived risk of apprehension and beliefs about the certainty, severity and swiftness of punishments.

A penalty-based system can be very effective in many cases, however, not all. Fining, imposing disqualification periods or even imprisonment can have little short- or long-term effect on an alarming number of road users. We also need comprehensive education programmes that provide drivers and other road users with age, gender and culturally appropriate information and messaging about road and traffic safety. These programmes also need to target different categories of road users, including motorcyclists, motorcycle passengers, peddle or electric cyclists, companies transporting foreign workers, children and young people, and elderly pedestrians.

Ideally, we need to convince people to stop wanting to do or choosing to do the many things on the road that can get themselves or someone else killed or seriously injured.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would therefore welcome advice from MHA about existing or proposed driver education programmes, including target audience and intended outcomes.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, another approach that has had some success internationally at reducing recidivist road and traffic offending are post-conviction behaviour modification programmes. In these circumstances, instead of – or sometimes as well as – a fine or other punitive consequences, convicted drivers are referred to alternatives aimed at changing future behaviour, including driving courses, awareness programmes, rehabilitation support or community service. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would therefore also welcome advice from MHA about existing or proposed post-conviction behaviour modification programmes, including target audience and intended outcomes.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, Sweden's Vision Zero initiative is a model of international best practice that exemplifies how a comprehensive approach to road and traffic safety can significantly reduce traffic fatalities. When the concept of Vision Zero was introduced in 1997, it transformed the view of road safety work. Instead of trying to prevent all accidents, the goal is for no one to die or be seriously injured in a road accident. The initiative has led to a halving of deaths on Swedish roads.

Vision Zero regards the road transport system as an entity in which different components such as roads, vehicles and road users must be made to interact with each other so that safety can be guaranteed. To prevent serious consequences from accidents, it is essential for roads and vehicles to be adapted to match the capabilities of the people who use them.

Countries like Canada and New Zealand are also adopting similar road safety strategies, aiming for zero fatalities and reduced road trauma by 2025 and 2030 respectively.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to discuss two other issues: first, victim support; and second, transport arrangements for foreign workers.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, several other jurisdictions have established programmes and services to assist victims of road or traffic incidents, including counselling or trauma support, legal assistance and victim participation in the justice process. Related is the use of restorative justice procedures to provide meaningful resolutions and support for all parties involved in serious driving offences.

I understand that restorative justice procedures can be particularly useful in resolving those matters involving young drivers who have caused injury or death to a third party as a result of speeding, reckless driving or drug and alcohol misuse, and who show genuine remorse and are prepared to accept responsibility for the consequences of their behaviour.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, again, I welcome advice from the Ministry about existing or proposed restorative justice procedures for road and traffic offences, including target audience and intended outcomes.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will now make some incidental comments about transport arrangements for foreign workers. This topic has been discussed a number of times in Parliament and advocacy groups have been calling for a ban on unsecured open vehicle transport for several years. The safety and well-being of foreign workers should be considered no differently to the safety and well-being of other Singaporeans. I remain puzzled as to why it is still legal to transport multiple foreign workers in open vehicles and without seatbelts, whereas all other drivers and passengers on Singaporean roads are required to wear seatbelts at all times. I understand that the Government is currently considering changes to these arrangements and I welcome an update on the status and timeline of these changes.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, road and traffic safety transcends laws and penalties. It involves fostering a culture of responsible driving and road use and ensuring that our justice system balances accountability with rehabilitation. As we proceed with these amendments, let us commit to regular evaluations of their impact and remain open to further refinements. Our goal should be not just to punish offenders but to prevent accidents, support victims and enhance safety for all road users in Singapore. By doing so, we can create a safer environment for everyone who calls Singapore home.

Clarifications notwithstanding, I support this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

4.44 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I agree in principle with the need for our road traffic legislation to maintain a balance between deterrence and proportionality. I also strongly support the provision of enhanced powers to our Traffic Police to enforce our regulations against errant motorists.

It is understandable that the authorities want to adjust penalties to be more proportionate to particular offences. They are concerned about over-penalising motorists who commit traffic infractions which result in relatively less harm.

However, the removal of the mandatory minimum sentences and disqualification periods in the cases of careless or dangerous driving offences causing death or grievous hurt does not seem to be sending the correct message of deterrence. This reduction is too lenient, even for first-time offenders.

We have to remember that in these cases, lives had been, or could have been endangered, or lost, and the offenders did exhibit dangerous or careless driving behaviour in causing the accidents. The penalties need to be severe enough to act effectively as a meaningful deterrence. As it is today, as many drivers observe on our roads, there are quite a number of motorists speeding, tailgating or driving carelessly. We cannot afford to reduce the penalties further to send the wrong message to such motorists.

Another amendment that I hope to obtain more clarification on is the proposal for a motorist to be considered as a repeat offender only if he had sped in excess of 40 km/h of the road's speed limit, or the vehicle's speed limit, at least twice within the last five years.

Let us consider our demerit points system today, where exceeding the speed limit by more than 40 km/h would cost the motorist 12 demerit points and will be prosecuted in court. Why do we need a motorist to have committed such offences at least twice, while continuing to drive irresponsibly, before we consider him or her a repeat offender? This is not the behaviour of an average motorist at all. I am concerned that most will perceive that the Ministry is becoming lenient on such offenders. While giving second chances is important, we have to weigh against the deaths and serious injuries arising from the behaviour of such irresponsible motorists. I urge the Ministry to reconsider this amendment.

Finally, I wish to conclude, with my support, for the enhancement of powers for our regulators to enforce against errant motorists, including the streamlining of the commencement date of the disqualification periods and to close up various loopholes involving suspensions. I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim.

4.48 pm

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their support for the Bill. I appreciate their frank views and feedback. They raised important questions which I will now attempt to address.

Members raised concerns over the removal of mandatory minimums. Ms Hazel Poa asked for the reason for the proposed amendments. As explained in my earlier speech, MHA reviews the offences and penalties in the RTA from time to time. Following the 2019 amendments, we have given some time for the laws to take their course and we now assess that amendments are necessary to recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality. As pointed out by Ms Poa, we have provided some examples to illustrate the need for these amendments. These examples are adapted from actual cases.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the Ministry will ensure that sentences are equitable and reflect the severity of offences, and how our Courts will be guided on the minimum sentences for offences, given the removal. Assoc Prof Razwana suggested establishing dedicated Traffic Courts to ensure sentences are consistent and appropriate.

Regarding Mr Yip's concern, it is precisely because of the need for fairness that we are moving these amendments. Our intent is indeed to ensure that the RTA penalties reflect the severity of the offence, as well as the culpability of the offender. Sentencing decisions are made by the Courts, which will consider the facts and circumstances of every case. The Bill will give the Courts more flexibility to decide on the appropriate sentences, rather than be constrained by the statutory minimums.

Regarding Assoc Prof Razwana's suggestion of dedicated Traffic Courts, it is already the case today, in practice that if the motorist faces only traffic charges, his case will generally be heard in the Traffic Court. To enhance sentencing consistency and transparency, the Sentencing Advisory Panel is also looking at issuing guidelines for dangerous and careless driving offences. This will provide guidance to the Judges on the sentencing approach for such offences, while allowing them to decide the exact sentence for each case depending on its own facts.

Mr Yip asked if lighter sentences could embolden risky behaviour and lead to more repeat offenders. Ms Joan Pereira, Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Hazel Poa were also concerned that the amendments would send the wrong message to offenders. I wish to reiterate that the intent of these amendments is not to signal a more lenient stance towards egregious motorists, nor to let them off with lighter sentences. We will continue to punish those who exhibit irresponsible driving behaviour. The maximum penalties are stiff and remain unchanged. Judges will have full flexibility to decide the appropriate sentence up to the maximum sentence prescribed in law, depending on the facts of each case.

Ms Hazel Poa asked if there were any recent cases of dangerous driving causing death, for which we believe the mandatory minimum imprisonment of two years is too harsh. There are no such cases because in the appropriate circumstances, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) had exercised its prosecutorial discretion to prefer a lesser charge, for example, to proceed on a careless driving charge, even though there was dangerous driving involved, or a charge involving hurt, even though grievous hurt was caused.

However, this is not a fully satisfactory approach. Moreover, as mentioned in my opening speech, the High Court has recently ruled that the Prosecution presently does not have the discretion to prefer a hurt charge where grievous hurt is factually caused. The proposed amendments to the RTA, including the removal of mandatory minimums, will allow the Prosecution to proceed with the charge that most appropriately reflects the offence committed and the offender's culpability, without impeding the Courts' discretion to mete out an appropriate sentence. So, it goes back to about balancing the discretion and also the proportionality.

Mr Dennis Tan also asked about the rationale for only taking into consideration a prior conviction of speeding in excess of 40 km/h. The existing practice is that any offender who has sped in excess of 40 km/h of the relevant limit will generally be prosecuted in Court. This is not new, and is part of the calibrated approach that MHA takes towards speeding offences, such that more egregious speeding is dealt with through prosecution, and less egregious speeding is generally dealt with through our demerit points and the composition regime. The amendment simply formalises this approach in law.

Ms Joan Pereira asked for the rationale of having at least two counts of prior speeding convictions before the motorist is considered a repeat offender. The amendment we are introducing today is part of the recalibration of the balance between deterrence and proportionality. It ensures that less serious offences are not overly penalised, while still allowing the Courts to take egregious offenders to task.

Specifically, the RTA explicitly provides for heavier penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences, in the event that the motorist meets the legal definition of a repeat offender. Where the motorist is currently being charged for a dangerous or careless driving offence and is a repeat offender within the meaning in the Act, the Courts must, if it finds the motorist guilty, impose heavier penalties that are specified in the RTA, including a minimum mandatory disqualification period ranging from five to 10 years. The proposed amendment reserves the heavier prescribed penalties for recalcitrant and egregious offenders who show a deliberate and blatant disregard for road safety.

To be clear, a motorist with prior speeding convictions, but who does not satisfy the legal definition of a repeat offender, may not necessarily be sentenced as if he had a clean record. In such a case, the Court can continue to take into account his prior speeding convictions, when deciding on the sentence for a current dangerous or careless driving offence. In other words, such a motorist can continue to expect heavier penalties to be imposed.

Mr Tan asked if those who were previously sentenced to the mandatory disqualification under the existing law will be allowed to have their period of disqualification reduced accordingly. The answer is no. This law does not apply retrospectively. The new set of penalties will only apply to offences that are committed after the amendments come into force. Concluded cases would have been sentenced under the previous offence provisions. That being said, for cases where the offender committed their driving offences before this amendment, AGC will consider the facts and circumstances of these cases, and adjust their sentencing position where it is fair to do so.

Mr Tan asked about our plans to curb the increase in road traffic fatalities and injuries. Assoc Prof Razwana asked about existing efforts to shape motorists' behaviour, including education or rehabilitation programmes. We adopt a multi-pronged approach to keep our roads in Singapore safe. In addition to our reviewing laws and regulations, other key prongs include enforcement, education and engagement.

In terms of enforcement, the Traffic Police deploys a suite of enforcement tools to detect and deter against road traffic violations, which includes fixed speed cameras, red-light cameras, as well as routine patrols by Traffic Police officers. The speed cameras are deployed at speeding-prone and accident-prone locations, where the terrain is suitable.

For education and engagement, the Traffic Police raises awareness on good road safety habits through online and in-person events such as talks, exhibitions and carnivals. In 2024, these engagement efforts reached around 150,000 attendees.

The Traffic Police also worked with the Singapore Road Safety Council and other stakeholders to organise campaigns targeted at different groups of road users. These include the "Road Safety Carnival for Families", "Anti-Drink Drive Campaign" and "Singapore Ride Safe" event that is targeted at motorcyclists. When there are egregious cases of reckless and dangerous road behaviour, the Traffic Police will issue media releases to educate the public on the facts, charges and sentences for these cases.

As for rehabilitation programmes, the Traffic Police has introduced the Safe Driving Course for motorists who have accumulated demerit points, but are not yet liable for suspension. The course educates these motorists on safe driving practices and corrects their risky behaviours. Upon completion of the course, the motorist will have some of their demerit points expunged.

Assoc Prof Razwana spoke about support for accident victims and the use of restorative justice procedures. The Police may refer families who require support to Social Service Offices or Family Service Centres, depending on their circumstances and needs. For those requiring mental health support, the Police may refer them to mental health helplines and counselling services, which are run by trained professionals or the Institute of Mental Health. While there are no specific restorative justice programmes for traffic offences, certain features of our sentencing regime, such as criminal compensation orders, are restorative in nature and seek to redress the harm to the victim.

Assoc Prof Razwana also suggested monitoring sentencing trends and the impact of the amendments on driving behaviour. I thank the Member for her suggestion and assure her that MHA regularly reviews our laws to ensure they meet our policy intent.

Assoc Prof Razwana asked for an update on the transport arrangements for foreign workers. The Ministry of Transport has given a comprehensive reply in July 2023 on this issue. Given that these are not the focus of this Bill, we invite the Member to file a separate Parliamentary Question on this matter.

I will now deal with questions pertaining to the enhancement of our enforcement powers.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the training of immigration officers to exercise their powers and whether the Ministry could leverage technology to speed up the process and avoid potential delays at checkpoints. Today, immigration officers already assess if there is any suspected drink-driving violation at the checkpoints. The key difference is that today, the immigration officer has to activate a Police officer to conduct an alcohol breath test, as only a Police officer is legally empowered to conduct the test.

With the amendment, immigration officers will be empowered to conduct breath tests directly and immediately, should they detect any suspected violation. So, there should be no impact on congestion. On the contrary, traffic flow may even be enhanced, since these tests can be conducted more quickly. Officers deployed at the frontline will undergo the appropriate training to administer the tests.

Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about our approach for foreign vehicles with outstanding fines for traffic and illegal parking offences, as well as the number of foreign vehicles caught for traffic violations in 2023. In 2023, about 14,000 foreign vehicles were caught for traffic violations. Foreign motorists who enter Singapore must abide by Singapore's laws. They should settle any outstanding fines for traffic, parking or vehicular emissions offences promptly. We take violations by foreign motorists just as seriously as we do violations by local motorists. To strengthen enforcement against foreign motorists who violate our laws, since 2019, we have denied foreign vehicles with outstanding fines entry into Singapore.

The authorities also regularly conduct operations against foreign motorists who commit offences in Singapore and do not settle their fines. In July 2024, the Traffic Police led a multi-agency operation where 188 foreign motorists were stopped and directed to settle their outstanding fines for vehicular and traffic offences when they entered Singapore via the Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints. We also issue public advisories regularly to remind foreign motorists to check the AXS website for any outstanding fines and to settle them promptly.

On Mr Yip Hon Weng's concern about seniors who are not digitally savvy, I wish to clarify that summons will only be issued by email if there is prior written consent from the individual. The Police will also put out advisories on how to identify legitimate summonses. Members of the public who are unsure about the legitimacy of any communication from the Police can call the ScamShield hotline at 1799.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Government is determined to keep our roads safe. But laws alone cannot prevent all accidents. I call upon all road users – motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, Members of the House and others – to uphold a culture of vigilance and courtesy on our roads. One distraction, one careless mistake, one temptation to speed, is all it takes to cause an accident and lead to a life of regret. I thank the Members again for their support and suggestions for the Bill, and seek to move.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications? Ms Hazel Poa.

5.04 pm

Ms Hazel Poa: I thank the Minister of State for answering my questions. I asked for an example of actual cases where the accident resulted in death and MHA felt that the penalty was too harsh and the reply was no. So, the reason for removing the mandatory minimum penalties was for judicial discretion.

Given that the mandatory minimum penalties were introduced in 2019, I would like to ask what has changed. Why was judicial discretion not an issue in 2019 but is now an issue in 2025?

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the clarification. As I shared earlier, we review our law from time to time. From 2019 to now, the Traffic Police, as well as the agencies have been working together and also there have been cases whereby, as I shared in my answer, where the current amendment that we are proposing would provide a better option, more flexibility as well as avenues for a fairer sentence regime than what it is available today.

I also want to assure the Member that even though we will remove the minimum element of it, the Court will look at the facts of the case and it will enable more flexibility and a fairer outcome in the judgment.

Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time", put.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Are there any Members who wish to have their dissent recorded? Ms Hazel Poa, you did mention earlier that you did not support the Bill. So, would you like for your dissent to be recorded? For two of you? Okay, thank you.

Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa indicated for their dissent to be recorded.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: I think the "Ayes" have it. The "Ayes" have it.

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. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

The Chairman: The citation year "2024" will be changed to "2025", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Question, "That Clauses 1 to 16 stand part of the Bill", put.

The Chairman: Would Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded, please stand?

Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded.

The Chairman: If Members want to say no, you should say no. I think the "Ayes" have it. The "Ayes" have it.

Clauses 1 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Third time", put.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Do any Members wish to record their dissent?

Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: The "Ayes" have it.

Bill read a Third time and passed.