ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.45 p.m.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

One of the main objects of this Bill is to provide for more effective action against motor vehicles which emit any smoke or visible vapour so as "to cause annoyance or danger to the public, or injury or damage to any person or property".

The present legislation under Rule 104 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Amendment Rules, 1963, provides that:

`No vehicle shall be used which emits any smoke, visible vapour, etc., the emission of which causes or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to any person, or damage to property or which endangers or is likely to endanger the safety of any person'.

Penalties for the offence of "smoky exhaust" have been dealt with in one of two ways:

(i) with the Police offering to offending owners of such vehicles a composition fine of $20 under section 79 (1) -of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1961; or

(ii) on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $400 and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months under section 78 (1) of the said Ordinance.

It is clear, although last year more than 7,000 vehicle owners paid composition fines of $20 each for smoky exhausts, yet the problem has not shown any signs of improvement, that the present legislation will have to be amended so that penalties will be made more deterrent if we are to expect any marked improvement in the situation.

With the launching of the anti-pollution campaign by the Prime Minister on 31st March, 1970, which, inter alia, has, as a target, the eradication of the smoky exhausts from motor vehicles, this is the opportune time to tighten up on the legislation in this regard.

It has therefore been proposed, firstly, to raise the limit of the composition fine from $20 to $50, and this is provided for under clause 6 of the Bill.

Secondly, in introducing the subject of "smoky exhaust" into the body of the Road Traffic Ordinance proper instead of appearing as a minor offence under subsidiary legislation, it emphasizes the importance which the Government attaches to the problem of air pollution and its determination to resolve it, with firm measures wherever possible. Clause 3 of the Bill accordingly introduces a new section 28A and it clearly states that both the owner and the driver of a vehicle are guilty of an offence, if such vehicle emits "any smoke or visible vapour".

As regards penalties, on first conviction, the maximum fine is to be raised from $400 to $500 to bring it in line with the maximum fine for littering. I am sure Members of this House will agree with me that the offence of air pollution has more serious and damaging consequences to the health of the community than littering and, therefore, the raising of the fine is a legitimate one.

It will be noted that a separate subsection (2) of section 28A ensures that vehicles of the Singapore Traction Company are brought within the scope of the amending legislation for smoky exhausts, as it is obvious that any strong anti-pollution measures to be taken must be made applicable to all motor vehicles operating on Singapore roads, and that there can be no exceptions to the law.

Members of this House will, I am sure, be interested to know that consequent on Government's decision to raise the taxi fare for the first mile from the present rate of 40 cents to 60 cents with effect from next month, i.e., 1st July, 1970, all 3,800 licensed taxis have been requested to first pass the smoky exhaust test - namely, not to exceed 40 smoke units as shown by the Hartridge Smokemeter. Up to Wednesday, the 24th of this month, a total of 3,166 licensed taxis or more than 80 per cent of taxis were put through the test, but 664 or more than 20 per cent failed it. It is therefore clear that higher standards of maintenance will be necessary if we are to see the last of smoky exhausts from our midst.

The next important purpose of this amendment Bill is to be found in clause 4, which introduces another new section 29A, wherein it is clearly stated that "on or after the 1st day of January, 1971, every person who drives or is carried on a motor cycle shall wear securely on his head a protective helmet of a type approved by the Minister".

Members of this House are probably aware that since February this year, all "L" licence holders of scooters and motor cycles are already required to wear approved-type crash helmets, and the proposed incorporation of a new section in the body of the Road Traffic Ordinance proper once again draws attention to the importance and emphasis of Government on the compulsory use of crash helmets. It is hoped that, in this way, the former wanton waste of young lives of our population will be greatly reduced hereafter.

The manner in which some motorists are causing obstruction or danger to traffic by leaving or abandoning their stalled vehicles on the road whilst they attend to their personal matters first, before attempting to remove their broken-down vehicles, or by parking their vehicles in prohibited areas, necessitates an amendment to section 71. This is to make it clear that the Minister may make rules to provide for the removal and detention of such vehicles. The amendment is made in clause 5 of the Bill.

At the same time, the opportunity is also taken to amend the existing definition of "unladen weight" in section 2 of the Ordinance. The new definition will enable the Registrar of Vehicles to prosecute offenders successfully. This amendment is made in clause 2 of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.53 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it cannot be denied that at the present juncture the traffic congestion in our Republic is becoming worse and worse. This is particularly so during peak hours. If there is a traffic jam on a certain stretch of the road, then there will be a queue of vehicles as long as a few miles. The question is how to enact the proper legislation and to incorporate the necessary measures so as to improve our road traffic conditions. We must maintain a free flow of traffic on our roads. This is the unavoidable responsibility of the Ministry of Communications. However, as far as this amendment Bill is concerned, there is limited scope for solving the traffic problem.

This Bill contains provisions which deal only with the load of vehicles, the control of the emission of smoky exhausts, the compulsory wearing of crash helmets, the enhancement of certain penalties and so on. This is only a superficial attempt to solve our traffic problem. The fundamental problem of traffic congestion still remains. For example, the revision of our public transport system, the widening of our roads and the safety of road users -these problems have not been touched upon. Nevertheless, since the traffic problem is becoming worse and worse, even these minor measures are helpful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, the International Seminar on Road Safety, which was held in the Republic and which ended yesterday, tried to find solutions to minimise road accidents. It is expected that this seminar will make many recommendations so that we and other governments will benefit from them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now touch upon certain provisions in the Bill. One of them relates to the compulsory wearing of crash helmets by motor cyclists. This is a very good provision because it will ensure their safety. It will also reduce the rate of fatal accidents among them. The fact that the Government has compelled them to wear crash helmets has resulted in a great demand for these helmets and, because of this, the price of helmets has gone up. This will impose a great burden on the users of these helmets. I hope the Minister will adopt measures to ensure that the price of crash helmets is reasonable.

Another clause in this Bill provides that certain categories of traffic offenders will have to pay a composition fine of $50 instead of the present fine of $20. Although the increase in the composition fine will act as a deterrent on the regular traffic offenders, it is, however, in my view, a bit excessive. If it is only a very minor offence, such as parking in a non-parking area or waiting beside a white line, then a fine of $50 in such cases is very unreasonable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, taxi drivers will be the people most affected by this regulation because they spend most of their 24 hours on the road in order to earn their livelihood. If the fine is increased to this extent, their livelihood will be made more difficult. In view of this, I suggest that in the implementation of such legislation, consideration should be given to the merits of each case. For example, those minor cases which I have mentioned should not fall within the ambit of this provision. But in the case of rash and inconsiderate drivers, speedsters or those who dash past traffic lights, thereby endangering the lives of other people, the punishment should be adequate in order to ensure that such people obey the traffic rules.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill reminds me of the policemen on traffic duty and their attitude towards their work. Perhaps this may not have any direct bearing on this Bill, but I wish to mention the traffic police in passing. If the Minister for Communications cannot answer my points. I think the Minister for Defence will do so. I have received complaints from members of the public that the traffic police are on the road not to maintain a free flow of traffic, but to catch traffic offenders. They hide behind pillars and other places and keep watch on passing vehicles. Why are they doing this? They do it because, by hiding themselves from the motorists, they will be able to catch those who break the traffic rules, take down the numbers of their vehicles, send them summonses and probably bring them to court. Of course, I agree that traffic offenders must be brought to book and dealt with according to the law. This is part of the duties of the traffic police. But I think you will agree with me, Sir, that they have more onerous and more important duties to perform, i.e., the maintenance of a smooth and orderly flow of traffic on our roads. It is not their duty to hide behind pillars and other places to catch traffic offenders. If they do this, how can they direct the flow of traffic? This attitude is not correct and should be rectified accordingly. I do not know whether the Minister concerned agrees with me.

Mr Speaker, Sir, though this amendment Bill is very limited in scope, it is by all standards a necessity aimed at promoting the free flow of traffic and ensuring the safety of pedestrians so that the roads will no longer remain, as the saying goes, the mouth of the tiger. In view of this, I support this amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yong.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Sir, I thought there was going to be a further debate.

Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong) rose -

Mr Speaker: I do hope Members will catch my eye. If they lie back in their seats. I cannot see them. Mr Conceicao.

3.03 p.m.

Mr J. F. Conceicao: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. At first, I did not intend to speak. But at the invitation of the Minister for Communications, I would like to say a few words.

May I say that I agree with the Member for Sembawang that this Bill has a limited application? It is, however, an earnest of the Government's desire to improve the conditions of road traffic. But in respect of specific aspects of such conditions, this Bill relates to action to be taken against excessive emission of smoke. It ensures safety for those on motor cycles, and it gives power to the Government to take action against those vehicles that are causing obstruction. But the question of road traffic, safety, observance of regulations, I think, has a wider reference. Any motorist can notice the flagrant flouting of traffic laws in the very short distance that he takes to cover the minimum journey. I think this flouting of traffic laws will result in the law itself being brought into disrespect. The whole problem of road safety, road courtesy, and road traffic has to be viewed in its total context. It is hoped that there will be a vigorous attempt to instil into our citizens a respect for the laws of the road and a sense of social discipline where the use of the road is concerned. This Bill does indicate that there has been a certain amount of education preceding the intention now to implement rigorously those aspects which, as I have said, relate to excessive smoke, to the use of crash helmets and to obstruction. I would earnestly ask the responsible Ministers concerned to think of a serious campaign to educate road-users on their responsibilities and, following this education campaign, to implement as rigorously other aspects of traffic laws as those which this Bill seeks to implement in respect of what is contained here.

May I finally, say, Sir, that besides the question of simple implementation, there is the question of furnishing our police officers with the necessary equipment and manpower to do their job properly.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker. Sir, first of all, I would like to answer the comment made by the Member for Sembawang on the price of crash helmets having gone up since Government decided to make it compulsory for learner drivers of motor cycles and scooters to wear crash helmets. It is true that the price has moved up somewhat compared to the price existing prior to the announcement by Government that it would be necessary for motor cyclists and scooterists to wear crash helmets. But before the Government announcement was made, it was possible for importers to bring in crash helmets which looked nice but would riot pass the test and the specifications which would be necessary to enable them to be approved. Although the cost of such a test would not have materially increased the price, I think ii is probably because too many people decided to rush to buy the crash helmets at a certain given time. We feel that any price control over the import of such goods is not something we would like to impose on the commercial public, and we shall allow the free play of supply and demand to operate. However, we are aware of the possibilities that, if we are to impose compulsory wearing of crash helmets suddenly for 100,000 motor cyclists and scooterists, the price will really jump very high. That is why, in implementing this policy, we have tried to stagger the implementation. We first started off with those who applied for provisional licences for the first time. That was November last year. It was at the rate of 1,000 a month. It was only in February this year that we said that all learner drivers would need to wear these crash helmets and that would involve 10,000 people. We are allowing as much as another 10 months, i.e., January of next year, before we require every motor cyclist or pillion rider to wear a crash helmet. And the number is 100,000. So we are allowing these 100,000 motor cyclists this much time to buy crash helmets and to get used to wearing them. I think that is as far as we can go in this regard.

The Member for Sembawang is very unhappy about the increase in fines for traffic offences, especially the increase in the composition of offences from $20 to $50. Nobody likes to have fines increased. But unfortunately we have found that, as I explained in my Second Reading speech, although more than 7,000 people have paid their $20 fine, yet quite a lot of motor vehicles with smoky exhausts are running on Singapore roads and making it very difficult for those who follow behind them. It is most uncomfortable and I think it is rather ruinous to health. Although we have had a period of education, there does not seem to be very much improvement, so we have no alternative but to increase the fines. Only when it hurts their pocket do these offenders begin to maintain their cars, taxis or buses properly. The fine is quite costly. If it is $50 a week, it will go up to $200 in a month, whereas an ordinary maintenance check would probably cost $10 or $20 and it should be good for a few months. I can only transmit the Member's plea to my colleague, the Minister for Defence, who is in charge of the traffic police, for his officers to use their discretion and not be too hard on booking those owners of vehicles that emit smoke on the road. We hope to see less and less of such smoky exhausts before the year is out.

As for the Member for Katong's comment on the flouting of road traffic laws and regulations, unfortunately it is true that it takes time to educate road users. It looks as if we would have to spend some time on road education and, at the same time, increase the penalties for those breaking traffic laws.

Lastly, Sir, I would like to draw attention to the comment from both Members that this particular amendment Bill is very limited in scope. It is so. I admit it, But I would like to say that it will not be very long before we have another sitting of the House to consider a White Paper on the re-organisation of road transport in toto. The draft is ready and, unless it is cut down, it runs to 50 pages. So I think there will be a lot of good reading in it and, I hope, good debating material when it is tabled in the House and we can have a very lengthy session on it.

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. -[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.