APPLICATION FOR DRIVING LICENCES

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Communications and Works said yesterday that he would prefer a debate on my question rather than answer supplementary questions, and in reply to that question, Sir, he stated that a language qualification is necessary to qualify for a driving licence, that is, either English or Malay. In my opinion, Sir, there is no connection between a language qualification and a driving licence. As long as the applicant for a driving licence is competent to drive a vehicle without jeopardising the lives of the public and he has some knowledge of the Highway Code, I think he should be given a licence. Sir, if the applicant is going for a job where he has to control labour, speaking either English or Malay, then he has to have a knowledge of these languages in order to make himself understood. Or if a man is applying for a special language appointment in an academy, then I have no reason to disagree with the Minister that that language qualification is necessary. But in this instance, it is entirely nonsense to enforce a law where a language qualification is necessary for a driving licence.

Sir, if in the opinion of the Minister a language qualification is necessary, why should it be in English and Malay only? What is wrong with the Chinese language? What is wrong with the Tamil language? As the Minister has said, we here in Singapore speak so many languages. So what is wrong with languages other than Malay and English? By this, I hope the Malays will not misunderstand me or that I am casting any reflection on them or their language. What I am trying to point out, Sir, is the language concerned which an applicant must know before he can qualify for a driving licence. As we all know, Singapore is a place where there are many nationalities - the English, the Malays, the Chinese, the Tamils, the Eurasians and so on. If Singapore has a state language, then, of course, we have to speak that language. I remember the Chief Secretary at one time said that Singapore has no state religion. So if we have no state religion and no state language, why should Malay be a compulsory language qualification for a driving licence?

Sir, when the local district councils come into being, there will be four languages for the purpose of oral debate. In this Assembly we have just appointed a Select Committee to go into the question of languages for the purpose of oral debate. The Chief Minister has just said that he hopes the day will not be far off when several languages will be used in this Assembly for the purpose of oral debate so that we could all express our views in a more forceful way.

I should say that the present Road Traffic Ordinance is out of date. This Ordinance, I suppose, was framed by the colonial officers and not by an elected government. Now, sitting on the Front Benches, we have a row of elected Ministers with the exception of three ex-officios; and unfortunately, Sir, the Minister who is in charge of this matter is a Nominated Minister and not an elected one. I think that is the reason why he cannot understand the views of the general public. He has his own views as a Nominated Minister, so he can have his way.

The Minister may put forward one reason for this insistence on Malay as a language qualification, and that is, most of the police constables are Malays, and as such applicants for a driving licence should be able at least to speak Malay. If that is so, then I think it is entirely wrong, Sir. In the Courts, we have Court interpreters and in some offices I think there are also interpreters who are engaged for the job of interpreting for the benefit of the public. Can we not have Chinese or Indian testers, instead of confining ourselves to Malay and English testers? The Government should try to help the applicant who comes to apply for a driving licence and try to understand his language. Even the "Safety First" literature issued by the Government is printed in four languages! So why should there be this insistence that an applicant for a driving licence must be able to speak either English or Malay?

There is one more comment I want to make on the Traffic Department, and that is an application for a date for a driving test. I have here, Sir, a licence which was issued on 14th January, 1956, and the learner in question applied for a test yesterday, i.e. 5th December. On it is endorsed - "Test booked for 17th May, 1957". So it takes the Department five months and twelve days before it can test the applicant. Is that fair, Sir? A provisional licence is only valid for six months and it costs the applicant $10. After applying for a provisional licence, the learner will have to take up a course of driving under a tutor. It does not mean that by just applying for a licence he is fixed for a test. When he feels that he is ready for a test, which may be in three months' time, he goes to the Traffic Department and applies for a date for a test. This will take another five months and twelve days plus the three months during which he is learning how to drive, which makes it eight months and twelve days, before he could sit for a test. By that time, Sir, the licence has already expired and the applicant will have to pay another $10 to get another provisional licence. If he is fortunate enough, Sir, within that eight months he may pass the test; but if he is unfortunate because of language disqualification, he may fail the test, and because he has failed, he will have to wait for another month before he can apply for a date. Then again he will have to wait for another six months before he can have the actual test. All in all. Sir, it may take 16 months before a learner can qualify for a test: three months learning how to drive a vehicle; six months for the first booking: a wait of one month because of his failure to pass the test the first time; and then another six months before he goes for his second test. And having to wait all this time, I am afraid he will have forgotten how to drive!

Apart from all this, Sir, there is the question of cost to the learner. As I have said, Sir, a provisional licence is valid for only six months, and in this 16 months the licence will have expired three times. All in all, he will have to pay $30 for the licence. On top of that, when he applies for a test, he will have to pay $5 for it, and if he takes two tests to pass, he will have to pay $10. So the total cost will come to $40 for a provisional licence, and all this is apart from the fee that he has to pay his driving tutor and the cost of petrol while he is learning how to drive.

I would suggest, Sir, that all bookings for a driving test be cancelled immediately and that as many applicants as possible who come to the Department be tested. In the morning they could register those who have come to register and test them and those who have not been tested in the morning could be tested in the afternoon, and those who have not been tested in the afternoon should get priority for a test the next morning.

Another reason that the Minister may give to account for the applicant for a driving licence having to wait such a long time before he can be tested is that there is a big backlog of work in the Department. I think it is all wrong. It is the inefficiency of the Department rather than the backlog that is at the root of all this delay. The backlog is caused by bookings because a learner, as soon as he gets a provisional driving licence, books for a date irrespective of whether or not he is ready to go for a test. The reason for his immediate booking is that he wants to catch up on the time that he is forced to wait before he is tested. Unless he books immediately, he may have to pay $40 or $50 before he finally passes his test. Now after booking that date for a test, it may be that when the time comes he is not ready and he consequently fails to pass the test. Then another booking date is given. So if these bookings are allowed to carry on and on, it is the Department which is creating a backlog and not the public. The public are forced into it. So if the Minister could arrange for all bookings to be cancelled and the applicants tested as soon as they come to the Department, I think that would help to clear the backlog.

I have one other comment to make, Sir. If a learner fails a test, I think he has the right to demand why he has failed the test or how he has failed the test. Sir, there is a printed statement to the effect that testers are not required to give reasons for failing an applicant. I wonder who has given that authority to the Department - that testers are not required to give reasons for failing an applicant? When I went through the Road Traffic Ordinance, I could not find anything at all to indicate that that is so. How come then that this statement is there? I cannot understand. Is it on the initiative of the officer in charge, or is it with the permission of this Assembly or the Minister himself? As a learner who has failed his driving test, he should be told where and how he has gone wrong so that he will be able to correct himself, and when he appears for the next test he will be able to guard against his faults and drive properly.

Apart from this, Sir, I feel that the applicant's tutor should accompany him when he goes for a test, because the tutor should also know how his pupil failed. According to law, only two persons are allowed in the vehicle, that is, the driver (in this case, the learner) and the tester. But I have seen many cases, Sir, where the tester takes the learner out in his vehicle and he brings along a police officer or another tester who sits at the back of the car. If the law only says two, why then allow four where the police are concerned? So I would suggest, Sir, that the next time that a learner goes for a test, his tutor should accompany him and so would be able to know the faults of his pupil and then correct him later.

I think it is high time that the Road Traffic Ordinance be revised. Whether the Minister is nominated or elected, I think he should consult his colleagues who are mostly elected Ministers and revise the Ordinance which should suit the people and not the Minister himself.

3.00 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, just to round off the many points raised by the Member for Queenstown in his speech, perhaps the hon. Member has forgotten to mention that if he wants this driving test in all the various languages, then all the traffic signs should be multilingual.

Mr Francis Thomas: I think I have pointed out before in this Assembly, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Members of the Opposition are advised not to get heated until they find out what the facts of the case are. We have heard stirring claims from the Member for Queenstown about inefficiency and backlog and scrap this and destroy that. He has drawn a painful picture of a man who has bought a car and has obtained a provisional driving licence and has started practising. After three months he says, "Well, I can go ahead now and apply for a test." After six months he goes for a test and he fails, of course, because he has only had nine months of practice and does not feel confident. He tries again but keeps failing. All that takes 16 months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact of the matter is that the Department is working to capacity on the following basis. There were six testers in 1955 and the number was increased to 12 at the end of 1955 and to 18 in June of this year. The number is now 120 persons tested a day and the testers are working to capacity. If you want to put your name down for a booking, you will get it about 165 days ahead. I am advised that that is the approximate date at the moment. But what the hon. Member has overlooked and what he could find out if he made enquiries either from the Traffic Branch or from me is that, in fact, about 50 per cent of those who put their names down for bookings do not make use of them. The booking is primarily a thing which serves the needs of the person who is going to buy a car and who has a provisional driving licence and who goes to a school of motoring and says, "I will take a six-month course and then I will go for my test." At the same time as he gets a licence he puts his name down for a test, and he knows what date he will have to be ready for and then he goes along and takes it. If he has any doubts about his driving, he will write in and say, "I will postpone my driving test because I do not feel quite ready for it yet." Consequently the booking of tests is a real convenience to the public. But if you want to get a test in a hurry, I am assured by the Traffic Branch that you can get one at very short notice, certainly within one week. So if the hon. Member's friend, who has applied and got it on 5th December, 1956, and got a date for a test on 17th May, 1957, feels in a hurry, he can go along to the Traffic Branch and try to get a booking. If he does not get one in a reasonable space of time, he can go to a Licensing Officer, and if the Licensing Officer does not give him satisfaction, he can go to the hon. Member and the hon. Member can speak to me about it and we will see what we can do about it. In short, I do not think this backlog is a thing which matters in the least because, as I say, as things are going at present, there is every possibility that a man will get a test within two or three days, at the most within one week. If there was any question of priority, of course priority would be given to those whose needs are obviously greatest, such as the man who has got a car, or who wants to buy a car for his business, or a man whose livelihood depends on it, that is, a professional syce driver, and so on. There may be a few cases where there is hardship of some sort or another. That is inevitable when you are dealing with an enormous number of people who are not subject to orders and you have got to get them through as quickly as you can. If a man feels that he has hardship, he should see a Licensing Officer, and if he still feels that he is having hardship, he can of course go higher.

About this question of testing, I might mention that representatives of important motoring organisations with a large Asian membership were invited not so long ago to watch the testing and to express their views, and they were very favourably impressed.

The other main question was the question of multilingualism. I will first take the point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar about traffic signs in four languages. The object of a driving sign is that it should be something which can be quickly seen and interpreted by a person who is moving in a vehicle which is perhaps going of 20, 25 or 30 miles an hour, and he cannot stop and linger and study the thing in the way that a pedestrian can. If you are going to have a notice board with traffic signs in four languages, it will have to be a very large board to get the writing big enough to be seen and even then it might be confusing because one goes up and down, one goes across, and one goes the other way. Then, of course, if you do not have it big enough, it will be illegible for anybody except a pedestrian who goes and stands in front of it. The answer to that, I think, is that as far as possible all signs should be symbols which can be understood by anybody, regardless of language. It is not always possible to provide satisfactory symbols, but we are frequently making changes to them and trying to improve them.

The other question is the question of a language qualification. I stated yesterday that the applicant for a test has to have a knowledge of either English or colloquial Malay. That, of course, is not, to my nominated mind, a brilliant idea but it is in the 1948 Rules. I cannot accept responsibility for drafting this qualification, but I am prepared to accept responsibility for changing it. I should like to clear up what perhaps is a misapprehension in the hon. Member's mind that many people fail because of this language qualification. The qualification is there because you must have some means of communication. You must have some means of understanding the language between the driver and the tester and, in fact, the traffic police, I am assured, interpret it very generously and as long as they are able to understand each other, that is about all that is required. They tell me that, although they do not keep figures of the people who fail specifically on the grounds of language - because the number is too small to be worth recording - they do, in fact, keep figures of the reasons for failure. As far as they can break down the figures, they do not think it is more than one or two persons out of 3,000 tested a month who fail because of language difficulties. That is a very minute proportion and even that is a guesswork figure. The causes of failure are, of course, inability to perform the road test - starting and parking and turning and all the other things that you have to do in a road test. When a question is asked of an applicant, allowance is made for the fact that he may not speak good English or Malay.

On the question of language, there is also the point which the hon. Member mentioned that motorists on the road should desirably have some language of communication in case a driver has a minor accident or in case he has to be given directions in case of an emergency, and if he cannot understand the term "Turn right" or "Pusing kanan", or whatever the policeman says to him, well, he is going to be in a difficult position. No doubt it is an insignificant point because most motorists do not get into emergencies and do not have to be given instructions by the police. It is not that which lies behind the language qualification. It is really a matter of administrative efficiency. The system of testing is that every one of the 18 testers can speak English and Malay and consequently can take any applicant for a driving licence. The applicants do not know beforehand who is going to test them. If you are going to introduce a Hokchew or a Cantonese tester, or whatever tester you like, then everyone who is going for a test in that language will know that Mr So-and-so is the man who is going to test him and nobody else. The effect of that would be that they would, from experience in the past, put very great pressure on him or temptation in his way so that he will pass them through the test. That is a matter of experience. I do not remember any allegation in the past that there had been corruption amongst the testers. I am happy to say that I am assured again that there is no question at all of the complete honesty of the testers now, and in my view it is very important that public servants doing this difficult job should be protected from any allegation that they have been corrupt in their contact with the "testee". If you put it down that Mr So-and-so is the man who is going to test all the applicants speaking his language, then allegations of corruption and, of course, the possibility of real corruption will certainly start. That is a very important point, I think, for making sure that the applicant cannot know beforehand who is going to test him. Moreover if the applicant fails, he goes to a different tester on his second test, and if he fails again, he goes to a different tester again. This is partly to protect him just in case there was some personal dislike on the part of the tester, or on the part of the "testee" for that matter. The simple answer to all this, of course, is that every tester should be able to speak every language or dialect, but it is not easy to get testers of the right character and ability and education and other qualifications required, and if we were to insist that they also had to be fully multilingual, it would be almost impossible to get the number of testers you need.

I am just mentioning these difficulties because the effect of the language qualification lies largely in the administration of these tests, the need to see that they are efficiently conducted and do not lead to any allegations of unfairness. I do not say that the difficulties which I have mentioned are insuperable and I propose to try and get them overcome. I am going to give instructions that Kuo-yu should be allowed as a third language for testing, and I think suitable arrangements can be made to deal with that at present. If we can add further languages or dialects at a later date without damaging the efficiency or lowering the standards of driving, then I will certainly consider them further. I think Kuo-yu will meet the major needs at the moment and if we find that that is successful and if there is a clear demand or reason for further languages or dialects to be added to meet the needs of the public, I think we can consider them further.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Three o'clock p.m.