ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill, Sir, has been incubating for a long time. It has now arrived in the Assembly. The Objects and Reasons state fairly clearly what it is all about, but there have been some comments since it came before the public, and I think Members may expect me to give some explanation why a reduction is proposed for the minimum age for drivers of motor vehicles and motor cycles.

The present minimum age of 19 for a driver of a motor car is high by the standards existing in any of the civilized and progressive countries of the world, many of which have traffic problems much more serious than our own. As far as I am aware, there is no minimum age laid down for drivers by any international body, but it is significant that a United Nations conference on road and motor transport, which met in Geneva in 1949, recommended that, for purposes of international traffic, States should recognise the driving permits of other countries, subject to a minimum age of 18 years, or a lower age if they so wish. You will note, of course, that this means that a driver, who has been licensed to drive, say, on the left-hand side of the road, can, at the age of 18, go and drive on what is to him on the wrong side of the road in France. It assumes that the driver is not merely capable of driving in his own country, but driving in any other country where there is a somewhat different traffic system.

In our own International Circulation Motor Vehicle Rules, we provide that an international driving permit can be granted to a person at the age of 18. You thus have the anomalous situation where we will license somebody to drive in a foreign country, yet we refuse to license him to drive in our own country. The Objects and Reasons of the Bill state that the age of 19 is unnecessarily high and that, by reducing it, we will come into line with the United Kingdom and the Federation, where the ages are 17 for motor cars and 16 for motor cycles. There is no absolute need for Singapore to do what is done in the Federation, but it is very advisable that we should, wherever possible, keep closely in step with them. It is also not wholly necessary to keep in step with the United Kingdom, but you do get quite a number of people coming from both territories to Singapore. In fact, at the very first "Meet-the-people" session that the Chief Minister had, he received a complaint or a request from a young person who was licensed to drive elsewhere but was restricted in Singapore. This question of people coming from the Federation or the United Kingdom is not a major question. There are really much more serious reasons why we should at least keep in line with the Federation, because both territories recognise each other's driving permits, and it is most necessary and convenient that drivers, who do have to pass across the causeway from one territory to the other, should be able to pass freely without a lot of unnecessary restrictions. At present, the effect is that a 17-year old or an 18-year old driver from Johore Bahru, or even from Kota Bahru for that matter, can, in practice, drive his car into Singapore and drive all round the place and out again, whilst our own boys and girls are not allowed to drive on the roads. It seems again quite anomalous and unfair.

The Federation lowered their ages for driving way back in 1950, and they seem to have got on very happily with it. Since we have reciprocal recognition of driving licences, it is desirable that we should keep in step. I am sure there will be no difficulty in keeping in step, because we have such very happy and cordial relations with the Ministers in Kuala Lumpur.

Other objections have been raised - and I am dealing with all these now so that we can save time when we get to the Committee stage - about the age limit. It is said that our roads are in - conveniently crowded. There are too many cars on them and therefore we should not allow young people to drive, and that only the old and experienced be allowed to get on to the roads. I do not think that is at all a fair attitude to take. If the roads are over-crowded, then the solution is probably to reduce the size of cars, and allow only small cars on the roads. This will create much more space than possibly can be taken up by an increase in the number of younger people on the roads. The fact is, of course, that our traffic is heavy, but it is nowhere near as heavy as in central London or in New York. We know that in America they have one car for every three persons, and Singapore is nowhere near that standard yet. In places where they have really difficult traffic problems, there have been a number of proposals on how to improve the flow of traffic on the roads, but no one has so far suggested that you should discriminate against a certain age group and say that just because you have not reached this particular age, you shall not be allowed on the roads. The solution, if you are going to take an age group off, will probably be to take the old people off and not the young ones.

However, there still remains another argument, and that is, that the young people, if they get on the roads, will be reckless and dangerous drivers and cause innumerable accidents, speeding around, as one newspaper puts it, in cars which have been given them by their millionaire parents. The fact is that Singapore boys and girls are just as sensible and responsible as boys and girls anywhere else. There is no reason to suppose that they are going to go mad on the roads when people of the same age in the Federation do not misbehave, nor do the young men and women in England misbehave. This is based, I think, on a misapprehension on the part of the people who have raised this objection about dangerous driving by those who are young. There is no evidence at all to show that young drivers in Singapore are more dangerous than those that are older. In fact, the evidence that I have been able to get indicates exactly the opposite. I have had the accident figures for September broken down, and they reveal that the number of drivers at the age of 19, 20 or 21, who were involved in accidents, is very considerably less than the number of drivers who are aged 22 to 30. The actual peaks of accidents come at the ages of 24, 30 and 35. These are the three peaks in the graph. Of course, the significance of that figure depends on how many young people are actually driving at the ages of 19 to 21. I have not got exact figures of how many there are, but that age group accounts for more than 50 per cent of the applications for driving licences. It is fair to say that there must already be a considerable number of these relatively young people at the age of 19, and they do not account for a large part of the accidents. In fact, it is much more likely that young men or young women will be better at avoiding accidents because their reflexes are quicker and their powers of observation and attention are better than those of elderly drivers.

Finally, of course, licences are not given to people without proper testing. They are required to pass their test and about 50 per cent of them are failed, so that these young men and women will have to learn their traffic code and learn their driving very carefully, because otherwise they will not get their licences from the police.

It may be that somebody will wish to query the amendment dealing with the provision for compounding of offences. That comes under section 82 of the Ordinance. The situation here is that a very large and increasing number of offers of compensation are made. It was 2,600 in September, I think, and 2,000 in the previous month, and about 99 per cent of these were accepted by the people who committed the offences, and the amount of money involved was relatively small. It is proper that these offences should be handled by people below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police.

I think I have covered everything that people are likely to say, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I formally move.

Question proposed.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Sir, my sympathies are surely with the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Thomas). I thought the Assembly would have the pleasure of hearing approximately the number of applicants who would fall within the age group of 17 to 19. I also thought, Sir, that the Minister would give us an idea of the additional manpower required to control traffic in the event of this Bill becoming law. I also thought that he would bring to the notice of this Assembly various other aspects of the problem involved in this amended Bill, but I am really very disappointed.

On my own part, Sir, I would like to bring to the attention of this House some of the salient points arising out of this amended Bill. A person applies for a driving licence for one of three reasons. Firstly, if he is the owner of a vehicle, he applies for a driving licence. Secondly, if he does not own a vehicle, but thinks that the possession of a driving licence is a social accomplishment, he applies for a driving licence. And, thirdly, if he thinks that a driving licence is an insurance against unemployment, he applies for a driving licence.

Let us analyse these three points individually, Sir. The first one is that of a person who applies when he owns a motor car or motor cycle or any other vehicle, and he is entitled to a driving licence. The number of people, Sir, who come under this category will be very few and far between. Unless he is the son of some millionaire, as the Hon. Minister points out, there is very little chance of his applying for a licence.

Secondly, when he does not own a vehicle, but he thinks that knowing how to drive is a social accomplishment, he applies for a driving licence. Who are these people? The amendment gives the age group as between 17 and 19. We have seen on the Singapore roads, Sir, traffic accidents in the past -

Mr Francis Thomas: Not due to the young people!

Mr Nair: But we cannot forecast when an accident can occur. There are nearly 30,000 cars in Singapore today, with, I think, about 10,000 lorries, and a very large number of motor cycles. Can one imagine the sight of a teenage boy driving a 3-ton lorry on the Singapore streets? I think that would be a very dangerous situation and this is the time we have to think of the age.

Thirdly, Sir, people who apply for driving licences as an insurance against unemployment. Not long ago, Sir, the President of the Singapore Hire Car Association approached our Chief Minister, informing him of the position of pirate taxis. One of the effects of reducing this age limit will be that in Singapore, from the day the Bill becomes law, we will see a large number of pirate taxis plying for hire. I do not blame them. I agree that they also have to have some occupation. But then what I am worried about is the number of cars that will be on the roads which will bring about very chaotic conditions in Singapore. Against this age limit, Sir, section 285 (1) of the Municipal Ordinance clearly states that the Registrar of Vehicles may grant a licence to a driver of a hackney carriage, other than the first class, to any person above the age of 20. So, if anybody were to think that this is an insurance against unemployment, that argument would fail. He must be more than 20 years of age if he were to be a taxi driver. So I come to my earlier point again, and that is, that if he wants to have employment, he can have it as a pirate taxi driver, or as a driver for some car owner. I do not know whether there will be many vacancies for drivers for motor car owners. I think there is now more unemployment in the driver category than we ever had. I think, Sir, this amendment will be very ineffective as a measure against unemployment.

Now, Sir, for what purpose are we going to have this amendment? The Hon. Minister said that he does not wish this Assembly to become a rubber stamp of the Federation or any other country. He is quite right, but, at the same time, he has not -

Mr Francis Thomas: Could you repeat that?

Mr Nair: When I said the Hon. Minister explained to this Assembly that he did not intend to become a rubber stamp for the Federation or, for that matter, any other country in the world -

Mr Francis Thomas rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Francis Thomas: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Thomas?

Mr Francis Thomas: Which Minister is the speaker referring to?

Mr Nair: That is a compliment for him, Sir! I said the Hon. the Minister for Communications explained to this Assembly that he was not willing to become a rubber stamp of the Federation or any other country; in other words, he is not blindly following what is happening in the Federation and in other countries. It is a compliment, Sir. I do not want him to get annoyed!

Mr Francis Thomas: I am bewildered! I do not know what he is talking about!

Mr Nair: English is a foreign language. I am an Asian and I am arguing this point with whatever knowledge of English that I have. Sir, on these grounds, I feel that this amendment is very untimely. I have not got figures for 1954 traffic accidents and applications for licences. The latest I have got are 1953 figures. I would like to quote a few figures for the information of the Assembly.

In 1952, 21,767 persons - the minimum age was 19 then - applied for licences. In 1953, 25,969 applied. Against these applications, 17,180 licences were issued in 1952 and 20,019 in 1953. Apparently, 4,000 new licences are being issued every year. As far as I can see, nearly 50,000 more applications would be received if we were to lower the age from 19 to 17, because I think in Singapore today we have 89,000 people who come between the ages of 17 and 21 - if I am not mistaken. I may be wrong, because I did not refer to the statistics which I received recently.

Sir, traffic accidents also count a lot in this matter. In 1951, 34,656 reports were received. In 1952, 52,351 and in 1953, 66,139. 9,432 summonses were issued in 1951; 11,045 in 1952 and 15,378 in 1953. Now these figures, I think, will show an increase in 1954 and 1955, because there has been a considerable increase in the number of vehicles on the roads. Looking at these figures, I feel that this lowering of the age limit would definitely react on the traffic problem.

Sir, on the whole, I do not agree with this amendment and my reasons are two. The first is traffic accidents. However, the Hon. Minister might argue that there is bound to be some apprehension in the minds of the public that more vehicles would mean more accidents, and I think it would be better to save the lives of a few than enter into a catastrophic situation. The second reason, Sir, is that the number of pirate taxis will increase very considerably, which, I think, is not a very healthy situation. Pirate taxis are run for the purpose of making money, and I do not think that we should contribute to that. Sir, I think this amendment will do more harm than good. I also believe that it is very untimely and unwise, and that the Minister has been ill-advised.

The Chief Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think it is generally known that the most adept pupils as pilots of aircraft are those in the teenage group, and I understand the reason is that their reaction is much quicker than older pupils. That perhaps explains why the figures of accidents given by my hon. Friend and colleague the Minister for Communications for those under 20 are far less, proportionately, than those over that age. I would like to say this, Sir, that if that is true - and we must accept the evidence of statistics and those who are experienced in these matters - then it is preferable that we should educate our drivers when young, in order that they should be better drivers as they grow older.

I find it more than a little difficult to understand this business about pirate taxis. I do not understand why young persons should be presumed to go in for pirate taxis. Is it a carry-on from their infancy at playing pirates? I am quite at a loss to follow this business of pirate taxis and why it is deemed that that particular age should attract that particular activity. I think it is quite fallacious to suggest that the more driving certificates there are, the more cars there will be on the roads; the younger they are, the more they will be given to piracy!

The question of traffic accidents, Sir, has been dealt with by statistics, and there is only one other thing that I would like to add - that laws should not be repressive, and where they fall unjustly on any particular section of the people, then that injustice should be remedied. No case has been made out, Sir, for this particular discrimination. Figures have been used between 17 and 19, and, in fact, we have the evidence of other territories to show that where they have had the opportunity to drive, they have, in no way, abused their responsibilities and privileges.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we must all agree that motoring is now a part of our lives, and I believe that, as we learned how to pedal a bicycle 20 years ago, we should now all learn how to drive a car. It should be considered as part of our education. I certainly feel that a boy graduating from high school should also know how to drive, and I think they have made it as part of a person's general education in some countries that he should be able to drive before he is given a certificate from the school.

However, I have just one problem, which I want the Minister in charge of this Bill to consider. We are now trying to lower the age of these drivers. It is very good indeed that you lower this age so that more people are eligible to drive, but, at the same time, it will not be within the reach of these people, or other people who will be affected, if the machinery for testing of drivers is also not stepped up. I have been keeping in touch with people who applied for driving licences and they came along to me and said, "It is very difficult to fix up a day for testing." If we are going to increase the number of people eligible for it, then probably the duration for getting a date for testing would be even longer. I think, if the Minister for Communications will consider this point of view, the Bill will do some good.

Mr Thomas rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Thomas, in reply?

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it has been a very interesting little debate. I must express my regret to the Member for Seletar (Mr Nair) for not making myself clear. He was anxious to say that I was not a rubber stamp. I never suggested that I was. I never used the word at all. I merely said that it was not essential in this case that we should keep in step with the Federation on this very, very minor matter indeed.

The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) raised the question of more speedy testing so that people will get tested, and fail or pass more quickly. It is not a matter which I, personally, have to deal with in my Ministry, but it is purely a matter of how many testers you have, and consequently how much money this Assembly supplies for paying the testers, and the other costs involved. If the Member is dissatisfied with the number of testers, he can criticise it, presumably on the Estimates when they come up.

The Member for Seletar made a rather confusing speech. I do not think I need deal with the whole of it, but there are two points which are particularly confusing. He gave three reasons why people wanted licences, and one of them, he said, was owning a car. He said these young people would not own cars - or very, very few of them would - and therefore there was no need to give them licences, and then they would not have cars. Well, the answer is, of course, that a large number of cars are continually being licensed, and the number is growing every month - some fantastic figure which I cannot remember at the moment - but the increase is a very rapid one. Obviously, when father has a car, his son is likely to drive it as well. It is a great convenience that he should be able to drive it so that perhaps when father goes to office, the son can bring the car back to take mother to market. It is a great convenience to have two people in the house who can drive. It does not increase the number of licensed vehicles, but it does, of course, mean that the car is on the road for longer periods.

But the confusing thing is that - that although he argued that there were very, very few extra cars as a result of this, yet he talked most vigorously about the congestion of traffic that would result and the fact that more vehicles on the road would cause more accidents. I think there was confusion in his mind there because different parts of his speech were not quite well related.

The other point on which he spoke vigorously was unemployment. He tried to horrify us with a picture of a teenage boy driving a 3-ton lorry. If he had done his home work and read the Bill and not the original Road Traffic Ordinance, he would have found that section 23 subsection (1) restricts the age of driving a motor vehicle. Subsection (2) restricts the age of driving motor cars. In subsection (3) you have to be 21 before you can have a heavy locomotive, a light locomotive, a motor tractor, or a heavy motor car on the roads, and so forth. In fact, his arguments do not apply. We are not going to get teen-agers tearing round the streets with 3-ton trucks. It is not part of the intention of this Bill.

I do not think there is anything much in his quotation from the 1952 traffic figures for accidents and licences and so on. I have the last few months' figures if anybody would like to hear them. I do not think anybody will. They keep on going up more or less. The answer does not lie in putting an unjust restriction on a small section of the population, but in taking proper measures of road safety and road education and other things which are not associated with this Bill in any way at all.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.