ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.00 p.m.

The Minister of State for Communications (Mr Chai Chong Yii): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In July, 1973, the Minister for Home Affairs appointed a Road Traffic Management and Enforcement Committee to formulate basic policies of Road Traffic Management as well as to co-ordinate the roles of the various departments involved in traffic enforcement and management and to supervise the activities carried out by these departments with a view to achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness in tackling the immediate, short-term and long-term traffic problems. This Committee, chaired by the Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs), comprised representatives from the Ministries of Communications, Finance, Environment, Public Works Department, Registry of Vehicles, Attorney-General's Chambers, Public Utilities Board and the Police Force. This Committee has been superseded by the Road Transport Action Committee which was established in November, 1973, comprising five Permanent Secretaries from the Ministries of National Development, Communications, Home Affairs and the Budget and Development Divisions of Finance Ministry.

After one year of close study and research, the Road Traffic Management and Enforcement Committee came to the conclusion that our present enforcement system is, amongst other things, noticeably lacking in the following:-

(i) effective means of detecting persistent offenders;

(ii) adequate penalties to deter persistent offenders;

(iii) administrative procedures that allow expedient enforcement action.

To rectify this, the Committee recommended a number of amendments to the Road Traffic Act (Cap. 92). The recommendations of the Committee which have been accepted are incorporated in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

Clause 2 of the Amendment Bill will empower a Police Officer to require any person driving a motor vehicle on a road to produce his driving licence within 24 hours at such police office or station as may be specified by the officer where the person is unable to produce his licence on the spot.

Clause 4 of the Amendment Bill provides that if a person is convicted of an offence under the Act or is disqualified by a court from holding or obtaining a driving licence, the court shall send a notice of conviction or order of disqualification to the Registrar of Vehicles who will be required to record such particulars of conviction or disqualification and maintain such record for a period not exceeding three years from the date of the conviction or expiry of disqualification as the case may be.

Much publicity has already been given to clause 5 of the Amendment Bill. This concerns the Points Demerit System which aims at identifying and removing dangerous drivers from the roads. It also serves as a psychological deterrence against reckless driving. This system entails the giving of points by administrative means for traffic offences likely to cause accidents. A points penalty table under the Rules will specify the points for various traffic violations.

When a driver has attained a total of 12 or more points within a year, the Registrar of Vehicles will have powers to suspend the driving licence of the driver for a period not exceeding six months. A warning notice, however, will first be sent by the Registrar of Vehicles to the motorist the moment he has accumulated or exceeded six points. On receipt of a notice of suspension, the driver has the right within 14 days to appeal to the Minister against the decision of the Registrar of Vehicles. The Minister's decision on the matter will be final. Any person whose driving licence is suspended will have to surrender it to the Registrar of Vehicles and will be prohibited from driving any motor vehicle on the roads during the period of suspension of his driving licence.

Clause 8 of the Amendment Bill will impose liability upon a motor vehicle owner for parking offences in cases where the particulars of the offending driver are not available. Unless the vehicle owner can furnish particulars of the driver to the police within seven days from the date of issue of the police notice or satisfy the police or the court that the vehicle was, at the relevant time, stolen or had been illegally taken or used, or establish that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained the name and address of the driver, the vehicle owner would be liable for the offence.

Clause 9 of the Amendment Bill will enable the Minister to make rules with respect to jaywalking. Over the last three years, a total of 10,519 pedestrians were killed and injured by motor vehicles. In 1973, a total of 380 persons were killed in road traffic accidents, 185 of whom were pedestrians. While many of these accidents involving pedestrians could be attributed to reckless driving by motorists, a great number of these fatalities were caused by pedestrians crossing the road heedless of traffic conditions. The pedestrians, therefore, need to be disciplined as well.

Under the Amendment Bill, it will be an offence for pedestrians to cross the road other than at places where proper crossing facilities are provided. This would, however, apply to the area 50 metres from either side of any such crossing. Where the crossings are close to one another, the area of enforcement may be extended to cover the length between and a little beyond such crossings. Traffic signs will be erected to indicate the areas of enforcement. As it is not the intention to punish but to educate pedestrians in the proper use of the facilities provided for them, initially small composition fines would be imposed on jaywalkers. This may be increased later if there is no salutary effect. Jaywalking by school children will be referred to principals of their schools for appropriate action to be taken. Aged and disabled persons who are unable to make use of the pedestrian crossing facilities would be exempted.

To empower the courts to impose and enhance penalties in respect of traffic offences, clause 10 of the Amendment Bill provides for the imposition of a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months for the first offence. For a second and subsequent offence, the courts may impose a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. For uniformity and consistency, these enhanced penalty provisions would apply to all offences under the various rules and regulations of the Road Traffic Act. The existing penal sections in the rules and regulations will be amended in subsidiary legislation.

A new ticketing system in respect of traffic offences will be introduced under clause 12 of the Amendment Bill. The objective of this is to reduce the present cumbersome paper work which hinders the Traffic Police in its work and saps up extra manpower unnecessarily, thus reducing the effectiveness of enforcement action. Under the proposed ticketing system, a traffic ticket served by the policeman on the motorist, either personally or by registered mail, will be deemed to be both a report as well as a summons to appear in court. If the offence is compoundable, the ticket would also serve as an offer of composition.

To ensure that the Points Demerit System and the ticketing system function effectively and efficiently, the Traffic Police and the Registry of Vehicles have computerised their records and procedures, and the records and procedures of these two departments would be linked. Members of this House may be interested to know that these new enforcement procedures are based on systems successfully applied in countries like the United States, England, Australia and Japan. They have been recommended for adoption here after careful study and research by the Traffic Police, Registry of Vehicles, Attorney-General's Chambers and Computer Services Division of the Ministry of Finance.

Finally, clause 15 of the Amendment Bill will enable the courts to accept certificates endorsed by a police officer not below the rank of inspector, as to the accuracy and reliability of radar speed traps and speedometers of police vehicles. This is required for more effective enforcement against speed hogs whose mania for speed without consideration for others often kill and maim innocent people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, traffic law enforcement consists basically of five processes: (i) detection; (ii) apprehension; (iii) prosecution; (iv) adjudication; and (v) penalisation. For enforcement to be effective, there must be enough teeth in the traffic laws to enable enforcement officers to carry out their task without let and hindrance. The underlying objective of the Amendment Bill is to speed up the enforcement process and, at the same time, enhance the efficacy of traffic law enforcement. It is also aimed at drastically reducing the road traffic accident rate.

All careful and law-abiding motorists and pedestrians should welcome the various provisions contained in the Amendment Bill, as they are intended to make our roads safer and to reduce the unnecessary heavy toll on lives we see today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.14 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the aim of this Bill is to introduce a Points Demerit System in order to deter motorists from driving dangerously or recklessly on the road. The number of road accidents is increasing every year and the number of fatalities is also increasing. The adoption of this System against reckless motorists is timely. In the Points Demerit System, because of the awarding of points - four, five or six points depending on the nature of the traffic offence - a motorist who is found guilty of offences for which 12 or more points are awarded, will be suspended from driving. So he must not commit more than three traffic offences. Otherwise his licence will be suspended for six months.

I feel that such a penalty is too drastic, especially against bus drivers, taxi drivers and lorry drivers, who depend on driving as a means of earning a living. This system is a threat to their livelihood as it may break their rice bowl. These professional drivers spend at least eight hours of driving on the road. Take the case of a taxi driver. He is quite different from the ordinary motorist. He has to spend about eight to 12 hours of driving, and working two shifts in one day. I feel that we should have a different system of awarding points for these professional drivers. We should increase the maximum number of points four-fold for the penalty of suspending their driving licences. I am not advocating that taxi and lorry drivers should be allowed to commit traffic offences. What I am pointing out is that we should be sympathetic towards taxi drivers, bus drivers and lorry drivers. It is not quite correct to punish them heavily by suspending their driving licences if they are awarded 12 points, because a suspension of six months' driving will amount to depriving them of their livelihood for six months. How will their families live? Who is going to support them? And in the face of inflation and economic recession these days, the Government should see that the livelihood of these people is safeguarded. The Government should not increase the pool of unemployed or cause more hardship to the people. So we should adopt a different system of awarding points for the professional drivers. Apart from serious traffic offences, other punitive measures may be taken - for example, warnings, fines or suspension of driving licences for one week. For minor offences we should not suspend their licences for six months in order to deter them from committing further offences because we should not cause hardship to their families.

This Bill also provides for a ticket system. Careful consideration should be given in its implementation to ensure that it is not abused. For example, the officers concerned should be fair in their attitude. They should not be allowed to abuse their rights by causing unnecessary trouble to drivers so as to avoid disputes.

Sir, civil servants in certain departments do not carry out their duties correctly. Some of them are not even familiar with the relevant laws. For example, in the case of bus lanes, these are reserved for buses during the hours from 7.30 a.m, to 9.30 a.m, and from 4.30 p.m, to 6.30 p.m, on weekdays. On Saturdays, the hours of restriction are from 7.30 a.m, to 9.30 a.m, and from 11.30 a.m, to 2.30 p.m. Outside these periods, the restriction is not enforced. In other words, outside these hours all vehicles can travel along bus lanes just like any other stretch of road. However, taxi drivers have been prosecuted for driving in bus lanes outside these restricted times. This shows that the police have unnecessarily interfered with the control of taxi drivers. Beyond these restricted times, taxi drivers should be allowed to use the bus lanes as well. This shows that certain officers are not familiar with the law.

Another example of an abuse of the law concerns taxi drivers. We know that taxis have to be inspected every six months in order to ensure that they maintain their engines properly. However, at the headquarters of the Registry of Vehicles, we see policemen on the look-out for taxis. They invariably cause taxis to go into the ROV compound. This causes loss of earnings for the taxi drivers because they are asked to bring their taxis to the ROV for inspection before it is actually due. I would urge the Minister to look into this matter and to direct that department and the officers in that department to comply with the relevant laws and not to abuse their power. I hope the Minister would give special training to law enforcement officers and to see that they familiarise themselves with the laws before they carry out their duties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in principle, I support this Bill because it will result in a reduction of road accidents and road fatalities. But I hope that the law enforcement officers could be fair in their attitude towards the motorist, especially the professional drivers.

3.24 p.m.

Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong): Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the very sad state of discipline on the roads today, a matter on which much has been said in the last few weeks, and in view of the frequent display of disregard for lawful behaviour on the roads, no sensible person, I think, has any other alternative than to support this Bill completely. And I rise to voice my unqualified support for this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is interesting to note that this debate on the Second Reading of this Bill is being conducted actually during a period in which a campaign has been launched and is very much in the process of implementation. To my mind and to my personal and great satisfaction, I interpret this as highlighting the role of legislation in continuing public education.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Hear, hear!

Mr Conceicao: Sir, may I just recapitulate a few points that have been raised during this campaign, because while there has been debate and suggestions outside Parliament, I think the final arbitrating forum is Parliament itself. So let me just make one or two points, Mr Speaker, Sir.

First, the Points Demerit System. Instead of considering this system as drastic or Draconian, maybe we should extend it to include even the less grave offences. It may not be quite inappropriate, today particularly, for me to resort to some religious imagery. There are, Sir, mortal sins and venial sins. Perhaps what has been incorporated administratively in the Points System may be for mortal sins, but I think we ought also to give one, two or three points for venial sins. If I may just enlighten this House further on this religious matter, may I say that no amount of venial sin can equal one mortal sin. But venial sins lead to mortal sins. So I think we should also attempt to penalise those who infringe even in minor matters, just to bring to their minds the possibility that through their carelessness they may infringe seriously. So I would appeal both to the Minister for Communications as well as to the Minister for Home Affairs to consider implementing the Points System on the basis of one, two or three points for other minor offences.

Another point I would like to bring up, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that when a licence is taken away from a person for six months or for a longer period by a court order, it is not correct to allow a person to resume driving just like that. You must remember, Sir, that this person has had his licence suspended because he has infringed the law gravely. He has been a danger to life and limb of other people. In fact, he might have been the cause of dangerous injuries to other people. And yet after a period of six months, at least, without any driving, he is allowed to go back on the road without any assurance that he indeed can drive well and with responsibility. Therefore, I think that when a person has had his licence suspended, he should not be allowed to resume driving unless he has undergone another driving test.

This brings me to another point which I would like to bring up, Sir, and that is the very high rate of failures of those people who take the driving test. The Minister's own officers will confirm that three-quarters of those who take the test fail. The average rate of passing is only 25 per cent. What does this signify, Mr Speaker? Does it signify that people go for the test on a tikam tikam basis: just try your luck without really preparing yourself for the test? Or does it signify that any Chang San and Lee Ssu can teach his brother, sister or friend to drive, and expect this person to rush off into a test? On the basis of this high rate of failure, perhaps we should seriously consider that those who wish to teach people to drive ought to be specially licensed to do so. This matter has cropped up before, I think, with the Ministry of Communications. Perhaps we could be enlightened as to why this has not been implemented. There must have been good reasons, but I would suggest that this matter be given further consideration.

Another point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that - perhaps I may be imagining -there seems to be more "L" licence holders among the motor-cycle fraternity in Singapore than those who have actually passed the test. Anyway, there seems to be too many of these motorcyclists with "L" plates. I have been informed that they evade tests by renewing their provisional licences again and again, so that we have on the roads quite a number of people who do not feel competent to take their motor-cycle test. Perhaps some limit should be placed on the length of time during which they can be allowed to renew their provisional licences, so we can be assured that in view of the fairly high motorcycle accident rates efforts are being taken by motor-cyclists to use their vehicles safely.

Finally, it is a pity that the Minister for Education is not here. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Education for coming out in such solid support for the principle and for the spirit of this educational campaign by instructing schools - oh, yes, the Parliamentary Secretary is here - to support this "accident-free" campaign. I think this support has to be on the basis of the entire Government, not merely of one or two Ministries. All Government Ministries should support this campaign in various ways, principally by seeing that their own vehicles obey the laws. I may mention to the Minister for Communications that I saw one of his own Ministry's vehicles committing a minor infringement. Perhaps that driver deserves one or two points! Again, I have also seen the Ministry of the Environment's vehicles on the wrong side of the road - one sampah lorry was going up a one-way street in the wrong direction. These infringements are setting bad examples to others. So I think Government departments should particularly see that their own vehicles proceed correctly on the road. And I am very glad that the Minister for National Development is here now because I think the condition of our roads requires his serious consideration!

Mr Rodrigo: Sir, I have no irreconcilable objections to the Bill. To me the Bill merely reflects a kind of problem that the Government will face as we reach a stage of growth and affluence and where so many bodies wish to live in order and comfort within a very limited area. This situation requires empowering the administration of the Ministry with authority to regulate social conduct. It appears to be an unavoidable course of action. Nevertheless, I think in the growth of governments the world over, it is a striking feature that as social problems expand in a society, the more does it become necessary for the administration or the Ministry to be empowered with executive action to regulate social conduct. This is the kind of situation that we are leading to. I do wish to say that, although unavoidable, empowering the Ministry with executive powers is regrettable. Therefore, it becomes very necessary for the officials concerned to ensure that the application of this authority is done in the most just way possible. In our case it is not a matter of choice or convenience. In our case I think the option is a necessary one if we are to prevent our roads from becoming a bloody scene of damaged bodies and injuries. Nevertheless, I think the absorption of executive power by the Ministry or by the administration must be explained very clearly by the Ministry or administration, illustrating to the people that the alternative is social disorder which we must all try to avoid. That is the point I wish to make in respect of the first section of the Bill, Sir.

I also wish to make one observation on the Demerit System that is envisaged in the Bill. It struck me that the system envisaged is negative in approach. The system appears to me to say to the motorists: "Don't drive fast, because if you do you will receive so many bad points", or "Don't drive carelessly, because if you do you will receive so many bad points". And at the end of a period, the Bill says: "Now that you have got so many bad points, you should not be allowed to drive at all for so many months." I am wondering whether or not it is possible to construct a system which has a positive approach, a system which awards points to motorists for good driving - a system which perhaps at the end of the score will be able to award privileges to the good motorist, such as a year's free driving licence or a rebate in road tax. I am sure it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Ministry's officials to try and think of a positive approach to the problem because I think that such an approach will induce the motoring public to raise their standards of social conduct on the roads, rather than confine them to a low level which at best becomes only an effort in driving without accidents.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to make a few comments on this Bill, but it may appear to be a bit too late at this stage; but it is better late than never.

I would like to touch on the point made by the Minister of State for Communications relating to pedestrians. He said that the intention is to educate rather than to punish jaywalkers. We all know that quite a number of serious accidents were caused by jaywalking. On the introduction of this Bill, jay-walkers are let off very lightly. This will not help to reduce the number of accidents on our roads. The Minister of State also mentioned that for enforcement to be effective, there must be enough teeth given to the Traffic regulations. It appears that in so far as jaywalking is concerned, we are merely giving the regulations false teeth. Especially at the junctions of North Bridge Road / Stamford Road! Bras Basah Road, you can see hoards of jaywalkers crossing the roads when the traffic lights favour the motorists. As a result many motorists have to play hide and seek with such careless pedestrians and run the risk of running down innocent bystanders. All these careless pedestrians should not be let off so lightly for their negligence, which however is the case with this Bill. I feel that the provisions against jaywalking are inadequate, and this will not help to reduce the number of accidents that occur every day.

My colleague, the Member for Sembawang, has pointed out that certain provisions of the Bill are too drastic against professional drivers, and he mentioned the case of bus and taxi drivers. He says that if a bus driver or a taxi driver is suspended from driving for six months, it will more or less affect his rice bowl. I wonder whether my colleague has given some thought to the problems of the victims of such reckless driving - those who die on the roads through the negligence and recklessness of bus drivers, taxi drivers and lorry drivers. Who will be responsible to look after their families? I would like to quote a few instances where accidents were caused by negligent bus drivers, as this will probably help to change his mind.

In Toa Payoh alone there were so many accidents involving bus drivers. A bus overturned while rounding a circus in Lorong 7, Toa Payoh. Luckily, nobody was injured, other than causing a fright to the driver. Two buses on going out of the bus terminus ran into a drain. We had one instance in which a bus attempted to go over the flyover but crashed into the railings instead. Here again, it was fortunate that it caused only a few injuries. In another case in Toa Payoh Central, two buses collided head-on, causing injuries to 22 people. In another accident in Dunearn Road only two months ago, a bus ran into the path of another bus and 15 persons were injured. In Queenstown there were about 20 to 30 bus commuters waiting at a bus stand, and there came along a bus which ran into them and knocked down the bus stand. In another case in Punggol, a bus attempted to run beyond Punggol Point! We have yet another case where a bus ran into the car of the Honourable the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. All these instances are examples of negligent driving of bus drivers, and I feel that if no adequate punishment is meted out to such bus drivers, we can never hope to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on our roads.

I support all the provisions in the Bill except the provision covering pedestrians, and I hope the Minister will consider introducing more severe penalties for jaywalking.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore today I find it difficult to drive around and I find it even more difficult to walk around. Although I support this Bill, I feel that it is not quite so effective. It is like leaving a headache to cure itself, or when your foot aches you treat it yourself. If we want to reduce the number of accidents we will have to reduce the number of vehicles and drivers. I agree with Members that the minimum age for holding a driving licence should be raised to 21 years. This is a correct move. If we do not allow more drivers on the road, the Government can easily reduce the number of private car ownership. This will lead to a reduction in the number of accidents.

Sir, I am not against the introduction of the Points Demerit System. It is only a medium to treat the symptoms of a permanent ailment. It does not cure the pain fundamentally. In the Points Demerit System many different points of view have been given. Some Members think that we should be even more strict, but the Member for Sembawang feels that it is already too strict for the professional drivers. I am in full sympathy with him. The case for these professional drivers is just like the Chinese saying that if you go to the mountain often enough, chances are you will be eaten by the tiger. Therefore, I think the Government should give some consideration to this point of view.

Sir, I support this Bill.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, Sir, for any law to be effective, there must be enforcement. But as far as the management of road traffic is concerned, we seem to have a rather peculiar situation where the law is made by one Ministry, but without any control over its enforcement. We have the Traffic Police in the Ministry of Home Affairs taking care of the enforcement of this Bill introduced by the Ministry of Communications. To me it would be logical either for the Minister for Home Affairs to take charge of administering the Road Traffic Act, or for the Traffic Police to be transferred to the portfolio of the Minister for Communications. I really cannot see how the present system can be effective. I think what one Member has just said is quite true, that this is one of the most inherent weaknesses in our entire system of road traffic management.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. In fact, this Bill should have been introduced a few years ago. Many innocent persons have died or seriously injured by the actions of inconsiderate drivers who drove their motor vehicles recklessly and dangerously.

Sir, according to the pamphlet on the Points Demerit System, six points will be given for reckless or dangerous driving. I think this is too lenient a punishment for such a serious offence, as a reckless and dangerous driver could kill an innocent person. I would request the Minister of State for Communications to give serious consideration to immediately suspend the driving licence of a driver for a period of six months if he is found guilty of reckless and dangerous driving. This is more effective than giving him six points for the offence, which is too lenient a punishment.

Mr Chai Chong Yii: Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to answer first in Mandarin to the points raised by two Mandarin-speaking Members of Parliament.

(In Mandarin) Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Sembawang mentioned the Points Demerit System. According to him, the system of awarding points is too drastic. If you commit a traffic offence three times, you would reach the maximum of 12 points, that is, if you get four points for each offence, then after three offences you will reach the maximum of 12 points allowed to you and your driving licence will be suspended for up to six months. In his view, this is too drastic.

However, we have heard the Member for Toa Payoh saying that this system is not strict enough as we should consider the plight of the families of victims of such accidents. He has also given a number of instances of negligent driving by professional drivers to support his point of view.

However, as this system is new, I do not think the professional drivers need be over-concerned about it. Whether the effects of the implementation of this system will be as bad as what the Member for Sembawang thinks, we will be able to know only after some time. He has also recommended that the period of suspension should not exceed one week. Of course, he is quite justified in being concerned about the plight of professional drivers as, if I am not mistaken, he is the adviser to the Taxi Drivers Association. But I think we will have to wait for a certain period to see the full effects of this new Bill.

He also brought up the question of the ticketing system, and added that the officers should not abuse their powers. I think every one with any conscience - every Government official, every civilian, every Member of Parliament, and every law-abiding citizen -believes in this. But what is an abuse of authority, or what constitutes an abuse of authority? This is rather ambiguous and cannot be defined clearly. However, if the Member does come across instances where such abuse has taken place, I shall be pleased to know more about the details of the particular case so that I can try my best to investigate and see what can be done.

The Member for Bras Basah mentioned that the Bill is only a means of treating the symptoms and is not a fundamental solution to the problem. The provisions of this Bill are new, but we know that in many other countries similar provisions have already been effectively implemented. Let us wait for some time before assessing the effects of this Bill and come to the conclusion whether or not it is sound or effective.

He also mentioned the point about reducing the number of vehicles as the basic and fundamental solution to the problem. He further mentioned that the minimum age of drivers should be raised from 17 to 21 years. On these two points, of course, the reduction in the number of vehicles will help to reduce accidents because, in theory at least, if there are fewer vehicles, the number of accidents should correspondingly decrease. But this is not something that we can do immediately because reducing the number of vehicles may affect the livelihood of many people. The policy of the Government is very clear. In the last few months, we have repeatedly announced our policy in respect of this problem. We will try our best to restrict the number of unnecessary vehicles on our roads. On the question of the age of the drivers, there are several conflicting points of view. Young people, of course, feel that the age should not be raised. There are some young people who are reckless or who are not so careful. But up to now, we have no concrete and positive evidence to show that drivers in this age group of 17 and 21 years are accident-prone. We know that young people today learn a lot of skills, and they learn various skills at an early age. Of course, they would like to obtain the skills at an even earlier age. And driving is one of the skills they would like to acquire at an early age. So for the time being, I cannot give him a very satisfactory answer because I think time is needed to see the development of these events.

(In English) Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may now answer the other Members of Parliament in English.

I appreciate the support of the Member for Katong. He raised the point on the re-issue of driving licences. He 3pecifically maintained that a re-test should be given to those whose licences have been suspended, and not just re-issue licences to them on expiry of the suspension period. We all know that our driving test centres are unable to cope with new drivers right now. So if we are going to implement his suggestion, I think the queue will be even longer. `There is merit in his suggestion, but it takes some time to see whether it can he worked out administratively.

He also mentioned about "L" motorcyclists. The Ministry of Communications has recently introduced administrative action to ensure that an "L" motor-cyclist should try to pass a riding test within three years or else he has to re-sit the Highway Code test before another "L" licence can be issued to him. This is, in fact, one administrative step ahead to persuade "L" riders to sit for the test. The large number of these "L" motor-cyclists that we see on our roads is partly due to the fact that the majority of them just do not bother to apply for a test because the fee for an "L" driving licence is just twice the fee for an ordinary driving licence. But with the introduction of this new ruling, I am sure the number will be reduced.

Regarding his comment on Government vehicles, I can only assure him that Government vehicles enjoy no privileges.

To the Member for Serangoon Gardens, I thank him for his support of the Bill. He mentioned about the positive measures instead of the Points Demerit System which, he says, is negative in approach. Legal action by itself is negative. It is only by educating our people, the next generation, to be better educated, that I think the approach through education will be a more positive one. As for awarding privileges to good drivers, I doubt this could be implemented administratively because it will become too complicated an issue.

The Member for Toa Payoh has suggested that jaywalkers should not be let off so lightly, and he commented that the penalties provided for jaywalking are not enough. I mentioned in my speech that initially the penalties are meant to educate the jaywalkers, hut if we find that they persist in jaywalking and their accident rate is still high, then the existing law has provision to increase the penalties. It is, therefore, not necessary to provide heavy penalties to deal with them at this stage. The existing law is quite adequate, and because it is something new I feel that initially jay-walkers should be given a chance.

As for the Member for Jalan Kayu's comment that the law is made in one Ministry and enforced by another, I have listened to it with deep interest and I have no comments to offer.

The Member for Bukit Ho Swee supports the Bill. He has specifically pointed out that the penalty of six points for dangerous driving is too lenient. The Points Demerit System can be administratively changed. If it is subsequently proved that six points are not adequate to deal with this group of reckless drivers, perhaps they can he increased. I hope I have answered all the questions.

Mr Conceicao: On a point of clarification, Sir. In his reply to my suggestion that those who are suspended need another test, the Minister of State stated that there are so many people waiting for tests that this is not feasible. Is he implying that it is more beneficial to let a suspended driver off without a re-test than to keep a few other people waiting? Or is he expecting so many people to have their licences taken away that his officials have no time to give another test?

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a little puzzled by his "no comment" reply because either you agree or you do not agree. By not giving a firm answer, he has given me the impression that perhaps he agrees, but for political reasons he does not want to offend his colleague.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may follow up on the Member for Jalan Kayu's comments. He has raised a most interesting point on the question of traffic problems and its solution, that is, the Road Traffic Act comes under the Ministry of Communications but its implementation falls within the purview of the Traffic Police which comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs. This unfortunately has been the position for quite a long time. It is a matter which we have referred to the Management Services Unit of the Ministry of Finance to look into especially the reorganisation of the Registry of Vehicles. After a study of about eight months, they produced a report which recommended that an Authority for Inland Transport be established to bring into it the Registry of Vehicles, the Roads Department of the Ministry of National Development, the Car Parks Division, as well as the Traffic Police of the Ministry of Home Affairs. That was the suggestion put up if we are to make an effective contribution towards the resolution of traffic problems as a whole. Arising out of this, as was stated in the Second Reading speech of the Minister of State, a Road Transport Action Committee was formed in November last year comprising five Permanent Secretaries from four Ministries, that is to say, the Ministries of National Development, Communications, Home Affairs and two Permanent Secretaries from the Ministry of Finance, one from Budget and the other from the Development Division. That is why over the past one year, i.e, from November last year until today, there has been a co-ordinated effort to resolve the problems of traffic in general, and I think we are going places now with this large, all-powerful, high-powered co-ordinating committee.

Although the present amendments to the Road Traffic Act were initiated by my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, the group of officials from the various Ministries and departments involved in road traffic had to come together to produce these two systems, the Points Demerit System as well as the Ticketing System. This is a means towards an end, and we believe that these two measures will contribute a great deal towards a rationalisation of our traffic problems and should be able to reduce considerably the havoc, the carnage of human lives that are being lost every day.

This is not the only problem that is being tackled by the Road Transport Action Committee. There are other measures. In fact, there are as many as ten measures going on simultaneously at this moment. Various traffic management measures are in force or will be introduced that would completely change the pattern of traffic as we see it today.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Katong's other question has not been answered.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Yes, Mr Speaker. There is also a valid point raised by the Member for Katong when he talked of mortal sins and venial sins. It is true that under the Points Demerit System points are awarded for very serious offences. In fact, the aim of the Points Demerit System is to identify and remove dangerous drivers first so that the less dangerous drivers will be looked into later. The idea is that we should first deal with those with serious sins. Those with venial sins, the minor ones, we will come to them after this system has been fully implemented. It is a question of a step by step approach. The more serious ones come first, to be followed later by the less serious ones when points will have to be awarded for minor offences.

Mr Conceicao: Sir, would the Minister like to touch on the point regarding the suspension of licence and the necessity for a test? I have asked the question, "Are we expecting so many suspensions that the testers would not be able to attend to them; or i5 it more beneficial to keep a few people waiting than to get these people who had their licences suspended to come for a retest?"

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Since the Member for Katong is so persistent, I will say this. After having had his licence withdrawn for six months, I think as a first penalty he would be cautioned to be more careful when he gets back his licence. We can give it a trial.

Mr Conceicao: But he has not driven for six months!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: That is all right. There are people who have not driven for six years, and yet they are still careful when they drive.

Mr Conceicao: But this one is not a careful driver.

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 Chai Chong Yii].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.10 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 -

Mr Chai Chong Yii: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 8, line 3, to leave out "offence" and insert "conviction".

This is to rectify a typographical error.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.