ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.15 p.m.

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

The House is probably aware that the Registrar of Vehicles will be introducing a scheme to conduct compulsory car inspections from 1982. Cars over 10 years old will be checked every year whilst those over three years old will be checked every other year. The purpose of this scheme is to upgrade the standard of vehicle roadworthiness and to control pollution by encouraging owners to maintain their cars regularly. The ROV has appointed two agents to conduct inspections on behalf of the Government. They are the Vehicle Inspection Company (VICOM) and the Automobile Association of Singapore (AA). The Vehicle Inspection Company is a private company owned by the NTUC, and is setting up an inspection centre at Sin Ming Road while the Automobile Association of Singapore is setting up their inspection centre at Eunos Avenue, off Sims Avenue. Both agents will be using computerized equipment to conduct inspections.

We need to ensure that all cars are inspected properly and according to standards acceptable to the ROV. The Road Traffic Act is, therefore, being amended to enable rules to be made for this purpose. Some of the rules will prescribe the requirements that cars have to meet in relation to construction and condition. Other rules will spell out the minimum requirements which the inspection agents have to comply with, such as the type of equipment to be installed, how inspections should be carried out and what to check during the inspection. The rules will also authorize the agents to issue certificates of roadworthiness and to collect inspection fees.

In the first stage of the implementation programme in 1982, all cars over five years old will be called up for inspection. The remaining cars will be called up in phases later. Announcements will be made as we progress. ROV will publish information booklets in conjunction with the two agents to advise car owners and workshop personnel of the inspection standards. These booklets will be released shortly.

Under this amendment Bill, it is an offence for a person to drive his car if it does not have a valid certificate of inspection as required by law.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Prof. S. Jayakumar (Bedok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to say a few words on this Bill. This Bill has two features. I wish to address myself to that feature of the Bill relating to the inspection and examination of motor vehicles and the granting or withholding of a certificate for compliance or non-compliance with the prescribed requirements relating to the construction and condition of the vehicle.

I would like to begin by expressing my very strong support for the general principle contained in this part of the Bill.

The rationale for the requirement to have vehicles inspected and examined and for vehicles to have test certificates is unquestionable. Our objectives of promoting safety on our roads and of combating air pollution are met not only by ensuring that drivers on our roads drive safely but also by ensuring that the vehicles which are driven on our roads themselves are in a safe and satisfactory condition. A motor vehicle, it goes without saying, which is faulty in construction or has faulty parts, for instance, faulty brakes, can be as lethal and dangerous on our roads as the most reckless and careless driver. This part of the Bill can, therefore, only benefit the national interest in promoting safety on the roads. And in so far as the provisions of the Bill seek to ensure pollution control, it also goes a long way to ensuring the quality of the air which we breathe.

Having said that and without detracting from my support for the basic principles, I wish to make one or two observations which the Hon. Minister might wish to take note for later consideration, particularly when the rules are drafted.

My first point of concern is that the criterion or purpose according to which the relevant officials will examine the vehicle and make a decision to grant or not to grant a certificate is not mentioned in the provisions. It is also not mentioned in the Explanatory Statement. It is very fortunate that we heard just now the Hon. Minister's statement where he explained that the purpose of the Bill is that of ensuring roadworthiness and of ensuring pollution control. But if I might respectfully suggest, these cardinal elements of the proposed legislation ought to have been included in the provisions of the legislation itself. It would have been desirable to state them in the legislation.

Now, this omission may, at first glance, seem minor, but I would like to suggest that it is important. In my view it is important because, on principle, when Parliament enacts legislation, especially legislation which confers discretionary powers on public officials and in this particular case where it even goes so far as to confer discretionary powers on private companies, then we in Parliament must ensure that the scope of the discretionary powers must be defined as clearly as possible, The legislative intent behind the legislation should be as clear as possible. In this case, as we have noted, the legislative intent in giving discretionary power to grant or withhold test certificates is that of road-worthiness, safety factor and pollution control. I think there are at least four good reasons why these cardinal elements should have been included in the legislation that emanates from this Chamber.

First of all, it will enable the relevant officials in the Ministry to draft the subsidiary legislation, the rules, without any doubt as to the scope of the statute and as to whether the rules that they are drafting come within the ambit and purview of the legislation.

Secondly, there would have been better guidance for the public servants and the public companies to whom an agency role has been granted to exercise their discretionary powers under the Act. With the purpose spelt out in the provisions, there would be less ambiguity, less room for misinterpretations, and therefore, hopefully less disputes.

Thirdly, when disputes arise, and let us hope that they do not arise, concerning the interpretation of the rules, or disputes arise concerning the exercise of discretionary powers, then the Courts will come into the picture, and in that case what the legislative intent is would become very crucial.

Fourthly, it would be helpful also to the citizens concerned if they have no doubt as to the exact purport and intent behind the legislation.

It is because of these considerations that I thought I should express this concern. To illustrate my concern, let me give a hypothetical example. Can the examiner or inspector, for instance, refuse to grant a certificate on the ground that the paintwork or upholstery is in an unsatisfactory condition? I would assume that this is not the intention of the legislature. It is not our intention that the discretionary powers should go to that extent because it may not have any relationship to roadworthiness or the prevention of pollution. But if we look at the Bill, the phrase "the prescribed requirements relating to its construction and condition" may be wide enough to cover that element. But this doubt could have been avoided if the legislation had laid down either in the provisions or in the Explanatory Statement that the purpose was to promote safety, roadworthiness and to prevent pollution. I am glad, however, that the Hon. Minister has, in his speech, brought this out very clearly and, therefore, has left us with no doubt as to the purpose according to which the discretionary powers will be exercised. Perhaps the matter might be dealt with when the rules are being drafted so that what is not explicit in the Act may be made explicit in the rules.

The next point I wish to deal with concerns the provision which is proposed on the creation of offences. The proposed new section 41 (D) creates an offence; it attributes the offence to whoever uses a vehicle, any vehicle, without a test certificate, There must have been good reasons for taking this approach in the legislation. But I would like to ask a question of the Minister as to whether it might not have been a better approach to attribute the offence to the registered owner of the car and to make the possession of the test certificate an essential prerequisite for registration of the car, in the same manner that the possession of a valid insurance coverage is a prerequisite for registration of a motor vehicle so that the obligation rests with the person applying for registration of the car and the offence can also be attributed to him. I would like to ask whether that would not have been a better approach. But, as I have said, there must have been good reasons and it will be helpful if the Hon. Minister can enlighten the House on this point.

In closing, let me say that these two observations which I have made do not in any way detract from the strong position of support that I wish to express for the laudable motives behind this amending legislation.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. Member for his strong support for the Bill and for his observations on which he has so? kindly elaborated at length.

He has raised two points. One is about the purpose or criterion upon which the test certificate will be issued and why this was not clearly stated in the Bill As a normal practice, the details of the requirement or criterion relating to the condition and construction to which vehicles would have to comply will be fully prescribed in the subsidiary legislation. Once this has been done, there should be no question as to what the purpose or criterion of the Bill is all about.

In short, the aim of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure and to promote road safety. This Bill, being part of the main Act, has the same legislative intent of the Act and is implied. There will be no misinterpretation of the intention or objective of the Act, although it may be useful to reiterate it from time to time, perhaps in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, as the hon. Member would like to see.

The second point the hon. Member raised was about the rationale for attaching the offence to the person who uses the vehicle rather than the registered owner of the vehicle. If the Member reads section 41 D carefully, it spells out that the registered owner is responsible for the roadworthiness of his motor vehicle. If the owner allows his vehicle which has no test certificate to be used on the road, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction. However, in addition to the vehicle owner, if the driver of the vehicle is not the owner himself, then the driver who uses on the road a motor vehicle which has no test certificate, shall also be guilty of an offence. This is necessary as a further deterrent, as I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate the danger of using such motor vehicles on the roads.

I agree with the hon. Member that perhaps we should make it a prerequisite to obtain a test certificate before the motor vehicle is registered or is having its road taxes renewed, as in the case of vehicle insurance coverage mentioned by the Member. I shall ask the Registry of Vehicles to look into this in the implementation of the scheme.

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.