VEHICLE LICENCE FEE VIS-A-VIS RESTRICTION ON DRIVING TUITION

5.24 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, in raising this matter on vehicle licence fee and restriction on driving tuition, I refer to my Questions tabled in this House on 4th December and the replies given by the Minister thereto. I must admit that I was very dissatisfied with the replies given and at that time I considered that any supplementary Question to those replies would serve very little purpose because I would not be allowed to elaborate on my Questions. So the only course left to me was to claim the right to speak on this matter on the motion for adjournment and I have now obtained this right.

Firstly, I will deal with the restriction of hours within the city limits for learner-drivers. The hours that are restricted are from 8.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m., from 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 4.30 p.m. to

6.30 p.m. Sir, these hours happen to be the best hours for a working man to learn driving because these are the hours during which a working man can be free. Apart from these hours, a working man has got to be at his office from 9 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. So if the hours outside 9 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. are restricted, there will not be a good chance for a man to learn how to drive. So is it then desirable that the learner should learn how to drive after dusk because if he leaves his office at 4.30 p.m. and there is no chance for him to learn between 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., which time is restricted, the only time that he can learn is after dusk? Is it then desirable that a learner should learn driving when it is just about to become dark? Now, as a learner, he is new to the wheel; that is number one. He is new to road sense; that is number two. And, Sir, he is new to all the Jaws of the Road Traffic Ordinance. At the same time, he may have loss of judgment at dusk. So where is the chance for him to actually learn how to drive? I do appreciate that these restriction hours are for the purposes of restricting people from learning to drive cars within the congested areas or in the heart of the town. Certainly, Sir, I would not encourage a learner to drive in Raffles Place, North Bridge Road or South Bridge Road during the restricted hours because I do agree that all these places are congested with traffic and it is not only undesirable and risky to the life of the learner-driver but also to the lives of the public. I certainly agree, but what I am saying is this: I am asking the Minister to consider that, apart from these congested streets, whether there are other streets within the city limits that are not congested within the restricted hours. The area within the city limits covers an area of about 39.6 square miles. Is the Minister to suggest to this House that within this 39.6 square miles every street within this area is congested with traffic during all hours of the day? I doubt it very much, Sir. Take, for instance, Alexandra Road which is in the division I represent. I find very little traffic at any time on that road. Again, Sir, I do not find that there is much traffic on Holland Road during the restricted or ordinary hours. Now Farrer Road is another road which I may quote on which you cannot find heavy traffic at all; also Pasir Panjang Road which is a straight road and is very good for a learner to drive for a distance of about 5 to 8 miles or so. All these roads are not congested at all and why then should we restrict them within the city limits during certain hours? Now if we relax the question of restricted hours on a certain number of streets, only then will a learner be able to have the chance of driving much earlier to office - he could start much earlier than 9 a.m., say at about 7.30 a.m. - and on the way down he can have a chance to learn driving. At the same time when he leaves his office at 4.30 p.m. to go home, he will also have the chance to learn from 4.30 p.m. to just before dusk, say 6.30 p.m. or 7.00 p.m. Why should we restrict the hours for driving on the streets within the city limits which are not congested at all? This is one of the things in which I think the Singapore Government has not followed the Federation Government. For all purposes, the Singapore Government says that we must follow the Federation Government. As far as I understand, Sir, there is no such restriction in the Federation. So if in everything we follow the Federation, why should we also not follow the Federation on this question of restriction? I also understand, Sir, that in a big city like London, there is no question of restriction at all, and I am sure that within the City of London there are more vehicles than we have in Singapore. Although Singapore may be a small little island with the number of vehicles registered now having a new serial lettering "SS", I think that London must be a far busier city than Singapore.

Sir, I am not asking the Government to lift the ban altogether. What I am only suggesting is this, that Government should consider making or make a survey of all the streets within city limits and then ascertain which streets are really congested with traffic - as I have said, Raffles Place, South Bridge Road. North Bridge Road and so on. Have a survey to find out if these streets are actually congested; then in other streets that are not congested, let us relax restrictions.

I have here, Sir, a letter from the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works addressed to the President of the Singapore Driving Schools Association, and with your permission, I quote a paragraph from it:

"Although I am bound in consideration of the general interests of the public to refuse to consider wholesale lifting of these restrictions, I am sympathetic to the needs of the driving schools and am anxious that they should improve their service,"

Now, Sir, the Minister is really sympathetic to this move, but he says that in the interests of the public he is not prepared to consider the wholesale lifting of restrictions. I am not asking for any wholesale lifting of the restriction, Sir. What I am asking for is that the Minister consider relaxing the ban, the restriction, on some streets which are not congested with traffic. As the Minister has said that he is really sympathetic, I hope that he will consider my request and make a survey of all the streets whether they are congested or not, and then accede to the request I have just made.

The next question is that of licence fees. I see that tuition cars must be charged double fees compared with those of privately owned cars. I cannot understand this discrimination between a tuition car and a privately-owned one. There is no difference at all because a tuition car is as much a car as the privately owned. Both are of the same category of vehicle whatever their horse powers may be.

I understand, Sir, that the driving schools that belong to this Association charge the same tuition rate irrespective of whether a learner uses his own private car or one from a school belonging to the Association. What is the difference then, Sir? Even if a learner provides his own car, he pays the same rate for tuition that he will have to pay if he uses a car from a school. There is no difference at all.

What is there to prevent me teaching my children to drive? Will you consider me a professional instructor and charge my car double fees? I do not think so, Sir, because I have already taught my son how to drive and I have not been charged double fees. Is the Government going to do so now? I may go further, Sir, and say that even a Minister in this House has used his car to teach his wife to drive. Are we going to charge that Minister double tax on his car? Are we going to say that he should pay double tax on his car as on one which is used for tuition? His car has been used for tuition; it comes under the category of a tuition car; then why not charge it double tax? if not, why should we victimise all these instructors?

We should relax all these restrictions and impositions, and see that we give the same fair treatment to everyone. If not, Sir, we will be encouraging illegal driving schools because there is nothing to prevent an ordinary car owner using his car for tuition purposes, as long as he does not use the word "school". He has a privately-owned car and he can teach on it without paying double fees. Is the Government trying to encourage illegal driving schools then?

Is there anything to differentiate between a tuition car and a privately-owned one, or has the Government registered all cars used for tuition? Has it registered all such cars and said that they are solely used for the purpose of tuition and nothing else? If it has, then by all means charge double fees; if not, there should be no differentiation or discrimination. There is no registration to prove what a car is used for. How then can we call one owner a professional instructor and another an amateur? I cannot see why we should penalise one man and let go the other.

After tuition hours, Sir, a car used for tuition will be used by its owner for his own private purposes. Where is the difference? He uses his car for his own pleasure and not for tuition after tuition hours.

The next point, Sir, is the Minister's reply to my question whether an instructor is allowed to accompany a learner while out on test. His reply was rather vague, I might say. With your permission, Sir, I will quote his reply the other day, printed in column 2815 of the Official Report:

"As an instructor myself I learn the faults of my pupils when I am instructing them."

Sir, the Minister concerned happens to be an ex-school master. I do not know whether he was drawing from his experience as a schoolmaster or as a driving instructor. If he was drawing from his experience on how to drive cars, I am surprised to know that one of our Ministers is also concurrently minister of driving instruction! Can a Minister hold two appointments, Sir?

I agree with him that as a schoolmaster he learns the faults of his pupils whilst he instructs them, but teaching how to drive is entirely different from checking his pupils in a classroom. In the class, the schoolmaster has examination papers to guide him. At the end of a term or a certain period, the pupil undergoes an examination. The examination papers come up, the instructor or schoolmaster checks the answer papers and finds out the faults of his pupils. With a driving instructor, it is all practical work, so if faults are made by a learner whilst out on test and his instructor is not present, how can the latter find out the faults of his pupil? The instructor, from his impressions after coaching a learner for a few months, feels, or is confident that his pupil can pass the test. But what happens when the pupil does go on test? The instructor is not allowed to accompany him and the latter fails.

Now, Sir, the present system of tests is most undemocratic because you are not allowed to appeal. All the faults of the learner are not known to anybody except the tester. Now, Sir, may I say that it is a matter of opinion - a term always used in this Assembly - whether the learner has passed the test or not. The instructor feels that his pupil learner can pass but the tester feels that he cannot. So it is just a matter of opinion and there must be a board or some body to which the learner can appeal against the decision of the tester.

One more point, Sir, is that if the tester does not like the face of the learner when he presents himself, he may say, "I do not like to see your face", and however good that learner may be, the tester may say, "I am sorry, young boy, because I do not like the face" - he says it privately to himself, not openly - "I am afraid I have to fail you." This is not fair, Sir.

If an instructor brings a pupil to the traffic police, the instructor ought to go on the test and so be able to find out the faults of his learner during the test. Then if the learner has to go back for a second test, the instructor can coach his pupil on the faults made during the first one.

And I may suggest, Sir, that when a learner goes for a second test, he should only be tested on the faults he made during the previous or first test; he should not be tested all over again.

For these good reasons, I say that instructors should be allowed to follow their pupils on test. I do hope that the Minister will take all these points into consideration, stick to his letter to the President of the Singapore Driving Schools Association on 7th December that he is sympathetic to its demands and consider the request made by me in this House.

5.40 p.m.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Could I just clarify one or two points of information before I speak, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Elucidation?

Mr Francis Thomas: Elucidation, or points of information.

Mr Speaker: Arising out of the speech?

Mr Francis Thomas: Supplementary to the speech, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid the Hon. the Minister should make his speech now.

Mr Francis Thomas: Sir, I had intended to ask the hon. Member for Queenstown how long he had been a City Councillor. My recollection is, since 1952, but I may be mistaken - I am not quite certain about the date. I was then going to ask him what he himself did as a City Councillor in this matter of the restriction of hours and the fee for instructional cars and so on. And finally, I wanted to ask him whether he was aware of S29, 1957, and SL33 of 1955. Because these are essentially City Council matters which come to me under a very complicated Ordinance - the Road Traffic Ordinance - on which I constantly have to refresh my memory because it is complicated. I have certain duties, responsibilities and powers but, by and large, these are matters dealt by the City Council which come up to me and I have either to approve its proposals, or I may disapprove of them. Whenever I can, of course, I approve because certainly I have no wish to come into conflict with a democratically elected body. And the hon. Member, as a City Councillor, has had the fullest access to these matters no doubt, and I am sure or I should wish to be sure that he has taken advantage of his position as a City Councillor either in the long past before he added the duties of the Assembly as well, or even today when he still retains his position.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Second thoughts are always good.

Mr Francis Thomas: But apparently he has not in fact done so. He was under the impression that a worker cannot get tuition except after the hours of dark, that is presuming that he is working in his office or factory during the hours of daylight. Well, I am presuming that the worker is not working over-time over the weekend, and if the Member had studied this matter with the care which I am sure all Members ought to before raising a matter on the adjournment, he would be aware that one of the things that I, on becoming Minister, did in connection with this matter was to free the weekends so that in fact tuition can be given on Saturday afternoons and the whole of Sundays, and of course also on gazetted holidays.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Not enough tuition time.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Francis Thomas: It may well be that he feels that that is not enough time but nevertheless there is time, and it is not true that you have to manage it all after dusk. You have half Saturdays and the whole of Sundays available if you want to take your private tuition in driving.

I think I have lost my notes and I cannot remember what the hon. Member said - a tragic loss to posterity if I do not answer his remarks. However, I will do my best according to my recollection - ah, I have found them. Now here is one thing I must resist very strongly, a perfectly wrong statement - is "disgraceful" an unparliamentary expression, Mr Speaker? - a disgraceful expression that testers who test people fail them because they do not like their faces.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think "disgraceful" is an unparliamentary expression.

Mr Francis Thomas: Well, Mr Speaker, I will say that it is a suggestion which should not be made, and certainly not made by a responsible person who is concerned with the proper conduct of public business, because a suggestion of that sort can only do harm and cannot possibly do good. There is no ground at all for supposing that in any case a person has been failed on the ground of personal dislike, If the hon. Member has any evidence of that, he should have brought it to me long ago; if he has no evidence, then he should not make that sort of suggestion.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: No appeal allowed.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Queenstown feels he has been misunderstood or wishes for elucidation, he can always stand up and I am sure the Minister will sit down and hear him.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Francis Thomas: Now he was using an entirely wrong argument to support the suggestion that the tutor or instructor should accompany his pupil on test, and he went on to speak about examinations and that kind of thing. The simple fact is that when you have an examination you do not have your teacher sitting beside your desk helping you pass your school certificate; if the Member suggests that a driving tutor who sits in the back of the car will not in one way or another attempt to assist his pupil during the test - and is certain to distract the pupil's attention from his job of being tested - I cannot agree with him. To suggest that it is undemocratic to insist that a man is tested under test conditions, and not with an instructor on hand to encourage and guide him, seems to me a most fantastic misuse of words. There is nothing undemocratic about it at all. A man has been taught and he then goes to the test; if he cannot pass it, he can have another try - at quite short notice if he has any reason in support of it. So much for what is the weakest part of the hon. Member's argument, and one in which I cannot see any validity.

The question of the same tuition rate, whether you own the car in which you are being instructed or whether you use the instructor's car - it is purely a matter for the instructor to decide what rates he wishes to charge. If he wishes to charge more, it has nothing to do with the Government. The point is simply this, that if a man proposes to use his car for reward for instruction, if he is making his living out of the use of the roads, then it is very reasonable that he should pay rather more highly than he would pay if he was merely driving around in the ordinary course of his social life.

When the road is turned into a place of profit and business, then it is very proper that the person so using it should pay a sort of rent for it because what is meant for everybody to use for normal movement is being turned by him into a place of business. It is therefore reasonable that he should pay rather more than the ordinary person does, just as a hawker or anybody else who tries to trade on the road is expected to contribute.

If the hon. Member had studied the matter with the care with which it ought to be studied, he would have noticed of course that the tax is not levied on those who use their motorcars for instruction, it is levied on those who use their motor-cars for instruction for reward, and that the tax is levied only on those who are professional instructors. Well, so much for that point. If the Member had studied things more carefully, he would have taken less time and there would have been less need to answer.

Now, the central point that the Member wants to make is simply this, that there are some streets or roads within city limits on which it would be possible for instruction to be given without adding to congestion, because there is no congestion. Well, that is a matter of opinion. I have already written to the President of the Driving Schools Association and I have had meetings with and letters from him. Then I had meetings with Chinese driving instructors, with Mr Lambert, and with other people concerned with giving driving tuition. I am very willing to have meetings with these bodies and it is quite unnecessary for an hon. Member to get up without instructing himself about the matter he is raising and to waste the time of this House. If members of the public have these points to raise. I have never denied them access to myself. I am most willing to consider any points they raise, and if anybody can show me, indicate to me, streets and roads which are free from heavy traffic and can be used for instruction during the hours at present forbidden, and if they can suggest how the pupil and the instructor are going to get themselves there without the temptation of the pupil taking the wheel on the way there through the heavy traffic, I will be willing to look into the matter to see if we cannot come to a reasonable agreement.

That is of course why I said in my letter that I could not envisage wholesale lifting of the restrictions. But I am perfectly willing to consider reasonable suggestions put to me, provided that the person knows what he is talking about, has studied the matter and is prepared to support his arguments with some reasonable facts and figures.

Unfortunately in my Ministry I have no transport expert, and all transport work has to be done in addition to the normal work of the Ministry. In these circumstances, I cannot call for advice on matters of this sort. I must necessarily depend on those who wish for special consideration putting up a reasonable case; then we will give it reasonable consideration and no difficulty will arise.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at fifty-one minutes past Five o'clock p.m.