HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Limitation period for parking offence)

Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development, in relation to a Housing and Development Board parking offence, whether there is a limitation period after which the HDB shall not proceed to take action against the offender or alleged offender, or are members of the public expected to keep all HDB used parking coupons and parking receipts for up to 5 years or more.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB car parks are regulated by the Parking Places Act, 1974. The Act does not prescribe any limitation period after which HDB shall not take action against those who commit parking offences. However, section 14 of the Act provides that a vehicle owner shall not be guilty of an alleged offence if he cannot with reasonable diligence ascertain the name and address of the actual offender. If HDB is slow to take action in a case, the alleged offender can claim protection under this section, and argue in court that he cannot with reasonable diligence ascertain the name and address of the actual offender, because of the long lapse of time.

In practice, however, HDB gives parking offenders early notice and ample opportunity to settle their cases. Besides the parking offence notice issued on the spot, the HDB sends a notice by registered post within a month of the offence. If there is no response, the offender is given a final notice followed by a court summons.

Offenders therefore receive up to four notifications, including two registered letters. A motorist who disputes the parking offence notice has ample opportunity to do so at an early stage. If he responds promptly either by appealing against or accepting HDB's offer of a composition fine, then the question of retaining used parking coupons and parking receipts for any extended period will not arise.

If a motorist chooses to contest the offence in court, then it is his responsibility to keep the parking coupons and parking receipts that he thinks will support his case.

In reality, let me inform the House that many motorists whose cases take years to settle have repeatedly flouted the law, and ignored the many notices and reminders. For example, one motorist accumulated 418 parking summonses, and five more received more than 200 summonses each, over periods of three to six years. They have tried to take advantage of the heavy workload in the Courts, and flagrantly ignored reminders, composition fines and court summonses. Now that HDB and the Courts are clearing cases more quickly, their offences have finally caught up with them. Such recalcitrant offenders should not be let off lightly.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the Minister's answer has not stated whether or not it will give up on summonses that are too long. I have personally known of cases where people who were in fact under a warrant of arrest had been brought to the police station to answer parking charges as early as 1984. So if there is no cut-off period --

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, could you ask your question? You are making a speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. I am just asking the Minister ---

Mr Speaker: Ask the question, please.

Mr Chiam See Tong: --- whether there is a cut-off period for these early parking offences.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: The answer is that there is no cut-off period legally or administratively. These people who are now being hauled up are the ones who have flagrantly ignored reminders. To let them off now, to give them an amnesty, is to punish those who have paid up their summonses and composition fines. Those who have delayed, hoping to get away with it, will now be dealt with appropriately.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Is the Minister saying that everyone who parks his car from now on will have to retain his receipts and parking coupons all their lives?

Some hon. Members: No!

Mr Chiam See Tong: Because there are cases which they have not received the HDB notices, for some reason or other.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: I think Mr Chiam has not heard the answer. First of all, a motorist has a parking offence notice on his windscreen. If he has not received that, or he claims he has not received that, he has a registered letter informing him of his offence. He has another reminder, if he has not received the registered letter. Finally, he has a registered letter of a Court summons. Upon receipt, he can still settle his composition fine. So the administrative procedures taken give the offender plenty of notice to settle his case. If he ignores all these and wait for the case to be handled in Court, then he must keep his parking coupons to testify that he has not committed the offence. If he ignores this, then he must take the appropriate action himself to keep those parking coupons.

But by and large, Singaporeans who are law-abiding would have settled the offences and would have appealed if they think that they have not committed the offence. So such cases will not arise. Those cases which are heard in Court much later are those who flagrantly ignored these reminders.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Is it not true that the Minister admits himself that there is not enough manpower to carry out all the procedures that he has mentioned?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: That is not true. We have sufficient manpower and we have the enforcement notices duly administered. We have now moved faster and all the cases are now being tackled, and we do not intend to let anybody off.