PARKS AND TREES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 11.50 am

The Minister of State for National Development (Dr Lee Boon Yang) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Government has decided to amend the Parks and Trees Act to meet changing needs and to simplify the rules to facilitate development. Currently, the Act requires developers to plant trees as specified by the approved plans by the Commissioner for Parks and Recreation. To ensure compliance of this tree planting and landscaping requirements, the Act also empowers the Commissioner to collect tree planting deposits from developers. Tree planting deposits collected between 1980 and 1985 range from between $1.5 million and $3.7 million a year. The amount collected in 1986 was lower at $243,000 because of the slowdown in the construction industry.

Since January 1986, the Parks and Recreation Department has allowed developers to pay the deposits in the form of bankers' guarantee. Nevertheless, some developers still find furnishing tree planting deposits a financial burden. This is because bankers' guarantees can only be obtained against some form of collateral and a service charge is also imposed. It also takes some time for developers to get a bankers' guarantee.

Sir, in line with the Government's policy to simplify procedures and reduce business costs, my Ministry propose to waive the collection of tree planting deposits. However, legislative safeguards will be provided in the Act to ensure compliance with tree planting or landscaping requirements. The Bill seeks to make failure to comply with tree planting and landscaping requirements an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000 and a continuing fine of $100 per day. The Bill also empowers the Commissioner to carry out the necessary work and to recover the cost from the developers.

Sir, under the Act, it is an offence for vehicles to be parked on any side-table or turfed open spaces. For such offences, the Parks and Recreation Department has to serve notice on the vehicle owner to furnish the identity of the driver at the time of the offence. The serving of such notices is administratively cumbersome. Of the 1,209 cases in 1986, the Parks and Recreation Department had to send out repeated notices to obtain the driver's particulars on 906 cases. To eliminate the unnecessary work, the Act will be amended to make owners of vehicles liable for offences committed unless they can prove otherwise by furnishing the driver's particulars. This is in line with similar provisions in the Road Traffic Act and the Parking Places Act.

Sir, the Bill also seeks to empower the Minister to exempt any person from any provisions or any rules of this Act. This is to enable more flexible and effective administration of the Act to meet changing needs.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill. This is a positive step by the Ministry of National Development to simplify the rules. As regards the amendment to section 11, the new section 11 will indeed help developers in their financing and also their cash flow when they are carrying out development projects.

In the case of the amendment to section 10B of the Act, as the Minister has stated, this helps in the procedure to take enforcement action against illegal or indiscriminate parking on side-tables and turfed open spaces. Instead of merely depending on punitive measures, may I also suggest that the department consider a public education programme to educate members of the public to stop damaging side-tables and turfed open spaces. I think the amount of money spent on maintaining or repairing damaged side-tables and turfed open spaces could be better spent on the improvement of our parks and open spaces. And this indeed will add more colour to our parks.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I notice that the punishment for offences committed by owners of vehicles who park on turf or side-tables as it is called is $2,000 at its upper limit. I think this is too excessive. $2,000 is the maximum fine. I would say that this amount should be reduced to $500 maximum fine.

These are my reasons. These offences can be said to be almost akin to offences that are technical in nature, in the sense that no person is injured or suffer some damages. The only reason why this fine is imposed is probably the damage done to the turf or to the side-table. What damage can be done to the turf? Probably on a very wet day, if motorcars get on the turf, they might cause indentations on the ground. That is about all. But on a very dry day, the grass sometimes can take the load of the vehicle. So this offence is not very serious in nature. Assuming that even if damage is done to the turf, will it cost $2,000 to get the grass replanted? I think the basis of a fine must go into the replacement cost and probably the administrative cost. But I do not think it would come anywhere near $500 to replant the grass or to level up the ground if there is a dent made by the vehicle that is parked on the turf.

As regards side-tables, the definition of "side-table" is "any area turfed or otherwise beside a public street. These are cemented side-walks or side-walks with slabs placed on them. If they are cemented, there is reinforced concrete on them, and I do not think even a lorry riding on them can damage them at all. Damage can be done only if there are slabs of cement.

Sometimes in narrow streets I have seen motorists park half of their vehicle on this so-called side-table and the other half on the road. These people who do that will probably damage their vehicles and they would not damage the so-called side-table. They are doing it because probably they think they will be taking too much of the road and they, in fact, have a social conscience to take only half the road. Of course, there is also an element of self interest. They are afraid that if their motorcar is parked wholly on the road, another vehicle may collide into it. But nevertheless, by taking part of their vehicle off the road and parking on this so-called kerb or side-table, it allows for the free flow of traffic. I do not think the pedestrians will be affected. They can still walk on the kerb. This is my experience at least.

So I would say this fine is too much. As one Minister said when he first came into the House, most of these laws tend to overkill and this is perhaps one of them.

There is an element of not only deterrent but coercion. In fact, with this kind of strong punishment, heavy punishment, I think it will cow the population. I hope that is not the intention of the Government. But, of course, then people will also have the other suspicion that the Government may be raising revenue through fines. I hope that is not the intention.

The other point I would like to mention is in regard to planning approval which is usually given together with plans and specifications for trees and certain other made-up areas specified therein and the developer or the builder will have to comply with these plans and specifications. I would urge the Minister to give developers or people who are constructing buildings some flexibility. The building authority will say, "All right, you have to plant so many trees at these places." But the developers may have ideas of their own. They would like to beautify the place as well, and so they say, "No, I think this is a better arrangement." I think they must be given this flexibility and not be forced to plant trees and to cause places to be made up in accordance with the wishes of the Planning Department.

Dr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the principles behind the amendment in the sense that it streamlines procedures to deal with contractors with regard to planting trees and making good the damages done to the turf and the parks.

But I am not really convinced about the reasons for amending section 10B of the Parks and Trees Act. This amendment enhances the fine from $1,000 to $2,000 on car owners who without reasonable excuse park their cars on any side-table or turfed open space. This will lead to a lot of interpretational problems with regard to "reasonable excuse". Unless one can define this more clearly, this will lead to a lot of dispute between those who enforce this procedure and car owners.

Sir, as pointed out, the problem is not that serious because there are only 906 cases that have to be dealt with and I see no reason why there is a necessity to make amendments to deal with such small number of cases of people who flout the law and create problems.

Sir, in making amendment to section 10B there are several implications. Firstly, one may bog down the courts with unnecessary administrative procedures in dealing with cases. The courts are already bogged down with a lot of cases and taking action against car owners will further pressurize the courts.

I am wondering whether there are no other alternative administrative procedures to deal with such problems. Perhaps a surcharge on car owners who create such problems of indiscriminate parking will be probably useful. If they damage the turf or they park indiscriminately and destroy the greens, then I think it is possible to administer a charge on them. This will then, Sir, create less administrative and legal procedures which car owners have to go through. This can be easily administered by the Parks and Recreation Department.

Secondly, in some Housing Board estates there are insufficient car parks. Residents may, in a rush to find places to park, sometimes inadvertently park their cars on the grass verge, and they are likely to get into problems. I am wondering whether the Parks and Recreation Department's officers will use careful discretion in deciding who to fine, and who has a reasonable excuse for parking on a grass verge.

Sir, these are some of the issues related to the implementation of the proposed amendment to the Act. I see that, unless appropriate discretion is exercised, there will be a lot of misunderstanding between car owners and the Parks and Recreation Department. So I feel the only way to implement section 10 is to make a proviso for the Parks and Recreation Department to devise an administrative procedure to surcharge car owners for the problems they have created.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Geylang Serai and the Member for Bo Wen for the support they have given to the Bill.

The Member for Geylang Serai pointed out that public education will be necessary, not just enforcement measures. Indeed the Parks and Recreation Department will be organizing sufficient publicity, necessary publicity measure, on this aspect of illegal parking on road side- tables and open turfed spaces. Where necessary, signboards will be put up to advise the public not to use turfed areas as temporary parking spaces.

Sir, I next move on to the Member for Potong Pasir. He says that the maximum fine of $2,000 is excessive. May I point out to him that this maximum fine will only be imposed by the courts. The problem of illegal parking on road side- tables and open turfed spaces is such that there must be adequate deterrents, otherwise owners of cars or drivers of these vehicles would continuously flout the law with the expectation that they may be able to get away with it. I think a sufficiently hefty deterrent is necessary, and in this case the court should have the power to impose such a fine.

The Member for Potong Pasir says that it is a technical offence. "You waive it aside. It is a technical offence. Nobody gets hurt really. Even the road side- tables do not suffer any damage. After all they have concrete slabs. They are reinforced concrete." Sir, I would like to point out to him that in 1983 the Parks and Recreation Department had to spend $500,000 to returf and repair damage to turfed areas and road side-tables. Illegal parking in these areas was the major cause of such damage. The expenditure increased to $542,000 in 1984 and $690,000 in 1985. Last year the Department had to spend $710,000 to repair damages caused by illegal parking on open turfed spaces. Sir, it is clear that more and more money will have to be spent each year to repair such damage unless the trend is arrested.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir says that "nobody gets hurt". But such illegally parked vehicles create inconvenience for other road and park users. They can also become a hazard to park users. Imagine a road running alongside a public park with motor vehicles parked haphazardly on the turfed areas. People who want to cross the road would have to run the risk of getting knocked down by vehicles coming along the road because the drivers may not be able to see the pedestrian clearly because of the parked vehicles. So besides the actual cost incurred of repairing the damage to the turfed areas, there is also this question of obstruction and inconvenience and hazard to park and road users.

I do not understand the Member for Potong Pasir when he says that people who parked half on the road side-table, and half on the road way are exhibiting a social conscience. If it is marked on the road that there should be no parking along the roadside, it means that any vehicle parked there poses a hazard to other road users. If there is a road side-table there, as I have said earlier, vehicles parked on the road side-table also pose a hazard to pedestrians. Therefore, by parking a vehicle half on the side-table and half on the road, the driver of the vehicle is jeopardizing two groups of people - the pedestrian and the drivers on the road. By what stretch of imagination does the Member for Potong Pasir arrive at this conclusion that they are therefore exhibiting social conscience?

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir raised a call for more flexibility in implementing tree planting and landscaping requirements on development proposals. I am sure the Parks and Recreation Department are open minded. If a developer is able to prepare a proposal for landscaping and tree planting which is far superior to any requirements that the Department has initially suggested, I am quite certain that the Department is prepared to consider such an alternative proposal.

Sir, may I now address the points raised by the Member for Bo Wen. He asked whether it is necessary to have a maximum fine of $2,000 imposed on people who parked on road side-tables and open turfed areas. I believe I have answered that when I addressed the point raised by the Member for Potong Pasir.

Sir, he also expressed concern that with the amendment the courts would become bogged down by the number of cases and he suggested that there should be adminstrative measures to reduce this burden on the courts. I would like to point out to the Member that normally when illegal parking offenders are detected by the Parks and Recreation Officers and when the particulars of the driver are made available to the Department, the Department offers to compound the offence. In the case of a light vehicle the offer to compound is $30. In the case of a heavy vehicle the offer to compound is $50. So it is unlikely that each and every case will end up in court. The provision for the court to impose a fine is for cases where there is a dispute. If the owner or the driver wants to dispute the fact that his vehicle was there and would not accept the liability, then he has the opportunity to prove his case to the satisfaction of the court. If the court should subsequently find that he does not have a valid reason, then the court will impose its own penalty.

As to the problem that the Member raised with regard to insufficient parking facilities in HDB estates, I think this can be discussed on a separate occasion. If he feels that there are particular HDB estates which do not have adequate car parks, he can raise this with the HDB and we can see how the problem can be solved. But I would like to reiterate here, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that there is no excuse for people to flout the parking regulations and to continue to damage turfed areas or road side-tables leading to a great deal of expenditure of public money to repair these damages, because it not only incurs more costs just to repair damages but also a waste of precious manpower and time in chasing after such offenders. I think this is the most important point, Sir, that by this amendment we will expedite the whole process of bringing to task those who choose to flout the parking regulations.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Supplementary question, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: You have already spoken once. Unless you want to clarify something in your speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I just said that this offence could be a technical offence. Will the Minister agree with me that there are many private housing estates where the roads are fairly narrow and there are concrete kerbs. I have seen many vehicles, one-half of the vehicle parked on top of the kerb and the other half on the road. There are no white lines, no double lines along the roads in these private housing estates. In this situation, and there are many private housing estates in Singapore, is it not just a technical offence?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fail to see the logic of the Member for Potong Pasir. He says that in many private estates the roads are narrow and there are no white lines along the road. That means they should be allowed to park. If they are allowed to park and the driver has a space to park, why does he still choose to park half the car on the road side-table? I would suggest that in such cases the offender should be doubly penalized! Having got the space to park legally on the road, if he chooses to damage the road side-table then he deserves extra punishment for that, Sir.

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. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].

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