PARKING PLACES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 7.00 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

There is no provision in the Act to allow statutory boards to retain parking charges and fines in the operation of their own car parks. Under the Act, the statutory boards can only act as agents for the Urban Redevelopment Authority. All revenues collected from car park operations should, therefore, be credited into URA funds. In practice, the revenues collected are retained by the respective statutory boards who are responsible for maintaining their car parks. This Bill proposes to regularise the practice.

Presently a vehicle owner alleged to have committed a parking offence under the Act is obliged to furnish particulars of the driver at the relevant time. Occasionally, the owners supplied the names of overseas residents and this has made enforcement difficult and impractical.

This Bill proposes to impose the liability on the vehicle owner for the parking offence. However, a number of defences are available to the owner. He can avoid liability if he proves that his vehicle was stolen or illegally taken or used at the material time or if he can satisfy the Superintendent, Car Parks Division, or the court that he was not the driver who actually committed the offence. There is a similar provision in the Road Traffic Act for traffic offences.

The Bill also seeks to empower the Superintendent to remove any vehicle found abandoned in a parking place to a place of safety. The owner shall pay all expenses incurred in the removal, and the fines and charges for any parking offences. The Superintendent may sell or otherwise dispose of the vehicle if it is not claimed by the owner within a specified period of time.

The other major aspect of the Bill is to allow the Minister to utilise any land or premises owned or occupied by any statutory board as a parking place on terms and conditions to be agreed upon between the Minister and the statutory board.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

7.04 p.m.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek some points of clarification from the Hon. Minister with regard to car parking spaces. Under clause 3 of the Amendment Bill, it is proposed to utilize any land or premises which may be lawfully acquired or appropriated for use as parking places and also for the collection of fees. Here, I would like to seek clarification from the Hon. Minister. With the levies collected from the building complexes where inadequate car parking spaces are provided, whether such moneys collected have been used to improve the parking facilities in certain areas where there is extreme traffic congestion.

Besides the proposed multi-storey car park within the CBD, could the Minister enlighten the House whether there are any plans to provide more car parks in areas like Coleman Street and along stretches of Balestier Road where owing to inadequate parking spaces vehicles are compelled to park along the roadside? As the Minister will recall, Balestier Road was widened several years ago to provide for a three-lane traffic on either side. But after the widening of the road, at least one lane on either side is used for parking.

I would also like to clarify whether there is any proposal to develop areas for heavy vehicle parking. As can be seen from the number of accidents that had occurred, some vehicles collided into the rear of heavy vehicles parked on the main road. With all the levies collected, one would have thought that some of these funds should be channelled into improving car parking facilities, especially in congested areas.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, again I rise to ask the Minister by way of clarification two matters. I see by clause 4 that a new subsection is being added to the Act which provides that:

'No licensee shall collect any fees or charges for the use of any private parking place unless the fees or charges have first been approved by the Superintendent.' May I know what is the rationale for this amendment? Is it perhaps to provide that the licensee of any private parking place will not compete with the Government or the statutory board which provides parking places by charging less than what the Government or statutory board might charge? Why should there be a restriction on what fee the licensee should collect if it is his own land and which he wishes to utilize as a parking place for vehicles? I suspect it is perhaps that he should not compete with the Government in this business.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, I am at a loss to understand why it is necessary for an owner to furnish, by way of a statutory declaration, to the Superintendent the name and address of the person in charge of the vehicle at the time the offence is committed? Statutory declarations have to be stamped if they are to be used in a court of law unless there is an exemption for this. That means whoever makes a declaration will have to pay a $2 fee for this statutory declaration. I would like to know why it is necessary that there should be a statutory declaration. Would it not be sufficient for the owner to give this information by way of a letter, i.e. give it in writing, and make it punishable if the information is false? I am sure it must be provided in the Act somewhere that whoever furnishes false information shall be subject to prosecution in court. That is sufficient sanction for an owner to give true information. So why the imposition of a statutory declaration at an additional cost of $2 to the owner?

Mr Ho See Beng (in Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the traffic system and the parking system in Singapore are almost second to none in South-east Asia. This could be attributed to the officers in charge of these matters. Road communication and the parking systems are praised not only by the people of Singapore but also by tourists who are equally impressed by our transport and parking systems. Therefore, if there is anyone who has nothing better to do than to find fault with the systems, it can only be expected of a caviller.

However, I have something to say about the coupon system. There is room for improvement. Sometimes motorists, in using the coupons, unwittingly make mistakes. They may tear the wrong tab from the parking coupon; invariably this is not done on purpose. But when the car park attendant finds anything amiss with the parking coupon, he would invariably not allow the motorist to explain but issues a notice of an offence to the motorist. There should be some flexibility in enforcing any regulations. When Singaporeans are enjoying moderate economic affluence, there should be no need for them to cheat the Government of a small amount. I hope the Minister will take note of this.

Another problem is that motorists are obliged to use the coupons when they park their cars. However, these coupons are not available at every car park. Since the URA gets so much revenue from parking and is so affluent, why does it not use this revenue to install parking meters at its car parks? If parking meters are used, firstly, it will obviate the occurrence of making mistakes in parking coupons, and secondly, it will reduce the demand on labour. It is of benefit to Singapore when she is faced with labour shortage. It will economise on the use of labour. Therefore, where possible, parking meters should be installed in car parks. I hope the Minister will consider what I have suggested.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the point raised by the Member for Toa Payoh about using car park levies to build more car parks either in the Central Business District or in areas where there is a shortage of car parks, I would like to inform him that the Urban Redevelopment Authority has proceeded with this policy. For example, in the Central area, several multi-storey car parks have been planned. Piling work is already in progress to provide additional car parks to relieve the parking shortage. In areas outside the CBD where there is a shortage of car parks or where road congestion has been experienced, the URA is looking for suitable places to build additional surface car parks. The URA is also looking into this question of providing parking places for heavy vehicles. In fact, this has been looked into. Sometime ago some of the fringe car parks have already been utilized for the parking of heavy vehicles or container trucks.

The hon. Member for Anson made two points. His first point is why should private car park charges be approved by the Superintendent of Car Parks. I can assure the Member that this is not to prevent the owners from competing with the URA. Rather, it is the other way round. A lot of private car parks in big shopping complexes are owned by the developers. They can therefore charge exorbitant parking fees for utilizing the car parks. The point is that since they own the car parks, and if they were permitted to charge any rate they like, they can raise the parking fee. For example, if a shopping centre is well located, is very popular, and a lot of people patronise the shopping complex, then if the developer is unscrupulous, he will try to get as much revenue as possible from the car park by charging high parking fees. On the other hand, if he wants to get something out of the shopkeepers operating in the shopping complex, he may close the car park at, say, 9.00 p.m., thus preventing the people from parking there. So the need to control private parking fees by the Superintendent is to ensure that car park owners do not take undue advantage by charging high parking fees, thereby making the life of the tenants or owners of the shops very miserable. The Government imposes this requirement to ensure that the Superintendent of Car Parks has a certain measure of control over the management and the parking fees of private car parks.

The next point is that when an offence has been committed the owner of the vehicle is required to make a statutory declaration. Let me say that it is not in every case that we ask the owners of vehicles to make a statu;ory declaration. But I think the hon. Member for Anson has made a very pertinent point. If the owner provides the particulars of the driver to the Superintendent of Car Parks by means of a letter, instead of making a statutory declaration, it would be very difficult for the URA to take the owner to court because the owner can always claim that he is not the one who wrote the letter. But if he has made a statutory declaration, it would be very difficult for him to say, "I am not the one who made the statutory declaration. I am not responsible for it." I am obliged to the Member for Anson for bringing up this point. It really supports the particular provision that a statutory declaration is, in fact, required.

On the point raised by the Member for Khe Bong about tearing the wrong tabs from the parking coupon, instruction has been given to the Superintendent of Car Parks to take a very lenient view in such cases. If a genuine mistake has been made, the motorist can always explain it to the URA officer who may decide to reduce or even waive the fine. From the records, in the last few months, of the number of those who went to the URA to explain their mistakes made in the coupons, 60% to 75% of them were given a reduction in the fines.

On the point about installation of parking meters instead of using parking coupons, we have, in fact, already made a study of parking meters before we introduced coupon parking. From our study we find that parking meters are easily damaged by vandals, or they often malfunction. If I remember correctly, parking meters were used in Penang, but because they were not functioning well the authorities had to remove them.

Sir, I think I have covered all the points raised by Members.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, under Standing Order No. 44 you are only allowed to speak once to any question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But may I elaborate on what I said about the statutory declaration arising out of the reply given by the Hon. Minister?

Mr Speaker: All right, but make it short.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am indebted to you, Mr Speaker. The Road Traffic Act itself provides for owners to furnish information of drivers by letter, and I am not aware of the Police having encountered hundreds of cases of owners claiming, later on, that they did not write that letter. My real point is that in the normal course a statutory declaration must be stamped - I think the Hon. Minister misses that point - and that would mean an additional cost of $2. would the Minister consider exempting the statutory declaration from stamping?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Finance decides on the exemption of a stamp fee.

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 Teh Cheang Wan].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be altered from "1981" to "1982".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 -

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I beg to move.

In page 4, line 8, to leave out "lessor" and insert "owner".

According to the Attorney-General, this is a technical amendment to standardize the terms used in the Parking Places Act with those of existing law. In the Hire-Purchase Act the person who owns the goods under a hire-purchase agreement is referred to as "owner" and not as "lessor".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 -

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 5, line 28, after "section 3", to insert" and to any direction by the Minister".

This amendment involves section 16 which deals with payment of revenue collected from car park operations into the funds of the Urban Redevelopment Authority. The URA manages several fringe car parks on behalf of Government. As the fringe car parks are owned by Government, the revenue collected from these car parks should rightly be paid to Government. The proposed amendment provides for the payment of revenue collected from Government-owned car parks to Government although URA may be operating them on Government's behalf.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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