ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department (Tuan Haji Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

One of the main objects of the Bill is to amend the Road Traffic Ordinance to provide for more effective action against pirate taxi operators. There has been an increasing number of pirate taxis in Singapore (some estimates put them at about 7,000) and appeals and petitions have been received urging the Government to take effective action against pirate taxi operators whose activities have seriously affected the earning of public transport companies and licensed taxi operators.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department (Tuan Haji Yaacob Bin Mohamed): Police action against pirate taxi operators has not been a deterrent, as the penalties provided under the law appear to be inadequate to check them. The present penalty is a fine not exceeding $500 and in the case of a subsequent conviction, a fine not exceeding $1,000. In addition, the magistrate usually disqualifies the owner and the driver of the car from driving for periods of one to three years. Heavier penalties are now provided in the Bill against these operators. These are imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding $3,000, or both, and confiscation of the vehicle on the written application of the Public Prosecutor. These increased heavier penalties are provided for in clause 9 of the Bill.

The opportunity is also taken to amend the existing definition of "park", which the Police have found unsatisfactory, by a new definition which will assist the Police in enforcing parking restriction effectively.

In view of Singapore's independent status, another amendment deletes the provisions in sections 46 and 47 of the Ordinance which expressly exempt vehicles of the United Kingdom from registration and vehicles of the Malaysian Government, Malay Rulers and the United Kingdom Government from licence fees. Should the Government wish to continue exemption, the Minister can exercise such powers under the provisions of section 86 of the Ordinance. This amendment is made in clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill.

Clause 11 is a presumption clause which will also assist the Police to enforce the law against pirate taxi operators and in prosecutions against them in Court.

Clause 12 repeals section 79 of the Ordinance to provide that the power to compound offences shall be exercised by the Police instead of being transferred to the Courts. Section 79 of the Ordinance has not been brought into force and the Police have been compounding offences under section 80 of the old Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 227. This amendment in clause 12 will regularise the present practice of the Police compounding traffic offences.

The opportunity has also been taken to include in the Bill certain other provisions which would give the authorities more power to tighten up the law in respect of Malaysian-registered vehicles operating in Singapore, some of which are operating as pirate taxis, and also against vehicles suspected by the Registrar of Vehicles of having been used or intended to be used for unlawful purposes or in an unlawful manner. These powers are, firstly, to require a Singapore resident using in Singapore a motor vehicle first registered in Malaysia after 30th May 1966 to inform the Registrar of Vehicles of such use, and to provide the Registrar of Vehicles powers to change the registration number of a vehicle bearing a Malaysian registration number, the owner of which is normally resident in Singapore, to a Singapore registration number. This provision is contained in clause 6 of the Bill.

Secondly, another amendment in the Bill prohibits residents of Singapore from possessing or using a motor vehicle in respect of which the first licence is issued outside Singapore. Such persons would not be able to use such motor vehicles until such fees as are required to be paid have been paid to the Registrar. A number of Singapore residents are buying their vehicles from Malaysia because of the better discount they can get from Malaysian motor dealers and subsequently transferring the vehicle and its registration to Singapore. This practice results in Singapore losing revenue in that it does not get the additional registration fee payable on the first registration of such vehicles if purchased and registered in Singapore, as prescribed in the Motor Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Rules, 1966. The intention here is to require Singapore residents who have purchased and registered cars in Malaysia to re-register such cars in Singapore and to pay the prescribed additional registration fee.

Thirdly, under clause 4 of the Bill the Registrar is empowered to refuse to issue a licence for a motor vehicle or to cancel a licence if, after giving the owner an opportunity of making any representation he may wish to make, he has reason to believe that the motor vehicle in respect of which an application has been made is intended to be used for an unlawful purpose or in an unlawful manner. Provision for appeal to the Minister is provided for against the Registrar's decision.

Fourthly, in sub-clause (10) of clause 6 of the Bill, the Registrar is empowered, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle licensed in Malaysia has been or is intended to be used for an unlawful purpose or in an unlawful manner, to notify the owner by registered post that the motor vehicle shall not be used in Singapore. Corresponding provision exists in the Malaysian Road Traffic Act in respect of vehicles licensed in Singapore.

Sir, the above are the main provisions of the Bill, but I would like to point out that clause 5 is tied up with clause 6 of the Bill and gives the Registrar power to allocate Singapore registration numbers to vehicles registered in Singapore but bearing Malaysian registration numbers.

Sir, before I conclude, I would like to sound a word of warning to pirate taxi operators that action will be taken against them if they continue to pursue their illegal activities after this Bill becomes law. I hope those concerned will take heed of this warning.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the Report by the Milton Tan Committee which has been tabled in Parliament today. This Committee was set up to review the position of licensing of taxis and taxi drivers in Singapore. Among its recommendations is a scheme to license at least 4,000 private motor vehicles as school taxis to ferry school children to and from schools. These school taxis will be licensed only for school children and will be required to provide insurance cover for their passengers, to be subject to an annual inspection by the Vehicles Department and to carry a special identification mark. They will also have to pay a licence fee of $2 per month. The date when applications will be received for school taxis and other details will be announced later. I would also mention that another recommendation is the licensing of an additional 300 taxis to the existing number of 3,206. The Committee felt that the present number of licensed taxis may be increased by 300 in view of the following -

(i) the bus services not being sufficient for the whole Republic;

(ii) the opening up and development of new housing estates by private developers and the Housing and Development Board:

(iii) the increase in population;

(iv) many of the taxi drivers have difficulty in finding a taxi to drive; and

(v) the increased number of tourists visiting Singapore.

The date will also be announced later as to when applications for these additional taxis can be made.

Finally, Sir, a number of amendments have been made which have been rendered necessary by the constitutional changes in Singapore and its independence.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, relief will be felt all round at the passing of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill into law. To my mind, however, the passing of this new law will not be sufficient. We would be extremely unrealistic if we expect our public transport problems to be solved solely on the passing of the new law. Yes, if the new law is properly imposed, then the pirate taxi menace will be eliminated. But what about the aftermath? As I once before remarked in a speech to the Taxi Drivers' Association, Singapore today is not the Singapore of the suburban area of Katong, Geylang, etc. Suburban areas like Queenstown, Kallang, Toa Payoh have emerged with their heavy demand for public transport. In the first place, I should like to say that it was their demand which gave rise to the pirate taxi business, although I read in the newspaper that the President of the Taxi Hire Car Association, Mr Simon, said that the pirate taxi problem has been existing for 20 years. It seems to me that he said nothing at all in the present context. It was no problem then, but now it has become a problem of some dimension and action has had to be taken, and further a solution sought not by just giving the history of the existence of pirate taxis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to congratulate the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department on introducing this Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill which, when passed by this Legislature and incorporated in the Road Traffic Ordinance, will remove the ambiguities in the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1961, and also put an end to the pirate taxi menace in Singapore.

I have gone through the relevant clauses of this Bill and it was with great pleasure that I noted from the relevant clauses that in future it will be extremely difficult for the pirate taxi which appears to have invaded the city traffic to a great extent to continue reaping illegal profits at the expense of the licensed taxis and buses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this pirate taxi problem essentially consists of two evils. First of all, the owners of cars registered in Malaysia have invaded our city traffic with a view to earning a living at the expense of our own citizens. If we move around the city streets, we can observe pirate taxis with Malaysian number plates plying, the drivers' eyes glued to the pedestrians with a desire to attracting them to their taxis.

I am also glad to hear from the Minister of State that steps have been taken to increase the number of licensed taxis, but in taking these necessary steps to increase the number of licensed taxis, I would like to draw the attention of this House that once the issuance of taxi licences takes place, the Registrar of Vehicles must turn every stone to ensure that the new taxis do not fall into the hands of the small-time capitalists who own several vehicles and who make their money by renting out these cars. On the other hand, the Registrar must ensure that the new taxis go into the hands of the vast number of registered taxi drivers who, for want of a vehicle of their own, are forced to hire taxis from the small-time capitalists, in which case they suffer the exploitation of having to part with a heavy payment from their earnings as hire for the vehicles. This is important, Sir. If the Registrar fails to bring about a fair distribution and, on the other hand, indifferently allows the concentration of vehicles in the hands of a few, he will be going against the tide of a socialist society.

There is another aspect. Though taxis must be given to the hundreds of taxi drivers who are not in a position to buy their own vehicles because of their incapacity, are they to continue to be exploited by the vehicle owners? I have the intention to raise this matter with the Government with a view to appealing to the Government to form a co-operative society with Government assistance to enable them to possess their own vehicles. The trade union movement has been especially interested in this problem and anxious to end exploitation of the kind mentioned earlier, and we have been interested in bringing about a situation where taxis are manned by owner-operators. If the Government works along the lines indicated by ensuring that taxis are so distributed that the situation is brought about where there is one owner to a taxi, it will be a feather in the cap of our socialist Government.

I fervently hope, Sir, that interest will be taken in the formation of a co-operative society with the principal function of helping the taxi drivers to own their own vehicles and to bring to an end their exploitation which is quite naked in this sector.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the Bill which has been introduced in Parliament today is a Bill which really affects the public of our country. I believe that it certainly has good intentions, that is, to safeguard our country from being a country without laws or without procedure. However, in a matter of this nature, we must consider all aspects. Firstly, the taxi drivers; secondly, the bus companies; thirdly, members of the public, including adults, office workers, women going marketing, school children; and fourthly, the unemployed. I am sure unemployed persons will find ways and means to earn a living and, in their opinion, they can earn a living by driving pirate taxis. To me, if a country is short of buses, bus routes, or taxis, or if the taxis or buses are untidy and the roads are narrow, we can say that that country has not got adequate laws. We must have an open mind on how we can adopt these laws so that the citizens may benefit from them.

Mr Speaker, in Paper Misc. 3 of 1966, the Report of the Committee to Review the Licensing of Taxis and Taxi Drivers, the Committee only recommends a total of 300 additional taxis. Statistics were obtained from cities like Bangkok, Hongkong, Manila, London, Queensland Australia, and the Malay States. I believe that, apart from Malaya, the standard of living of those countries mentioned is high and that enables the people to own their own cars or to run adequate buses. Perhaps in countries like London, we understand that in addition to taxis and buses, there are underground rail and monorail services. Perhaps that is an effort on the part of the Government concerned to improve the transport system.

Mr Speaker, in contrast, in the whole of Malaya there are 5,245 taxis with a population of 7 million. We cannot compare Malaya with Singapore on the ground that Malaya, with a population of 7 million, has hundreds of small towns, excepting Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Ipoh, and Seremban, for example, which do not have any use for taxis as we do in Singapore. Therefore, it is impossible for this Committee to consider all these factors because, as stated by the Minister of State, with the development of housing estates by private developers and the Housing and Development Board, we must also consider that the increase of 300 taxis must be raised. As I said, we cannot compare with those countries that I enumerated just now. Conditions in Malaya differ from those obtaining in our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, services by road, rail, and aeroplane all differ. Bus services and the operation of taxis and pirate taxis differ one from the other. For instance, in the case of buses, they run along fixed or determined routes and cannot stop anywhere other than at specified bus stops. Pirate taxis ply according to their own routes and they may stop wherever they like. Sometimes they even stop when the traffic lights are red in order to set down their passengers. There are two types of taxis in Singapore. One is the taxi which follows the rules of the Registrar of Vehicles, and the other which follows the pirate taxi rules. This means that taxis following the rules of the R.O.V. ply their business along routes which differ from the bus routes and the routes of pirate taxis. They pick up passengers at one place and go according to the directions of the passengers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Committee's Report referred to, there is reference made to 61,000 school children using pirate taxis. Because of the great number of children, the Committee recommends that licences be issued to what are termed by the Committee as "school taxis" or "private motor vehicles licensed to carry school children". Why cannot this Committee make a recommendation for separate licences as, for instance, office workers' taxis, taxis for people going to market, or taxis for people living in areas without buses? This is a complicated matter. In issuing special licences to taxis to carry the 61,000 school children alone, we must also consider the views of other transport operators because the Committee is of the opinion that buses are insufficient. I also think that office workers in town are not supplied with adequate bus services and they feel that they should come to office by pirate taxis.

If we allow taxis to run according to pirate taxi rules, I am sure that, for the purpose of enforcing the law with good intentions, we should not implement it, and that to regularise the position in our country we must be open-minded and not restrict or confine ourselves to one sector of the population alone.

Mention is also made in the Report that most of the drivers have a little knowledge of Singapore for the benefit of tourism. I am sure that because of the rapid developments taking place in our country, that has nothing to do with the Bill under discussion today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we should also find out the reason why, in addition to the matters I have mentioned earlier on, the bus companies as mentioned in the Report do not wish to provide special bus services because of uneconomical grounds. What is surprising to me is that if the Bill is passed without an open mind considering it, I am afraid that the attitude of bus companies will be this, "If I do not make a profit, then I do not care what happens to you." If this is the attitude of bus companies, we should not adopt a civil attitude. We cannot support that attitude. We must find ways and means to enable bus companies to operate for the benefit of the public, for school children, and so on. The reason why parents allow their children to use pirate taxis is this. Firstly, the safety of their children; secondly, the distance from their homes to the bus stand; and thirdly, they have to change buses frequently, which takes time and also cost more in fares. This must be considered as widely as possible. That is all, Mr Speaker.

4.59 p.m.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support this Bill and also to congratulate the Minister on his initiative.

Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister for an assurance that just passing this Bill is not enough, but to see that the Bill is really enforced. Secondly, just curbing the pirate taxis will not really solve this problem. With the expansion of the Republic and especially of the housing estates, more licensed taxis should be introduced to cater for the needs of the public, particularly school children living in housing estates where buses are not available. I should like to suggest that Government introduce a type of transport where it will cater only for school children.

While appreciating the Bill to curb these pirate taxis, the Government should also consider the problem of school-going children. At the moment these children depend for their transport on these pirate taxis. When I say transport, Mr Speaker, I mean cheap transport. There should be a form of cheap, legalised transport for school-going children. To ease their difficulties during the transition period, I would suggest to the Government to introduce a co-operative scheme whereby these taxi-drivers would be able to own their own vehicles one day and, at the same time, provide cheaper transport for children. These taxis carrying school-going children, on the co-operative scheme introduced by Government, should carry a plate openly on display, "For school children only" and levy charges at a very special rate. If the Government is prepared to float the capital for this co-operative scheme, a driver would be able to save about 50 per cent of the rent of the vehicle in a month, which will come to about $280. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, you may not be aware of what I really mean when I say a driver would save about $280 a month. Take, for instance, a driver who rents a vehicle from the blood-sucking vampire at about $17 per day or about $500 per month. The driver gets his own vehicle from the co-operative society on an instalment basis of about $220 per month. This enables him to save about $280 per month. He should then be able to say that he robs from the rich and gives to the poor and that he is a Robin Hood.

I can understand why the Taxi Owners Association is against the increase of more taxis. These owners are not used to a socialist society, or any society other than a capitalist society. I should like the Government here to introduce a Bill whereby there will be a maximum of about $10 a day rent on any taxi for taxi drivers in Singapore. By this, Mr Speaker, I am, in fact, doing a favour to the fat capitalists who will be able to join our society, a socialist society.

Lastly, while appreciating the unemployment market, I would appeal to the Minister really to look into the difficulties of the pirate taxi drivers so as to be able to fit them into our society. I would also ask him whether or not he has any intention to introduce taxi stops similar to bus stops.

Mr Speaker: It seems to me as if several Members are interested in debating this Bill. I shall take the tea break now and will sit again at

5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.04 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the introduction of this Bill today by the Government can be put in this way - that it is introduced under circumstances that cannot be helped. Singapore is now an independent sovereign country and, as such, we should have discipline and ordered life in the country. Therefore, we cannot allow certain people to come out of the purviews of the existing law. The problem of pirate taxis is a good example to illustrate my point. But in order to adopt measures to achieve the purpose, we should also consider carefully how to go about it and to consider its causes. The existence of pirate taxis is also something that we should consider. Just now the Minister of State has said that it is recommended by the Milton Tan Committee that it is necessary to have 4,000 more taxis to carry school children and he has also said that the number of pirate taxis is about 7,000. It is really alarming that pirate taxis have increased to such an extent. It has been partly due to Indonesian confrontation, resulting in some people having to resort to other means of livelihood. Some people have to resort to running pirate taxis for their livelihood, and others have to resort to other means of livelihood, such as hawking. Now that Indonesia has awakened to the realities of the situation, and as she is now proceeding to resume trade relationships with us, the situation will improve; nevertheless, the question of pirate taxis needs some time to resolve.

After the law in this respect has been passed, what will happen to the livelihood of these 7,000 pirate taxi drivers? Of course, on the one hand, we have to maintain law and order in the country but, on the other, we cannot overlook or neglect this practical question of their livelihood. Therefore, I would like to propose three suggestions to the Government which are as follows. The Government, while implementing this law, should also warn proprietors of public transport companies that they should not neglect their duty to help in running a transport service for the people, and not just for the sake of their own profits. In the past, sometimes because of their own selfishness, they had caused difficulties in regard to public transportation and, because of these difficulties, pirate taxis came into being. Therefore, this is a point that the Government should pay attention to while implementing the law.

The second point is, I think, that during the time when the law is being implemented, there should be a spirit of compromise so that when the law is passed, pirate taxis will not try to run away from the law and cause a shortage of public transport in some areas and cause inconvenience to the public. Whether under the present law there is room for such compromise or not is a matter to be considered. There should also be a governmental solution to this problem which will be acceptable to all concerned.

The third point is that the law should not be implemented hastily in regard to the number of pirate taxis to be legalised. I understand that in my area there are a lot of poor people. They have difficulty in getting transport. Pirate taxi operators also have difficulties in meeting the hire purchase payments for their cars. As they are poor, sometimes they cannot pay up the instalments and their cars are then confiscated, thus threatening their livelihood which would involve not just a matter of their own livelihood but also their dependants, because they have to look after their family whilst they are continuing to pay for the cars they are running as pirate taxis. Therefore, there should be some flexibility in the law, such as allowing them, say, six months' grace to pay up their instalments, after which the Government can take steps to deal with them, or perhaps the period can be up to one year. At least there should be some room for them to manoeuvre or to enable them to pay up the instalments for their cars so that they would not have any burden on their livelihood. These are my personal views.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): I would also like to congratulate the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department on this amendment Bill. I think this Chamber will agree with me that law and order must be kept, as the Minister of State has stated just now. I must also very highly commend him on taking into consideration the question of regularising pirate taxis which carry school children to school. Mr Speaker, Sir, this regularisation will give confidence to parents who are concerned with the safety of their children while going to and from school. This is a good effort.

But I would like the Minister to enlighten me on whether the regularisation of these pirate taxis carrying school children will include, as passengers, members of the public, such as clerks, manual workers and odd job workers. As you know, it is a recognised fact in the whole world that our housing estates are expanding, whether it is by the Housing and Development Board or by private developers and we have to consider that the number of buses running on the road is not enough for our increasing population. Sir, my suggestion is that we must include in this licence workers like teachers and others. I fully agree that curbing these pirate taxis will naturally ease our traffic problem. Sir, as I have said just now, with the increase in population, the shortage of transport and so on, only 300 additional taxi licences will be given. Sir, we think there are about 7,000 pirate taxis running in Singapore. As the Member for Delta has said just now, if we take away something, we must substitute something for it. Therefore, I sincerely urge the Minister to consider this point. At the same time, I must warn that amending the Ordinance does not mean that we are protecting the bosses of bus companies and taxi owners. The workers and their bosses must give first-class service to the public. I think this House will agree with me that many of these buses are driven along the roads in a very careless manner and they endanger the lives of the people. Therefore, it does not mean that this Bill will protect the bosses of bus companies and taxi owners and they can do whatever they like. They must co-operate and give efficient and satisfactory service to our people.

Sir, I wish to support the Bill.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have gone through the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. It appears to me that there is not enough provision in the Bill for the benefit of the people, but it seems to me to impose an extra burden on the people. In this connection, the Government must seek an alternative solution. There should be no ill-effects on the people. There should be other constructive means. That is my desire.

The population of Singapore is increasing and if the transport system is not efficient, there will be difficulties. The Government must take the necessary steps to see that the people are not over-burdened and that they are well looked after. Therefore, they should increase transport facilities. Only then will there be a solution. I urge them to take the necessary steps to solve this problem. The changing of laws, the imposition of $1,000 fines or three years' imprisonment and heavier penalties will not lead us to any proper solution. Therefore, it is the Government's bounden duty to look after the welfare of the people. We must find ways and means which will benefit the people in future. The Government should make appropriate laws. The increase in population will bring about difficulties in the transport situation. Therefore, we should see that proper remedies are brought about if we want our country to progress. We have introduced this Bill today, but I have certain doubts as to whether it will bring about good results. Therefore, if there are difficulties, the law may be changed. I feel that there is a necessity for the Government to reconsider the Bill.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad to see this Bill which has been introduced to amend the Ordinance. I also hope to see more legal taxis on the roads of Singapore. If there are more licences issued to taxis, it will be easier to solve the transport difficulties. The question of pirate taxis is not only a legal problem but also an economic problem. I do not oppose the idea that Singapore should be a country where there is law and order, but in view of the question of pirate taxis and the multifarious questions which affect the livelihood of thousands of people, practical consideration should be given to the solution of these problems. Our law may solve some problems but if, as a result, the economic situation relating to these problems is not solved, then it may lead to an undesirable situation. I hope that this law will not cause more economic problems. I also hope that when this law is passed, the Government will adopt more practical measures to resolve the economic problems of pirate taxi drivers.

On the other hand, I hope to be able to get some explanation from the Minister concerned with regard to the time when more legal licences are issued. We should not expect the issuance of licences to create more people in the bourgeois class and to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. This is a problem to which we have to pay attention. In other words, the issuance of such licences should not bring about such a situation. In our socialistic country, we should not have measures which will lead to a situation where the rich will become richer and the poor poorer. On this point, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is not necessary to set up a special Committee to study this matter. I do not mean that the Registrar of Vehicles is incompetent or always perfect or infallible. Therefore, a Committee should be appointed to help him resolve this problem.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Sia Kah Hui): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to get some clarification from the Minister concerned. In the Report of the Milton Tan Committee - the section on the proposed licensing of private motor vehicles to carry school children only for profit -- from the wording, I assume that only school children will be carried. I know for a fact that at the moment there are some teachers or school clerks who go with children in the same motor vehicles. But if only school children are allowed to be carried as passengers in this type of vehicle, did the Committee go into the details of the economic factors involved? Now how many school children can a motor vehicle carry? At the moment, 10, 12 or 15 children are squeezed into one car, but I suppose when the taxis are licensed, they will not be able to do that. So probably each car will be able to carry six or seven school children for one session. So for two sessions, one car will be able to carry an average of 12 or 14 school children. But if each school child were to pay an average of $12 per month, then the owner-driver of such a type of vehicle would be able to have an income of about $150 a month. Now these drivers have to pay $2 a month for the licence fee and I wonder how much they are going to pay for insurance cover for passengers! If they are allowed to carry only school children, as I said earlier, they can only carry about 14 school children a day seven boys or girls in the morning session and seven in the afternoon session. So that means that 14 children will be paying to the owner of that vehicle. He has to pay $2 a month for the licence fee. Now how much he has to pay for insurance cover, I do not know. So if such a type of vehicle is limited to carrying only school children, would it be profitable, or would the operator earn enough for a living?

Tuan Haji Yaacob: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very much impressed today because the Bill has created interest among hon. Members. This is right and proper, because transport is our major problem, as has been pointed out by several hon. Members.

We have considered this problem from all angles for the benefit of our country. However, we admit that in the implementation of the Bill we may face trials and tribulations, but in the interest of peace and for the benefit of the majority of our people, we are obliged to take somewhat drastic measures because it was during the period when the R.O.V. was under Malaysia that the number of pirate taxis was on the increase. We consider it essential that an amendment be made to curb the activities of pirate taxi operators.

I am grateful to certain Members of the House who have put forward constructive suggestions. One of the suggestions coming from the Member for Bras Basah is a request that the issuance of licences does not fall into the hands of small capitalists. It is the responsibility of my Ministry to give serious consideration to this matter. I feel that certain Members are anxious that when action is taken against these pirate taxi operators, it will mean a step backwards in the transport system. But I think that in the interim period we are obliged to take this measure because, in the past, when we asked for extension of a bus service in certain areas, the bus company concerned turned down the request on uneconomical grounds. With the curbing of pirate taxi activities, the bus companies should have no reason not to extend their services.

Regarding the suggestion of the Member for Delta that the enforcement of this Bill should be held in abeyance for six months or a year, I think the question of eliminating pirate taxi activities was first talked about long ago, and the response was that more pirate taxis came on to the road, and ample time was given to these operators to find alternative means of livelihood.

I think the request from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, the Members for Kampong Kapor, Changi, and so on, was that pirate taxis be allowed to carry office workers and adults. It is difficult to distinguish between an office worker and an ordinary person hiring a pirate taxi. I think this request cannot be considered at this stage. Likewise, the question of teachers being included in the definition.

The question of how many children can be carried in a licensed pirate taxi will be announced later, but at the moment, what I can propose is the ratio of two adults to three children, so that the maximum a car can carry is seven passengers. We must ensure the safety of school children should an accident occur. Talking as fathers, we should ensure the safety of our children.

On the question of profit and loss, the matter has been considered at great length by the Committee which has put up this Report after hearing many representations from associations like the association representing taxis which has a membership of 800 members at the moment. Nevertheless, on the whole, I am grateful to hon. Members for all the views and suggestions put forward. They will receive my due consideration in the interest of members of the public.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Tuan Haji Yaacob].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

6.07 p.m.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Tuan Haji Yaacob: (In Malay): Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, lines 1 and 2, to leave out "1st day of January" and insert "30th day of May".

Under the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, no resident of Singapore can possess or use in Singapore a motor vehicle which was first registered outside Singapore after 1st January, 1966 until such fees as prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Registration and Licensing Rules, 1948, have been paid. However, before 30th May, 1966 a vehicle which was registered in the Federation was expressly exempted under the Rules from payment of additional registration fees on re-registration in Singapore. The Motor Vehicles Registration and Licensing (Amendment) Rules, 1966, removed this exemption in respect of Federation-registered vehicles. It is, therefore, logical and desirable to change the date in clause 3 of the Bill from 1st January, 1966 to 30th May, 1966.

Amendment agreed to.

Tuan Haji Yaacob: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 10, to leave out "1st day of January" and insert "30th day of May".

The reason is the same as that for the first amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 -

The Chairman: Members will take note, in clause 6,

In page 5, line 14, to leave out "licenced" and insert "licensed" and

In page 5, line 15, to leave out "have" and insert "has".

Therefore, with the permission of the House, I shall take this clause and the rest of the clauses together.

Clauses 6 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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