ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

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

The existing Road Traffic Act empowers a Police officer to arrest without warrant and prosecute any person found driving or attempting to drive, or in charge of a motor vehicle, under the influence of alcohol or drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. However, the existing Road Traffic Act does not require the defendant to submit to a medical examination.

In a recent case, a Subordinate Court refused to admit in evidence the statement of a Government medical officer that the driver of a vehicle was, at the time he was brought to the General Hospital, drunk and incapable of having proper control of the vehicle because the defendant's consent was not obtained before he was examined.

Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to amend the Road Traffic Act by making it obligatory for any person, arrested under the provisions of the Act mentioned earlier, to provide a specimen of his blood or urine, or both, for a laboratory test if required to do so by a Police officer.

This clause also seeks to introduce a presumption that a person with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 1 10 mg/100 ml is incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle. The proposed amendment serves as a guide to Police officers and medical practitioners as well as evidence upon which the court can convict any person who is arrested under section 29 or 30 of the Act. The concentration level of 110 mg/100 ml is within the range of the legal limits of blood alcohol concentration adopted by the courts in other countries.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Ong Leong Boon (Kim Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

It is timely that we introduce this particular amendment because in -our experience it has been very difficult to certify whether or not a person is intoxicated. Much depends on the individual judgment of the medical practitioner. The physical state of a patient who is involved in a road traffic accident and who has been admitted to a hospital has been variously described in terms of whether he is conscious or unconscious, rational or irrational, or whether he smells of alcohol, or whether he is, sometimes, allegedly claimed to be intoxicated. The fact that we now have a legal provision for a blood level of 110 mg is to me a necessity. This particular amendment makes it compulsory that all these people be subject to a blood test.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if he had taken into consideration the fact that different people have different tolerance to alcohol and if, in fact, this blood level of 110 mg is a fair level to be placed. Secondly, could he inform this House as to the specific blood levels imposed by other countries, and how do we compare to these other levels. I understand that in the United Kingdom it is in the region of 80 mg. Perhaps he could inform us more about this provision in the other countries of Europe.

Could the Minister also inform this House as to the number of persons in the past year or two who were involved in road traffic accidents and were found to be intoxicated at the time of the accident?

Further, could the Minister explain in layman's terms what this blood level of 110 mg means. Does it mean consuming two bottles of beer or three bottles of stout or four pegs of whisky? This seems to us to be more meaningful than a blood level of 110 mg.

Mr L. P. Rodrigo (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just ask the Minister whether in the implementation of this law there would arise a situation where a blood test is required but it is not available under the circumstances, and in such a situation should the person concerned be unable at the particular time to produce the required urine, would that constitute a justifiable reason under the circumstances?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the Member for Kim Seng's support of the Bill. He raised a number of questions. Perhaps I should first answer the last point about the blood level of 110 mg/100 ml in layman's terms. Generally speaking, if a person has consumed three full pegs of hard liquor or three large bottles of beer within a space of one hour, his blood alcohol concentration would be in the region of 110 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. A normal whisky/water or brandy/dry served in restaurants or bars contains half a peg of hard liquor. That would give some idea of the blood alcohol concentration in layman's terms.

Our Senior Forensic Pathologist has confirmed that a person with such a concentration of alcohol in his body is not in a fit state to drive a motor vehicle, and his opinion has been supported by many experiments carried out in other countries throughout the world. In ordinary circumstances, a seasoned drinker, even though he may be an experienced driver, will not be able to have proper control of his vehicle with such a level of blood alcohol concentration.

Regarding the different legal limits adopted by other countries on blood alcohol concentration, Members would be interested to know that this ranges from a very low 30 mg/100 ml in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia 50 mg/i 00 ml in Norway and Sweden; 80 mg/100 ml in the United Kingdom and France; and 80-1 50 mg/100 ml in the United States of America. Our limit of 110 mg/i 00 ml is, therefore, a compromised one.

On the number of traffic accidents involving drunken driving in the past, unfortunately, I do not have the full details. I only have the figures for 1974 and 1975. In 1974, the number of cases of drunken driving brought to court was 103. In 1975, the number increased to 160. This represents more than a 50% increase over the 1974 figure.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens raised the question regarding a defendant who could not produce the required urine at the time of examination. I will leave it to the court to decide and the Member to defend the defendant ably at the trial.

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 Ong Teng Cheong].

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