ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Road Traffic Act (RTA) serves to regulate the licensing of vehicles as well as their drivers. The provisions governing the licensing of vehicles, their registration and their use are administered by the Registry of Vehicles while the provisions on driver licensing are administered by the Traffic Police. With your permission, Sir, I shall speak on the amendments proposed by the Ministry of Communications and Information, after which the Minister for Home Affairs will deal with the amendments on driving safety.

Sir, MCI's major amendment to the Road Traffic Act is contained in clause 4 of the Bill, which provides for the implementation of the vehicle quota system. Other amendments serve mainly to update the RTA to meet our current needs and practices.

Sir, to say that the quota system has been actively debated would be an under-statement. I cannot recall any Government policy which has been so thoroughly discussed or debated as the land transport policy and the quota system in particular.

First, there was the marathon dialogue session on land transport with my Minister which was held in July last year. This 6-hour long session provided SAF reservists as well as journalists a unique opportunity to discuss with the Minister all aspects of land transport policy, with no holds barred, and no time limit. Then followed the Select Committee on Land Transportation Policy which was appointed by Parliament in August last year. The Committee received 71 written submissions from the public. After studying the land transport issues for about five months, they recommended the quota system. Then followed by an avalanche of views from Singaporeans of all walks of life - motorists as well as non-motorists alike. In this House, 21 MPs spoke on the subject during the parliamentary debate of the Select Committee's Report on 15th January this year.

Taking into consideration the various views expressed and the suggestions put forward to make the system equitable for everyone, a scheme has been painstakingly constructed by my Ministry. Its very complexity attests to the diversity of public opinion which was taken into account.

Since the announcement of the principal features of the scheme, we have received further suggestions from the public and grassroots leaders on how the scheme should be operated. Motor traders, motor-cyclists, taxi operators, present owners, aspiring owners - we have received proposed amendments from all of these groups and more.

One thing that struck me amidst the flurry of proposals was that most Singaporeans have come to understand and to accept the need for a quota system to manage vehicle growth. In fact, at the dialogue session which was held by the First Deputy Prime Minister for grassroots leaders, there was an impromptu show of hands which indicated that those in favour of the quota system outnumbered by two to one those who were in favour of the existing method which was to raise ownership taxes.

Sir, this is a collective recognition that congestion is not a problem that can be solved painlessly. That, as a problem of success, its solution must come with some sacrifices. Restraint amidst plenty - this is the paradox that needs to be grasped to make our roads congestion-free. Failure to understand this, and more importantly, a failure to act upon this, has clogged up the arteries of most cities of the world.

Sir, with the introduction of the quota system, we need to be vigilant to ensure that motorists who play by the rules do not lose out to others who try to beat the system. For this reason, certain provisions of the Bill serve to provide for more effective enforcement.

Clause 3 proposes to make it illegal to keep a deregistered vehicle. The proposed amendment will facilitate enforcement action against people who use deregistered vehicles, which is already an offence.

Clause 5 proposes to make it an offence for any person to give incorrect information which would affect the amount of tax chargeable on the first registration of a vehicle, and would also allow for the recovery of the amount which is undercollected.

Clause 7 seeks to require that all arrears of fees, taxes and outstanding penalties be paid before the Registrar will renew a vehicle licence. Clause 8 seeks to allow for the deregistration of vehicles which are in road tax arrears for one year or more.

Sir, allow me to conclude by returning to the quota system. The scheme that we have formulated may not be perfect. It needs to be fine-tuned in the light of experience, and in response to more feedback from Singaporeans. As such, clause 4, which provides for the quota system, has been drafted in as general a manner as possible, to allow for changes at a later date. This is a system we have all put together. Let us give it a chance to work to keep our roads free-flowing. Along the way, where it is necessary, to make changes to improve upon it, we shall do so.

Sir, may I now request the Minister for Home Affairs to deal with the amendments regarding driving safety.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now speak on those amendments in the Bill which are proposed by my Ministry and the Traffic Police which are essentially designed to further contain the number of road accidents, to smoothen traffic flow, improve traffic management and generally instill a greater sense of road safety among our drivers.

Sir, although our vehicle population has increased steadily over recent years, it is fortunate that we have been able to keep our accident rates under control. This has been largely due to two factors - public education and awareness, and secondly, strict enforcement of our laws. However, we must be concerned over a group of what I would term "high risk" drivers who account for a significant proportion of some 25% of accidents and who should be controlled if we want to make our roads safer for all -pedestrians, riders and motorists. Therefore, the main amendments proposed by my Ministry are targeted at "high risk" drivers, including drunk drivers and drivers who drive although they are disqualified or suspended. Other amendments are aimed at new drivers and aged drivers of heavy motor vehicles.

The amendments fall into five categories. First, immediate suspension of the licence, pending court trial for serious offences, such as drunk driving or driving whilst under disqualification or suspension or driving without insurance coverage where death or serious injury has been caused.

Secondly, heavier penalties for drunk driving; thirdly, the re-taking of driving test for drivers disqualified or suspended from driving for one year or longer; fourth, a one year probationary period for newly qualified drivers and motorcyclists; and fifth, a proficiency test and an upper age limit for drivers of heavy motor vehicles.

First, let me deal with the immediate suspension of driving licence pending court trial for certain offences. Sir, drunk driving accidents rose from 48 cases in 1987 to 101 cases in 1989, an increase of some 110%. I think we are all fully aware of the serious harm which drunken drivers pose to both pedestrians and drivers, because a driver's judgment is seriously impaired when under the influence of alcohol. Drivers who drive while under disqualification or suspension, in our view, are no less irresponsible. They already violate the law by driving while under disqualification or suspension and it is worse if they then cause an accident which results in death or serious injury. His disqualification or suspension might expire the day after the accident and, under existing law, he can resume driving. We feel that his disqualification or suspension should continue until the court has adjudged his case. Likewise, a driver, driving without third-party insurance coverage, exposes other road users to danger without the benefit of any compensation whatsoever from insurance. To protect the majority of road users, we must curb such irresponsible driving behaviour amongst this minority of errant drivers.

At present, a driver convicted of any of the offences of drunk driving, driving under disqualification or suspension, driving without insurance coverage, faces mandatory disqualification of his driving licence. But this disqualification takes effect only upon a court conviction. Because of the workload of the courts and the processes of the courts where he can get adjournments, considerable delay often occurs between the time the offence is committed and the time he is convicted and possibly disqualified by the courts. Meanwhile, during this period, the driver is at full liberty to drive. We think this is totally wrong. Surely it is in the public interest that he should be taken off the roads until the court has decided the case. Therefore, under the amendments, Traffic Police will have the power to immediately suspend the licence when the drunk driver or a driver driving without insurance coverage has been charged in court for causing a fatal or serious accident whilst driving under these conditions. Likewise, where a driver commits such an accident when he is already under disqualification or suspension, such disqualification or suspension will continue until the court has adjudged his case.

Sir, we are not talking of hypothetical situations. Members may recall the case not long ago of a drunken driver who was involved in an accident. Whilst waiting for his trial to come up, he caused yet another accident killing his 22-year old victim. This practice of immediate suspension for drunk driving is not unique. It is also applied in places like Victoria, Australia, and Japan, where a police officer in fact can immediately suspend a driver arrested for drunk driving regardless of whether death or serious injury has occurred. In that sense, the amendment which we are proposing is less severe.

Next, heavier penalties for drunk drivers. Sir, I make no apologies for proposing heavier penalties for drunk drivers. They have no business driving on the roads, because drunk drivers when involved in accidents cause needless injuries and deaths either to themselves or other road users. In 1989, drunk driving accidents increased by 43 cases or 75% more than the previous year. In one particularly bad accident in 1987, the victim was dragged for more than 100 metres before the drunken driver even had any inkling of what was happening. The victim died on the spot. That driver's blood alcohol level was 51 milligrammes higher than the 80 milligrammes permitted under the law. I think Members will also recall last year a drunken driver drove his car right into the Singapore River drowning himself and four passengers.

We must prevent such tragic accidents, which are totally unnecessary. In fact, we must get every driver in Singapore to note that when he is issued a licence, it is in fact a very special privilege and it is granted on condition that he drives in a responsible manner bearing in mind the interest of others. And certainly no driver in Singapore who drinks can claim or should be able to claim that he was unaware of the serious consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Sir, at present, a person driving under the influence of alcohol is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months. Repeat offenders can be fined up to $2,000 or imprisoned for 12 months, or both. The amendments seek to enhance this penalty by increasing the fine and imposing mandatory imprisonment for repeat offenders. Therefore, for a first offender, the fine will be between $1,000 and $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months. That is optional. It is up to the courts. For a repeat offender, the fine will be between $3,000 and $10,000, but this repeat offender will be subject to mandatory imprisonment, the period of which will not exceed 12 months. The court will decide on the period of imprisonment. He will also be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for not less than 12 months from the date of his conviction. When he is sentenced to imprisonment, his disqualification will take effect from the date of his release from prison.

Next, let me speak on the concept of one-year probation period for new drivers and riders. Under existing law, there are no special requirements for new drivers. Once he gets a licence, he has all the privileges and rights as a person who has been an experienced driver. Newly qualified drivers due to their inexperience are especially prone to accidents during their first year of driving and generally tend to commit more traffic accidents. Members may wish to consider this fact. Although new drivers constitute only 0.4% of total drivers, these new drivers cause 20% of all accidents. I think that figure is telling. My Ministry and the Traffic Police consider it important therefore to reduce accidents by them as this will definitely have an effect on overall accident rates.

Therefore, under the amendments, new drivers, including motorcyclists, after passing the driving test will be subject to what I would describe a one-year probation. A qualified driving licence will be issued only after successful completion of this 1-year probation. During this period of one year, they must not accumulate more than 12 demerit points under the DIPS system. If they do, the licence can be revoked. This amendment will discourage new drivers from reckless or careless driving and I think it will encourage them to develop correct and safe driving habits right from the start.

Is this approach in the Bill unique? It is not. In Australia, New Zealand, West Germany, Japan, they also require their new drivers to undergo a probationary period with conditions imposed. In Victoria and Queensland, Australia, their new drivers are issued a probationary licence for three years. Furthermore, during the first year, they are not to drive at speeds exceeding 80 kilometres per hour and the licences will be cancelled if they commit moving traffic offences and accumulate four demerit points. In fact, in some of these countries, probationary drivers must also display on their vehicles a sign indicating their probationary status.

Next, the amendments on the re-taking of a driving test for drivers who have been disqualified or suspended from driving one year or longer. At present, a driver whose licence has been suspended by the Traffic Police or disqualified by the court can automatically resume driving after the period of suspension or disqualification. However, that disqualification or suspension in itself is no assurance that the driver has learnt proper driving habits and skills. Indeed, not having driven for a year or more, his skills are likely to have deteriorated. Under the amendments, therefore, a driver who has been suspended or disqualified for a year or more must re-take the driving test so that we can be satisfied that he still retains his driving skills and that he has the minimum ability and competence to drive.

Next, the upper age limit for drivers of heavy motor vehicles and proficiency test. At December 1989, there were some 176,000 holders of heavy vehicle driving licences, of which 8,517 persons were aged 60-69 years and 1,326 aged 70 years and above. At present, there is no upper age limit for a driver of a heavy motor vehicle. Like all other driving licence holders, they too must pass a medical examination at the age of 60 years to qualify for a 3-year driving licence. Thereafter, the licence can only be renewed annually subject to medical clearance.

The Ministry of Health experts have advised us that age slows sensory motor reflexes which can affect a driver's ability to react and avoid accidents. As heavy motor vehicles by their very nature can cause far more serious injuries and damage to property than other vehicles when involved in traffic accidents, the amendments will introduce an upper age limit of 70 years to be prescribed for drivers of heavy motor vehicles. This is for their own safety as well as for the safety of other road users. The age of 70 will be in accord with ROV's age limit of 70 years for taxi and bus drivers vocational licences.

However, to minimise hardship caused to existing drivers, a 3-year grace period will be allowed for them to make adjustments. In addition, drivers of heavy motor vehicles will also undergo an annual pro- ficiency test from the age of 65 years onwards to ensure that they are still proficient to handle the heavy motor vehicles and do not pose a danger to other road users. Proficiency tests will test a driver's reflexes, judgment of distance and space and observance of safety requirements. All heavy motor vehicle drivers above the age of 65 years will be required to pass a medical examination and the new proficiency test before their licences are renewed.

Sir, those are the major amendments that I have dealt with. If I may touch on some of the other amendments quickly, they are as follows:

First, the maximum period of suspension under the Demerit Point System be extended from six months to three years so as to deter and correct the more errant drivers. Some drivers in fact have been repeatedly suspended. So they should be dealt with more severely.

Second, to allow the Traffic Police to issue one-year driving licences instead of 3-year licences to those who have not complied with any warrant of arrest or process of the court in respect of traffic offences; in really bad cases, eg, we had a driver who had totally ignored 58 outstanding warrants of arrest for different offences. In such bad cases the Traffic Police can even refuse to renew his licence.

Third, to make non-renewable a driving licence that has expired and has not been renewed for three years or longer, unless the driver re-takes his driving test or produces evidence that he has been driving overseas during that period. The idea here is that if he had not renewed the licence for three years, obviously he had not been driving, and there is a serious doubt as to the retention of his skills in driving.

The others are minor amendments such as prohibition of the import of sub-standard crash helmets and reducing the period allowed for owners to claim their vehicles impounded by the Traffic Police.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I intend to speak on only the aspects of this Bill which my GPC covers.

Sir, the GPC for Home Affairs and Law has been discussing these amendments with the Minister since the drafting stage of the Bill, ie, before the First Reading. We have been discussing various aspects of this Bill for more than a year. I also understand from the Minister that he has discussed this Bill with the previous GPC for Home Affairs. Thus, the incubation period of this Bill is about three years.

Why the long incubation period? This is because the amendments being proposed will affect several hundred thousand motorists and makes for hefty punishments for some offences, especially drunken driving. We wanted to be sure: (1) that there is a real need to change the legislation; and that (2) the amendments proposed are appropriate to the offences.

Sir, first, legislation regarding immediate suspension of licence pending court trial for serious offences such as drunken driving, driving under disqualification or suspension, or driving without insurance coverage where death or serious injuries have resulted. Sir, at first glance, it may seem that punishment before trial is not justified, ie, how can we presume a person guilty before trial? The GPC accepted this amendment, because we were persuaded that there would be little chance of miscarriage of justice. Drunk driving can be objectively assessed from blood alcohol levels, and whether or not a driver has a valid driving licence or insurance coverage can be easily verified. In addition, as the Minister has mentioned, allowing such socially irresponsible persons on the road is a danger to all - the motorist himself, his passengers and other road users and pedestrians. However, had this been proposed for other forms of offences which are contentious, ie, arguable, such as dangerous driving, then I am sure that many in this House could not accept it.

Sir, regarding heavier penalties for drunk driving, the alarming increase in drunk driving accidents by 110% from 1987 to 1989 convinces us that something has to be done. The problem is that the present penalties do not seem to have an adequate deterrent. Sir, the motor vehicle in the hands of a person under the influence of alcohol or an irresponsible person is a lethal weapon. The misery extends beyond these persons to the families of victims of road traffic accidents. No amount of monetary compensation can make up for the loss of life or limb. The amendments will allow for mandatory jail sentence for the repeat offender, besides fines being increased. For the first offence, jail sentence will be up to the courts, ie, the accused will have to mitigate his own case. This, I believe, is fair, as all of us can make mistakes, but it will be up to the courts to decide on the merits or otherwise of each case.

Sir, the purpose of enhancing these sentences is to make all drivers more aware of their personal responsibility. Furthermore, we as a community must also be more aware. If at a party we feel that a friend or acquaintance is incapable of driving his vehicle, we should not allow him to drive. We will be doing him and society a big service by making arrangements to have him sent home. We should also make it a norm, not to cajole or force friends to drink excessively, using "celebration" or "fun" as an excuse. "If you drink, don't drive" must be deeply embedded in our subconscious mind.

Sir, regarding the proficiency and upper age limit for drivers of heavy motor vehicles, it is a sad fact, but nonetheless a fact, that age slows our sensory motor reflexes. Driving is based heavily on reflexes, ie, one perceives danger and responds by reflex action. The car in front suddenly slows down and one immediately slows down without going through the steps of logical thinking.

Sir, ROV's age limit for taxi and bus driver's vocational licence is 70 years. This age limit is now being extended to holders of heavy vehicle driving licences. 1,326 drivers of heavy vehicles will be affected.

The question that one would be very concerned with is, of course, whether the livelihood of these 1,326 persons will be affected. I am told that many, if not the majority of these 1,326 are not actively engaged in driving. Furthermore, for existing drivers, a three-year grace period will be allowed. This is indeed fair as these persons are given time to adjust. This is a compassionate Minister having to manage a Ministry which has to implement very harsh policies. I seek the Minister's clarification whether this grace period will also apply to those just below 70 years, ie, say for those 68 years and above, will it be 68 plus 3, 69 plus 3, then 70 plus 3?

Sir, whilst agreeing with this legislation, I feel it is imperative to stress that this amendment must not send the wrong signals, especially at a time when we are encouraging our healthy to work longer and to carry on working and lead an active life. We must stress that this capping of the age at 70 years is not to be construed that we are saying that to be old is to be considered useless or not capable of gainful employment. It is because of the nature of this job that the upper age limit of 70 years is set. If we consider that the average life expectancy today is 74 years and that a three-year grace period is given, then we will see that no one is penalised unnecessarily because of age. He will, of course, have to pass his medical examination to protect himself and the public.

Sir, I agree with the amendments proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs. My colleagues in the GPC will cover the other aspects of this Bill.

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Toa Payoh GRC): Sir, I support this Bill.

The main points of the Bill before us today is really about road safety and how we can make the roads safer for both motorists and pedestrians. Sir, while the number of road accidents did not increase significantly after 1984, deaths due to accidents on the roads started to increase in 1988 after reaching a low figure of 205 in 1987. Our fatality rate per 100,000 population was 7.85% in 1987 compared to 7.7% in Japan and 6.0% in Hong Kong in 1986. So new measures to improve road safety are necessary, particularly where increasing numbers of cars on the road tend to drive up accident rates.

Sir, the amendments introduce measures to evaluate the performance of vulnerable drivers, such as those who have just qualified. I believe the amend- ment in this Bill will help to reduce the number of fatal accidents. With the amendment, newly qualified drivers will now be subject to a probationary period of one year and he would not get a qualified driving licence unless after successful completion of that one year probation period. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry has done any study on the correlation between the age groups of the newly qualified drivers and the number of accidents. Are the younger drivers more reckless and are therefore at greater risk to themselves and to others?

Sir, I understand in Australia they also impose similar probationary periods on newly qualified drivers. Newly qualified drivers are required to put on a 'P' plate on their car. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry intends to introduce a similar scheme to help newly qualified drivers.

Sir, in 1989 accidents due to drunken driving was 75% more than in 1988 and 110% more than in 1987. Drunken drivers have caused death and serious injuries to innocent road users and themselves in traffic accidents. Many drunken drivers, as explained by the Minister, do not even realise that they have caused injuries to other parties. A few weeks ago the Straits Times gave some accounts of various fatal accidents caused by drunken drivers over the years. The police has been promoting the message to drivers not to drink when they drive, and not to drive when they drink. But, unfortunately, the advertising media is not helping at all. Advertisements on TV promote an image of strength and achievement after drinking. So some stronger measures than soft-sell to prevent drunken driving is therefore necessary. It makes sense that the Traffic Police be empowered to immediately suspend the licence of a driver when he has been charged in court for causing a fatal or serious accident while driving under the influence of alcohol or drug.

This Bill also provides for mandatory imprisonment for drunken driving only for second and subsequent offenders. I think this is fair punishment. But I tend to believe that if a person has a habit of causing serious damage to others while driving under the influence of alcohol or drug, maybe the police should seriously consider taking him off the road altogether after the third offence or until he has been certified cured of alcoholism or drug.

Sir, the amendments contain measures to deter irresponsible driving behaviour. I support the amendment to suspend drivers driving without insurance coverage and driving while under disqualification. This will remove irresponsible drivers from the road. It is bad enough for a careless driver to inflict injury to others, particularly innocent road users. It is even more irresponsible to deny compensation to the injured party or their family for the suffering or loss caused by his negligence.

Sir, clause 17 (new section 62A) provides restriction on driving different categories of heavy motor vehicles. This amendment, I understand, will affect 1,326 drivers aged 70 years and above. But I am glad that the Minister in implementing this amendment has taken into consideration the impact on their livelihood. The three-year grace period will hopefully help to minimise any hardship caused to these people. But this amendment is only limited to heavy vehicles, which means that a physically fit driver above the age of 70 years can still continue to earn a living driving other class of vehicles.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, it seems to me that clause 2 of this Bill allows the Minister to exercise the power formerly vested in the President. I would like to find out from the Minister whether in doing so it changes in any substantial way the intent of the principal Act.

Clauses 3 to 10 pertain to the vehicle quota system. I agree with the Minister of State that so much has already been spoken on this topic that it is not necessary for me to raise it here again. It is time to go ahead to implement the system, let the system operate for a while before we weigh the pros and cons of this car control measure. However, there are some technical points I would like to raise with the Minister.

Clause 10 of this Amendment Bill authorises the Minister to prohibit the registration of used vehicles beyond a prescribed age-limit, and to prescribe a levy for the re-registration of a used vehicle in the name of the purchaser. In the prohibition of used vehicles beyond a certain age, is the Minister referring to the first registration of the vehicle in Singapore or is he talking about just any used vehicle? Is he asking for the power to prohibit old cars beyond a certain age on the roads and what is this age limit that the Minister has in mind? This issue did not come up in the debate on the vehicle quota system at all. Furthermore, what is meant by "to prescribe a levy for the re-registration of a used vehicle in the name of the purchaser"? Does this clause pertain only to used cars imported into Singapore and to be registered for the first time? Or is the Minister saying that after the 10-year life span of the quota licence, the car becomes automatically de-registered and the owner must pay the prevailing quota premium to get his car re-registered again for another 10 years?

When the Minister announced the quota system in Parliament, he also re-introduced the concept of additional road tax for cars beyond 10 years old. I would like to find out from the Minister how would he determine the age of a car, bearing in mind that some highly valued used cars, especially Mercedes, are imported into Singapore. Would the age be determined from the date of manufacture or the date of first registration in Singapore? If it is the former, how would the Minister prevent falsification of documents in the age of the cars?

Coming to the clause governing the suspension of driving licence for drunk drivers and other high risk drivers, Sir, I am all in favour of the amendment. It is actually about time that the law governing drunken driving be toughened. Current laws are rather lax in this area and this Bill is a step in the right direction.

I find the increase in penalty for refusing to take the breathalyser test appropriate. I had heard from my grassroots leaders that drivers resort to all kinds of tricks in order to frustrate the test or delay taking the test. As regards the definition of being classi- fied as drunk, I would prefer to see even more stringent criteria. In California, for instance, the law for drunken driving has been made very tough recently. Moreover, I believe two levels of blood alcohol content has been defined - a more lenient one for car drivers and a very stringent one for drivers of commercial vehicles. In the case of commercial vehicles, the consumption of one tall glass of beer would have raised the blood alcohol level of an average person high enough to be classified as legally drunk. Since heavy vehicles are more destructive in accidents, such control makes sense. This is also the Minister's argument to prohibit persons older than 70 years old from driving heavy motor vehicles. Perhaps the Minister would like to implement similar stringent criteria for drug alcohol levels for commercial vehicle drivers, although judging from press reports, the incidents of commercial vehicle drivers driving under the influence of alcohol in Singapore have not been very high.

Sir, the Bill also makes renewal of driving licence for certain class of drivers difficult. However, the Minister might want to consider taking this opportunity to tackle the problem of non-driving drivers, that is, people who possess a valid licence but who have not driven for many years. These individuals just keep renewing their licences, since getting a new one is very difficult and paying for the renewal is not very high. They are definitely not safe drivers if they ever go behind a wheel again. I am of course not advocating that driving licence fees be increased to curb this problem, because doing so would affect all legitimate drivers. However, the Minister might want to consider introducing a procedure so that drivers are required to go through a written test or eye test every so often, maybe six years, and a driving test every 10 years. In my mind, Sir, even for regular drivers, a written test every so often, like six years, would be useful to ensure that drivers are kept up to date in their understanding of the law.

I am also disappointed to find that the Minister did not take this opportunity to make it an offence for motorcyclists when they ride without turning on their headlamps during the daylight hours. The "ride-bright" campaign has demonstrated the effectiveness of a headlight in making motorcyclists much more visible. I think riding bright should not only be given encouragement but should be given the force of the law.

Finally, Sir, I note the Minister sees the need to extend the interpretation of this Bill and the principal Act by clause 25. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the House the reason behind this.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Speaker, Sir, fatalities and serious injuries resulting from road accident are sheer waste of precious human lives. They are unnecessary. They can and should be avoided. We only require the motorists to exercise care, responsibility and respect for other road users.

The majority of the Singaporean drivers are safe and courteous drivers. There is only a small segment who flout the traffic rules and by their indiscipline contribute to the tragedies on the roads. They drive dangerously, especially when having one drink too many. This small high-risk group is now told that the motoring public and pedestrians alike cannot tolerate such irresponsible behaviour any longer.

Therefore, the amendments moved by the Minister for Home Affairs are welcomed and supported. Public safety can now be better served. We are making clearly known to all road users the standard of behaviour expected on our roads. Safe and courteous driving is our norm. There should be no let-up to ensure that those who flout the traffic laws would be brought to book and face severe penalties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have clarifications to seek from the Minister for Home Affairs under clause 12. Can the Minister clarify what are the rules to be established in the system of awarding demerit points against a person committing traffic offences? Would they be new ones, or based on the current system already in place?

Sir, I have particular concern for those persons who are dependent on their driving licence for their livelihood. I would like to urge the Traffic Police to exercise care so that such persons who depend on their driving licence for their livelihood are not unduly denied the right to earn their living. May I suggest that some system of prior warning be given so that the affected persons know the consequence of disqualification and suspension from driving if they commit some more traffic offences.

As for drunken driving, public education is necessary in this area. May I also suggest that places that are issued with liquor licence for consumption should have notices alerting those who are driving of the dangers if they drink beyond the limit or, better still, not to drive after the round of drinks.

I would like to make another observation, Sir. This is with regard to new drivers, who have been issued driving licence, and the one-year probation. I think there is a slight problem here because the trend is that the learner drivers are usually very young and they are usually still studying. Even though they have received their driving licence, the probability is that they do not drive regularly or immediately after receiving their driving licence, or not driving at all during that one-year period. So they would come off clean after the one-year period. So there is a weakness in that system. I have no suggestion as to how we can plug this loophole, but this is the observation that I would like to make.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must first lodge a protest against the apparently unnecessary haste in which Government now pushes through the Bills to be debated.

We have had more than two weeks of gruelling debate on the Budget, and we in the Opposition do not have civil servants and other advisory committees to help us prepare our speeches. We have to prepare everything on our own. Now, we are suddenly asked to debate on Bills which we have hardly any time to read or study. I was informed of today's debate only the day before yesterday. And I think, Sir, this is most unfair to the Opposition MPs as well as to the general public who would like to know what our views are on the Bills to be debated. I hope Government will not repeat such high pressure debates and force us to come not fully prepared.

Sir, the Minister of State for Communications tries to create the impression that the issue of the quota system has been thoroughly debated and that Government has decided on the issue only after that thorough discussion. But it is obvious to many that Government had long ago decided on the car quota system and that the present Bill is merely to put that decision into legal effect.

Government went through the fuss of a Select Committee discussion and report and the so-called approval in-principle by Government at a later stage. This was of course a big public relations exercise to create the impression that all this idea of a quota system had not originally come from the Government itself but from other people instead.

We all know how the PAP Government works. Decisions are made at the top. After a decision has been made, then so-called consultation takes place as to how best to implement that decision. And that is exactly what has happened in this present instance. This is what the younger generation of PAP leaders call "consensus following consultation". But there is no genuine consultation and, of course, no consensus. Today almost everyone has some complaint or other against the quota proposal, but that is not going to affect the Government's decision on the matter. A decision has already been made, and the present Bill merely puts that decision into legal effect, as I have said.

The PAP's main argument for the proposal is that it must be fair to everyone, but what is actually being proposed is fair only to a very small section of the people, namely, the rich and the well-to-do. It is most unfair to almost everyone else. I merely want to stress again briefly part of the unfairness the quota system has caused. For example: (i) The PARF is to be abolished and the present existing owner loses all its investment value; (ii) The existing car owner, if he decides to use the car after 10 years, will have to pay a surcharge; (iii) He has to pay a premium again, the quota premium, if he wants to buy a new car. So in every way, the existing car owner loses. Of course, if Government really intended it to be fair, then the whole system would have been different. And all this tells us only one thing - that the whole idea behind the quota system is to see how much revenue the Government will be able to collect.

Because the whole quota system is unfair to so many people, I say, Sir, we cannot fully support such a Bill. I have had no time to read through the Bill and therefore I cannot make any comment on the other part about the driving licences.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tiong Bahru GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will only touch on those parts of the Bill which were raised by the Minister for Home Affairs.

Sir, the car in the hands of an intoxicated person is a potent weapon of death. I am pleased to support the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill which seeks to impose tougher penalties on those driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating drink.

Sir, strong action taken against such irresponsible drivers has a great measure of public support. In fact, there is always this lingering doubt in people's mind that the Police have not done enough or the law is too lenient whenever we read of a wanton loss of life as a result of drunken driving. In fact, I am surprised that the Home Affairs Minister, who is normally very swift and efficient, has taken three years, according to Dr Arthur Beng, to come up with this amendment.

Although the penalty for first time offenders has been increased to between $1,000 and $5,000, this amount pales when weighed against the loss of a limb or life, which is what such drivers are capable of doing. In my view, Sir, the penalty for second offence must be a very strong deterrent. If a drunken driver cannot learn a lesson after having been apprehended for the first offence, he should be put away, and I would support mandatory jail sentence. Having got the second chance, he should not be allowed to hold a driving licence again. I therefore support even stronger penalties in this area.

While supporting these heavier penalties, Sir, may I also suggest that the Police look into the policing aspect of the problem. I understand that in countries like England and Australia, they are so strict in their enforcement action (police action against drunken driving) that the public is very conscious about drinking and driving. I hear that in Australia, the Police stake out at pubs and public places and even house parties when they expect a lot of drinking and driving. They zero in on those people after they leave their cars to make them take breathalyser tests. I do not believe our Police is doing this at the moment.

Sir, I therefore support section 47C which gives the Police the authority to suspend a person's driving licence immediately he has caused death or injury as a result of drunken driving. Under existing legislation, suspension takes place only upon a court conviction. As this may take several months, it is only logical that preventive measures, such as that proposed in the Bill, be taken and the driver should not be allowed to drive the vehicle. Although the suspension of a licence before a court conviction may appear to be punishment before due process, as mentioned by Dr Arthur Beng, and the alleged drunken driver may be acquitted of the charge, I personally support that it is better to err on the side of prudence.

The other measure which I wish to raise with the Minister is clause 17 which prohibits a person who has attained the age of 70 years from driving certain categories of heavy motor vehicles. Although this is in accordance with current ROV's limit for taxi and bus drivers, I suggest that the Minister further review this upper limit with a view to bringing this further down.

Sir, as the Minister has already pointed out that advance age slows down a person's reflexes and that heavy motor vehicles can cause great serious injuries and damage, I think the Minister is being too generous in this instance. Although I am in support of our senior citizens getting gainful employment, driving a heavy motor vehicle at such an advanced age is not my idea of help for this group. Presently, I understand that a great number of heavy motor vehicle drivers, those who are plying the trade by carrying earth and so on, work on an incentive scheme or are being paid on a per trip basis. In other words, the more they drive, the more they are paid. Sir, a combination of slow sensory motor reflexes and high speed driving to maximise income is in my mind a formula for disaster. Will the Minister review this provision and, if necessary, set a lower age limit which I am sure has the general support of most people?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to Dr Wang Kai Yuen for his contribution to the debate, especially his comments on the proposed amendments pertaining to licensing and use of vehicles. Dr Wang seeks some clarifications on, I believe, clauses 2 and 10 of the proposed amendments.

In so far as clause 2 is concerned, the amendment seeks to allow the Minister to appoint several officials in the Registry of Vehicles, specifically the Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar. This is just an opportunity for us to change the appointing authority from the President to the Minister. The appointing authority vested in the President is a historical one. When Singapore became independent, all appointments which hitherto were made by the Governor was changed to the President. Subsequently, this authority was transfered from the President to the Minister in charge. Many Government Ministries have made this change.

In so far as clause 10 is concerned, he asked whether the proposed amendment pertains to reconditioned or new vehicles. I would like to inform him that the maximum permitted age for vehicles will be applicable to registration of reconditioned vehicles. At the moment, we have not yet decided on the prescribed age limit. The reason why we are applying it to reconditioned vehicles is obviously in line with our objective of trying to keep the vehicle population young, to make sure that there is no influx of reconditioned vehicles of any age as the cost of vehicles in Singapore begins to rise.

Sir, I turn to the comments made by the Non-Constituency MP regarding complaints about the so-called unfairness of the quota system. He has given us a predictably cynical view on things. He accuses the Government that there is no genuine consultation and that because everyone has a complaint, therefore the system is not fair. We have taken more than 1 1/2 years to debate the quota system. It is not something that has been sprung on this House or on the Non-Constituency MP and I think he has had ample opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of the quota system. If he feels that there is any part of the quota system which is not fair, which can be improved, I have yet to hear from him what are these areas which are not fair. We have debated this matter for the last 18 months. We have had numerous opportunities for dialogue and debate. The Select Committee has sat and met and heard many, many different points of view and I believe the consensus has been that the quota system, granted it does not satisfy each and every person in Singapore, nevertheless has met one of its principal objectives, which is to be as fair as possible to all Singaporeans, motorists and non-motorists alike.

Sir, I would also like to clarify one point and I think it is a clarification that needs to be made. Dr Lee is mistaken. We do not intend, and we have stated so, to abolish the PARF or to diminish or remove the investment value of vehicles. I hope that Dr Lee checks his facts before he makes such statements in Parliament because they can be very misleading.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I want to take up this point on what is fair and what is not fair.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, the Ministers are already giving their replies and the debate is being wound up.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I just want to clarify one point from the Minister of State.

Mr Speaker: All right, you can have a clarification.

Mr Chiam See Tong: He has said that if there is anything unfair, Members could bring it up. And I am bringing up this point following what he has said.

Mr Speaker: All right, you seek your clarification.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, one aspect of the implementation of the quota system which I deem unfair is contained in clause 4, paragraph (4)(b). In making a bid, one has to pay a fee and a deposit which I believe is half the bid price. Therefore, it would be unfair if the Government is given powers to forfeit these monies. A deposit in law is a deposit and it should be returned to the owner of the money. It is not in part payment. It would be unfair if the Government has already made massive sums of money from import duty, ARF, quota premium, registration fee, levy and now it has the power to forfeit deposits. It will be an additional layer of revenue for the Government. I think this should be amended and the deposit should be refundable to the payer.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is common in all tender exercises for deposits to be required and the reason is very simple. First, it discourages frivolous speculation on the bids, and secondly, it makes sure that after the tender has been accepted and the person withdraws for a very frivolous reason, then those tenders will have to be discouraged. I would like to assure him of course that if the tenderer for whatever reason is unsuccessful in his bid, eg, if he is not successful in his tender quota, then obviously the deposit will be refunded to him. There is no intention on the part of the Government to retain those monies under such circumstances.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I do not agree with the Minister of State. If he were to read the amendment carefully, it is not a question of whether it is a frivolous or non-frivolous tender. It is non-compliance. If a person who has misread the instructions carefully and non-compliance thereof, his deposit can be forfeited under the law. It says here,

'... deposits for non-compliance with any conditions governing the submission of such applications;'

Sir, the tender documents may contain a whole list of conditions and things that an applicant must do. And if he is not well versed in that and if he is not a dealer and he makes a tender for the first time, he is at risk. The deposit may be forfeited by the Government. It is not a question of frivolity but it is a question of non-compliance with any conditions governing the submission of such applications.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam raises a red herring.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is not a red herring. It is a fact.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: It is not the intention of this particular clause to discourage people from making genuine tender bids. If it is a genuine bid and if it is not successful, as I indicated, he will get his money back.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: A clarification from the Minister, Sir.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: First of all, he has said something about PARF not being abolished. All I understand is that a rebate will take the place of the PARF and the rebate will diminish according to the increasing age of the car. Is that correct? No. Okay, let him explain again then. If the issue has been debated for 1 1/2 years, I would like to know when it was first mooted, and when were the people told that the quota system would be implemented.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of the PARF, I think my Minister has explained to the House that we need more time to study the implications of making any adjustments to the PARF. So if there are any recommendations or points of view that he would like to raise with the Ministry of Communications and Information, we will be pleased to receive them.

In so far as the quota system is concerned, I think it is quite clear that the whole question of land transportation in general has been thoroughly debated and it has been the subject of extensive discussions over the period of many months, if not years.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: When was it first mooted?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: The quota system is part and parcel of our total land transportation policy. It was recommended by the Select Committee on Land Transportation Policy which had representations from a broad cross-section of people, including the Member for Potong Pasir.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I respond to the speakers who touched on the amendments proposed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. First, I want to thank them for their wholehearted support of the amendments. If anything, some of them are more hawkish than my Ministry and the Traffic Police.

Sir, Dr Arthur Beng asked whether the three-year grace period would apply to, say, a driver of a heavy motor vehicle who reaches the age of 69 years at the time the Act comes into operation. The answer is yes.

Dr Ho Tat Kin asked if there is any evidence which shows that younger drivers are more prone to accidents. I thought I gave very revealing figures. They constitute 0.4% but cause 20% more of our accidents. It is grossly disproportionate.

On his suggestion as to following the practice of other countries of requiring new drivers to exhibit a "P" plate, we considered the pros and cons of this and we thought, for the time being, we would try out this probationary period first. We think it will have a salutary effect. If it does not, the Traffic Police, I am sure, would accept his suggestion. But let us try out this probationary period.

Dr Ho Tat Kin also suggested that in his view drunk drivers who commit a third or subsequent offence should be taken off the roads altogether. I do not disagree with him. In fact, he probably did not realise that the amendment which we propose for immediate suspension is quite independent and separate from the other provisions which we have on the penalty which the courts can impose for drunken driving. And I am sure when the courts impose disqualification they will take into account whether he is a first timer, second timer or third timer in deciding on the period of disqualification that they would want to impose as a penalty.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen raised a suggestion that perhaps we should be more stringent with our penalties and requirements for the breathalyser test and he drew our attention to the example of other jurisdictions where they may have more stringent tests for those who drive commercial vehicles. Here, I would like to say that we agree with the approach he has taken but we would recommend to the House that the existing package of measures which we are recommending to the House be tried out first. If the penalties which we are proposing and the procedures that we suggest do not curb the frequency of drunken driving, we may indeed have to resort to even stiffer measures, including that suggested by Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen also drew our attention to the problem of what he described as non-driving drivers, that means drivers who get their driving licence and do not drive or very infrequently drive. This, as he himself has admitted, is not an easy problem to tackle. How do we decide whether a person who has got a driving licence has been on the roads and has been practising his driving skills? He suggested therefore imposing various kinds of measures, sporadic or regular tests or re-tests for driving licence holders. We will have to examine this carefully because in attempting to tackle with one group of drivers, I do not think we should have a blunderbuss approach which causes tremendous inconvenience to many who do not need this measure. But nevertheless I will discuss this with the Commander of Traffic Police.

He has suggested that the "ride bright" concept for motorcyclists should be legislated and that it be an offence for motorcyclists to ride during the day without headlights. As he knows, there is a campaign on by the Traffic Police. The Traffic Police's preference is that this is a rather novel approach which, though practised in other countries, is new here and they would prefer to try the approach of campaign, awareness and education. Let us give that a try first.

Mr Loh Meng See asked whether the demerits point system for the new drivers will be based on the existing system or a brand new system. The answer is it is based on the existing system.

He expressed concern about livelihood of drivers. He will note that under the provisions of the amendments, there are considerable safeguards, including the fact that when 50% of the points have been chalked up, the Traffic Police have to inform the new driver and when he has indeed chalked up enough points as a trigger mechanism for revoking the driving licence, there is a procedure where he has an opportunity to make representations.

He also pointed out that there is a weakness or loophole in that a new driver may want to get around this probationary period by not driving at all during that period. Well, that possibility is there. But most new drivers, according to the Traffic Police, are so eager to drive, I do not think that their will power will be so strong as to resort to this loophole.

The NCMP did not touch on the Home Affairs amendments, but I do not think I can let it pass without any comment his complaint that we have sprung a surprise on him by tabling the Second Reading of this Bill. That is really absurd. This Bill was introduced and read the First time by the Minister for Communications and Information on 26th February. He had one whole month and he should know by now, because he has been an NCMP since the whole of 1989 and he has been through one Committee of Supply, that the procedure is such that when we are debating in the Committee of Supply, the Second and Third Readings of Bills do not take place. So the procedure has been well established that when Bills have been introduced before or during the Committee of Supply, these Bills are taken up for Second and Third Readings after the conclusion of the Committee of Supply. He should know this by now, and this is exactly what has happened. So it should not come as a surprise in any case. He had more than a month to reflect on the contents of this Bill.

Mr Chng Hee Kok advocates stronger penalties for drunken driving and, in fact, he wonders why we did not introduce mandatory jail sentence for the first offender. This is an option which was considered by us. We discussed it at length in our consultations with members of the GPC. We heard their views and reservations and we decided that we will accept some of their views and, therefore, mandatory jail sentence is for the second offender. But let me also add that if drunken driving continues to pose problems and these measures are insufficient to curb it, we may have to introduce mandatory jail even for the first offender.

Finally, Mr Chng Hee Kok felt that the upper age limit of 70 years was too generous. Here again we had to toss around various ages. What is the best age for an upper age limit. Whatever age limit, 60, 65, 70, there is an element of arbitrariness in that no two persons of the same age will be identical in reaction, sensitivity and motor skills. In fact, a person who is younger may not be as quick as a person who is older. So we did consider that. When we decided on the upper age limit of 70 years, we considered first the ROV's age limit for vocational licence, including bus drivers, and some of the buses are indeed heavy motor vehicles.

Secondly, we felt quite sanguine about introducing the age of 70 when we decided that we will also introduce a proficiency test from the age of 65 onwards. In other words, it is not just one measure, an upper age limit, but prior to that, at the age of 65 there will be annual proficiency test. It is only those who pass the proficiency test will be allowed to drive heavy motor vehicles.

I believe I have answered most of the questions.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: May I seek some clarifications, Sir. The Minister has said it is absurd for me to complain. Sir, I think Opposition Members should be informed early as to when the Bills would be debated. Normally, it should take a little while. You could very well have the First Reading at any time, but at least the Opposition must be informed early of the date the Bills would be debated. To expect us to be prepared all the time for debate is absurd.

May I also reply to the Minister of State who has asked me to make some suggestions. I have some suggestions so he could take them down straightaway. I refer to the suggestions made by Dr Phang Sock Yong of the NUS who has suggested that the existing car owners should not be made to suffer a loss when they scrap their cars. She suggested two options and I quote:

'Either they be given full rebate based on the original tax rate when the car is scrapped, or be given a PARF rebate when the car reaches the 10-year limit and be allowed to choose to pay the prevailing quota system based on the minimum successful tender price of the previous four quarters in exchange for an entitlement to use the car for another 10 years.'

So perhaps before implementation of the quota system on the 1st May, the Minister might want to make sure that existing car owners will not be penalised in any way.

Prof. Jayakumar: Just one word, Sir. I think every Member here should know that when a Bill is introduced, you, Mr Speaker, Sir, ask, "Second Reading, what day?" And we say, "The next available sitting." When is the next available sitting under Standing Orders? It is seven clear days after the introduction of the Bill. Therefore, every Member, whether Opposition or PAP Member knows, and should be prepared for a debate on a Bill within seven days.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, when I asked for views and comments from the Non-Constituency MP, I was asking for his views, not Dr Phang's views. Dr Phang's views that he quoted have already been taken into account.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I support those views.

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 Mah Bow Tan].

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