ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.20 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

By way of introduction, may I say that the general situation on vehicle accident rates is satisfactory. We have a vehicle population of 556,028, more than half a million, and nearly a million people licensed to drive or ride various kinds of vehicles, 954,354 to be exact. Despite this tremendous increase in vehicle population and vehicle use, the accident rate has been contained. In fact, casualty rates, whether fatalities or serious injuries, have come down over the years. I think this is due to two factors: greater public awareness and education of road safety and, secondly, strict enforcement of our laws.

We are, however, concerned over a small group of incorrigible, habitual, high-risk drivers who show blatant disregard of the law and of the courts, despite repeated prosecutions and convictions. They are undeterred by the punishments presently prescribed by law. The amendments before the House today are targeted only at this small group of recalcitrant offenders, specifically at those who repeatedly drive whilst under disqualification or suspension, those who are repeat drunken driving offenders and those who are repeat reckless or dangerous driving offenders.

The objectives of the Bill are as follows: firstly, to enhance the punishment for driving a motor vehicle whilst under disqualification. Here I am talking of disqualification by the courts. In this connection, the Bill also seeks to empower the courts, for second and subsequent convictions, to order forfeiture of the vehicle used in the commission of the offence.

Secondly, to empower the courts to impose a range of punishments on offenders who are convicted for a third or subsequent offence of driving whilst under disqualification or suspension, of reckless or dangerous driving, of causing death by reckless or dangerous driving and of drunken driving.

Let me take the first amendment. There have been a number of cases, Sir, where motorists who are disqualified by the courts from driving for committing a serious offence, have deliberately ignored the court's prohibition and continued to drive. Between January 1990 and September 1992, the Traffic Police detected a total of 228 such offenders, of which three have been previously convicted twice or more for driving whilst under disqualification. For two of the three, it was their third offence. In one particularly bad case, it was his ninth offence.

According to the Traffic Police, there are more such offenders, but it is not easy to catch them. The Traffic Police can detect them only when they are stopped for some traffic offence or when they are involved in an accident.

I hope Members will agree that such a driver is really a menace to all other road users. He is, in fact, a lethal, unguided missile. Moreover, when he causes an accident, the victims will not legally be covered by insurance. Of course, there is an agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore where the Bureau will consider paying any unsatisfied judgment against an uninsured driver. Each insurer will meet the liability if there is an insurance policy in force even if the driver is disqualified from driving. But the point is that, in law, the victims are not legally covered.

Sir, we should be strict with such a repeat offender because, firstly, he has committed an offence which is sufficiently serious that it was not compoundable and he had to appear and be prosecuted in the courts. Secondly, he was convicted and the court, apart from imposing any other sentence, also decided to impose a disqualification order on him. In short, the court was telling him that he should not be on the roads for whatever period the court decides. Thirdly, the offender blatantly ignores the court's injunction against him and continues to drive on the roads. And fourthly, this repeat offender, after being sentenced for driving while under disqualification, commits the offence yet again, and in some cases, and again.

At present, such an offender who drives whilst under disqualification only faces a maximum punishment of up to six months' jail or a $1,000 fine or both. This is clearly inadequate. In fact, as the Chief Justice commented in August last year on the notorious case of a person having nine previous convictions, the punishments in the law for those who drive while banned from so doing are far from adequate. Sir, we should confer more powers on the courts to deter such offenders. This is exactly what this Bill seeks to do.

The amendment increases the maximum penalty to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.

A new provision would also allow the court to forfeit the vehicle of an offender who has committed a second or subsequent offence of driving whilst under disqualification. Here we are dealing with a driver who has committed an offence for which he has appeared before the court and has been disqualified; then he flouts the court order and he is convicted for driving whilst under disqualification. Then he commits that offence again. The Public Prosecutor is given the discretion to apply for an order for forfeiture in an appropriate case. The Court can order forfeiture only where the accused owns the vehicle or where the owner of the vehicle had allowed the accused to use it, knowing that he was disqualified from driving.

The next feature of the Bill, Sir, is to empower the courts to impose a range of punishments on offenders who are convicted for a third or subsequent offence of the category that I have mentioned earlier. No sympathy should go to those who commit such offences on three or more occasions. This provision that I am referring to is not one which deals with those committing parking or other such offences. We are concerned with offences like driving whilst under disqualification or suspension, reckless or dangerous driving, causing death by reckless or dangerous driving and drunken driving.

These offences rank high amongst the most serious offences. As mentioned earlier, drivers who drive whilst under disqualification, in our view, should be considered grossly irresponsible. This equally applies to those who drive whilst under suspension. Similarly, reckless or dangerous driving exposes innocent road users to danger and even to death, and must be dealt with firmly.

Finally, drunken driving. Despite tougher measures taken in 1990, the problem of drunken driving still persists and continues to rear its ugly head. In 1991, a total of 10 persons died in drunken driving related accidents, an increase of nine over the previous year. Another 71 were injured, four seriously. Members might recall that only some weeks ago in November 1992, five persons died and one was injured in a rather horrific 2.30 am accident along Nicoll Highway. All six passengers had been completely flung out of a car which had crashed in a single vehicle accident. The Traffic Police investigations indicate that the likely driver had consumed alcohol.

Repeat offenders of drunken driving must be dealt with severely. In fact, Members may recall that a few months ago the press reported a case of a drunken driver who was before the courts for his third offence of drunken driving. Therefore, the amendments we are introducing would empower the courts to impose a range of enhanced punishments on those offenders who are convicted for a third or subsequent time for committing these specified offences. According to the Traffic Police records, there have been 10 such chronic offenders who have been charged in court in the past two years.

The range of punishments would include meting out to the repeat offender punishment not exceeding three times that which he would otherwise have been liable to for the first offence, subject of course to a maximum of 10 years' jail. In addition, if such repeat offender, that means the third or subsequent offender, while committing his third or more offence, causes serious injury or death, then the court will also be empowered to punish him with caning with not more than six strokes.

Let me stress that these are not mandatory penalties. These are provisions which enable the court in the exercise of their discretion to impose them. The criterion is imposed in this Bill in the new section 67A. In other words, the court must be satisfied by reason of his previous convictions or antecedents, that it is expedient for the protection of the public or for the prevention of further commission of such offence. So the court will decide in the circumstances whether they should impose these enhanced penalties.

Those are the major amendments, Sir. I should mention the consequential amendment to the penalty for driving whilst under suspension as a result of DIPS offences, and for driving whilst under immediate suspension pending a court trial. These are also enhanced. Such an offender will face a $5,000 maximum fine or a year's jail or both, if it is his first offence. A repeat offender will face a maximum fine of $10,000 or three years' jail or both. As with driving whilst under disqualification, this is also a problem area. Therefore, the enhanced penalty is aimed at deterring suspended licence holders from driving.

Allow me to conclude, Sir, by saying that the vast majority of motorists in Singapore are law-abiding, and will not be affected by this Bill. On the contrary, they will be protected. It is aimed and tailored at a small group of what I have termed "unrepentant, incorrigible motorists" who need to be effectively deterred from endangering the lives of other law-abiding road users.

Such repeat, chronic offenders obviously are not held back by the normal prescribed penalties. A vehicle in the hand of such an offender in fact becomes a potential weapon and can wreak death and destruction on our roads. The proposal in the Bill, therefore, is to give our courts the power, where appropriate, to impose the enhanced penalties and potential offenders would be put on notice that they cannot get off lightly if they repeatedly flout the law.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, at first glance, one may be shocked that the House is being asked to support a Bill whereby for a road traffic offence, a hefty fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment and even caning are being considered. However, on closer scrutiny, the nature of the offence justifies this Bill. Let me explain.

Sir, before a person is disqualified from holding a driving licence, he must have committed one, or usually several driving offences. This would include offences of a serious nature, for example, reckless driving, disregard of the traffic light ("red" light), driving under the influence of alcohol, etc. After this, he would be allowed to defend or mitigate his offences to the Traffic Police or in a court of law. When found guilty, then only does disqualification as the ultimate form of punishment in serious driving offences take place. Disqualification is usually for a specific period after which the driver has to be re-tested or he has to undergo a remedial driving course before his licence is reinstated to ensure that he is no longer a danger to the public. As the Minister has mentioned, this Bill addresses a small group of recalcitrant people.

Sir, laws are passed in this House to protect the innocent majority. A person driving whilst under disqualification is a person driving without a valid driving licence. Thus, he is not insured. Should there be any accident, and a third party is injured, the person or persons have no recourse to insurance coverage. If the accident results in a third party death, the bereaved party has no recourse to insurance claims. This is the tangible result of an accident involving a person driving without a valid driving licence. In this regard, let us again remind ourselves, as the Minister has said, that the motor vehicle can be a lethal weapon in the hands of the irresponsible.

Furthermore, morally, what it means is that the disqualified person has totally no regard for the law, and is totally irresponsible to other innocent road users, who may include pedestrians. The punishments spell out escalating punishments for the recalcitrant. Although punishment for the first offence is already severe, that for subsequent offences is even more severe. For the third offence, the court will have the power to further enhance these up to three times.

Sir, when we consider this Bill, we again have to remind ourselves that it is important to have this Bill as a deterrent because it is not easy for the Traffic Police to detect a person driving under disqualification until he has committed an offence, ie, until maybe someone has been hurt or killed on the road. The alternative to this would be to mount massive, disruptive and regular checks on all motorists. This will result in regular disruption to traffic flow and inconvenience to the innocent majority. The bottom line is that it is not easy to detect this offence until it is too late to protect the innocent.

Sir, some feedback has come to me regarding the "fairness" to forfeit the motor vehicle, as the owner may be innocent. I believe that the proposed section 43(3B)(a) and (b) provides adequate protection to innocent parties. In this regard, I would like to suggest that when a person is disqualified, and to prevent him from falling temptation to driving the vehicle again, he should also not be allowed to own a vehicle. Administratively, this may be cumbersome, but it would be good not to tempt him. However, he should be given reasonable time to effect the transfer of ownership. On the part of motor vehicle owners, let us not be shy to ask for the driving licence of someone whom we may not know too well who wants to borrow our vehicle. After all, all car rental companies do not hesitate to do this.

Sir, I would also urge the Minister to ask the Traffic Police and ROV to constantly remind those who have been disqualified, for example, by mailers, of the seriousness of driving under disqualification. This should also be explained to the parent, if the person is a young man or woman, or spouse, especially as they may not be aware of the serious consequences. Pressure from the family, I believe, can assist. As the saying goes: "Prevention is better than cure". The cure in this case is indeed a very bitter but necessary pill.

Sir, at the end of the day, Members of this House have to ask themselves why, with better education and a more affluent and perhaps gracious society, we have had to introduce more severe punishments over the years. As the Minister has mentioned, in the case of drunken driving, even after enhanced punishments, we still have chronic offenders. Perhaps during the Committee of Supply debate, we should consider this.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the explanation from the Minister, I am very satisfied with the rationale behind the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, and I support the Bill.

As a matter of fact, this Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is aimed at dealing with those whom I would describe as extremist drivers or motorists, that is, those motorists whose licences have been suspended and yet repeat the offences. They are the recalcitrant, recidivists, people who keep on repeating the offences, such as those driving under the influence of alcohol and those who were charged with dangerous driving and so on.

Basically, I endorse the views of the Minister that these motorists have already been given ample and repeated warnings by the courts, the Traffic Police, etc. Despite being punished again and again, these motorists sill persistently choose to act in contempt of court and ignore the law and order. They just simply do not care about the authority. They continue to commit the same offences. For this small group of people, using severe punishment against them is a real necessity. They truly deserve it! Only then can it achieve its deterrent effect. When this Bill becomes law, I believe it will make Singapore roads even safer and will also prevent or reduce unnecessary traffic accidents which cause unnecessary loss of lives and properties.

Sir, here I would like to suggest to the Minister that apart from legislation, I think, more importantly, we should go through public education and the mass media to educate our people. This is indeed very important. I hope that the Minister, after the legislation is passed, will take immediate steps to instruct the Traffic Police or the Public Relations Department of the Police Force to launch a series of campaigns to drive home the message that breaking the law can be prevented. Driving under the influence of alcohol can be prevented. Dangerous driving can be prevented! Driving while under suspension can also be prevented. The repeat of such offences can be prevented! If all these can be prevented, then the so-called extremist motorists will not have to face such severe punishments.

It is also my hope that the Minister will consider the following cases:

(1) How do we deal with the cases of those people who have never obtained a driving licence, were caught driving without a valid licence and punished, and then go on repeating the offence? If they are caught again, how should we deal with them?

(2) Singapore is a very international cosmopolitan country. There are many foreigners who are here on holiday or are working and staying here. These people are in possession of driving licences issued by their own countries. If they happened to be what I described as "extremist drivers" who have repeated previous convictions in dangerous driving or driving under the influence of alcohol in their own countries, and they are caught committing such similar offences in Singapore, then how do we deal with them? Will the Minister consider getting in touch with the Traffic Police Department of the countries concerned so as to promote better road safety in the various countries?

Finally, Sir, I would like to refer to the point raised by Dr Arthur Beng. I do not agree with his suggestion that people with suspended driving licence should not own a car. I personally think that a driving licence and owning a car are two entirely different matters. They are totally unrelated. I think the main thing to do is to promote public education. Tell them that once their licences are suspended, they should not carry on driving. There is nothing wrong in owning a car.

I support the Bill. 4.45 pm

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill .

In Singapore, we are enjoying perhaps one of the best traffic accident records compared to any major city in the world. That we are able to continuously maintain this good record can be attributed to us having a very efficient traffic policy and an excellent well-built and well-maintained road system. Above all, we have a set of very stringent traffic regulations policed by our highly efficient Traffic Police Department. But there are irresponsible people who will always try to insinuate that the Government is trying to make more money out of traffic fines and even imply that our Traffic Police officers are given quota to fine motorists every month. These people are doing great injustice to our hardworking police officers and, more importantly, undermining the Government's effort in keeping down accident rate and protecting our innocent road users.

Those offenders of traffic laws who had their licences suspended have no business in driving a vehicle as a vehicle is a very powerful weapon and can cause serious accident with tragic consequence. These people are potential killers on the road and the Government has the responsibility to do everything possible to prevent these law breakers in committing offence by driving their vehicles under suspension. The heavier fines and punishment will no doubt set a strong deterrent to the would-be offenders and give added protection to other law-abiding road users.

I fully support the Bill as all measures to minimize traffic accidents should be taken because life lost in accident is most tragic and unnecessary. However, in supporting the Bill, I would like the Minister to clarify one provision, that is, under clause 2 (section 43 (3B)(b)). It implies that the owner of the vehicle who allows the offender to use it, even having prior knowledge of the offender's disqualification, can have his or her vehicle forfeited. Mr Speaker, Sir, a person may consent to lend a car to another person under all sorts of circumstances. Maybe at that moment he was preoccupied with something or someone or attending to some urgent matter, or even just at that moment a slip of the mind. And even though he has prior knowledge, if that person has his vehicle forfeited by just lending the car, I think this would be unfair and a little bit too harsh. I therefore suggest that the forfeiture of the vehicle should only be confined to the vehicle belonging to the offender, unless it can be proven beyond doubt that he lends his car to the offender out of explicit knowledge of his or her disqualification and not just out of certain absent-mindedness.

I support the Bill.

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which will go a long way towards making our roads safer and thereby help to minimise unnecessary loss of precious lives. No one can dispute that our roads today are getting more congested which therefore means that the probability of serious road accidents and road deaths occurring is high. Whilst some may lament that the proposed measures in the Bill should have been initiated earlier, it is better to be late than never as we must always look on the positive side of things.

Sir, after going through the proposed amendments, I fully endorse the stiff fines and enhanced jail sentences to be meted out to motorists who are repeatedly convicted of reckless driving, drunken driving and those who drive whilst under suspension. Although the increase in fines and jail sentences appears to be a quantum leap, I have not the slightest doubt that it is commensurate with the offences committed. This must be so if the intention and spirit of the amendment is to protect adequately the interests of innocent parties who may become victims through the negligence of the category of drivers I had earlier mentioned.

However, Sir, I am less comfortable with the amendment to impose caning of up to six strokes when the offender has caused death or serious injury. Since this amendment Bill was first introduced in Parliament on 16th November 1992, certain quarters have expressed reservations as they feel that this sentence is disproportionate to the offences committed whilst acknowledging that it is meant for an offender who has had two previous convictions. In this regard, Sir, I would appreciate the Hon. Minister's clarification as to what steps can be taken to alleviate this anxiety.

Finally, Sir, on the amendment to forfeit a motor vehicle used in the commission of an offence, could the Minister assure the House that there are sufficient safeguards in place so as to minimise the likelihood of an unnecessary confiscation of a vehicle belonging to a non-offender?

Mr Ling How Doong (Bukit Gombak): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first declare my interest. I am a practising lawyer.

Mr Speaker, while I support the Bill, I have my reservation in respect of certain provisos in this particular Bill.

Firstly, one must really consider what are the grounds where one can be disqualified from driving. The grounds one can be disqualified would be, one, having a drink or drug and incapable of having control of the vehicle. The second one would be reckless or dangerous driving and the next one would be if he is convicted of causing death by reckless or dangerous driving. I do not know whether you cover a case where one is disqualified by way of the demerit system. If one examines these grounds carefully, one would have noticed that one could be disqualified on technical ground.

I cite you a very simple example, like driving while under the influence of alcohol. At one time, driving while under the influence of liquor was not an offence. The prosecution must prove that he has consumed alcohol to an extent where he was incapable of having control of the vehicle, because there is a presumption in law. We have a presumption in law under the Road Traffic Act that one is presumed to be not capable of having control of the vehicle if, on examination, they discover that you have 80 milligrammes of liquor in 100 millilitres of your blood. But you have to prove the content of alcohol in your blood. One must do that. In a court of law, in the past, besides proving the content of alcohol in your blood, they must also prove that you were incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. It would appear that in a few recent decisions of the court of appeal, the moment they have discovered the content of alcohol in your blood, it becomes an irrebuttable presumption. And I have been given to understand that if you take two big glasses of beer, not surprisingly enough, the alcohol content has gone up to the 80 milligrammes mark as spelt out in the law. In other words, not everyone with this alcohol content in the blood would be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. There are people with alcohol content of 120 mg or 150 mg, and they are still very steady on the road. But of course this is a safeguard to prevent this.

Sir, the recalcitrant person ought to be punished. What I am saying here is that some people could be just attending some social gathering and after having one or two drinks too many, he was in a position to control his vehicle but yet, because of this particular provision, he was disqualified.

Sir, imagine for a moment, on this groun-d, he drove a vehicle, say, a second time, and then a third time. The point here is that one must look at the enhanced penalties now to deal with them. I agree that at present, six months' jail is insufficient. With this amendment, in respect of the other proviso, the point is whether it is sufficient deterrent for the people who have been caught driving while under prohibition. If you are caught the third time, you can get a fine of up to $30,000 and you can be imprisoned up to nine years, your vehicle will be confiscated, and you will face a life ban. These are the four punishments you can get. My question is: are these sufficient deterrents for any would-be wrongdoer? As I said, do we need to include caning as another aspect of the punishment?

Sir, one must draw a distinction between criminal and quasi-criminal activities or offences here. I feel that in a civilised society, whatever it needs to introduce would have to conform to that sort of norm. With all those punishments I have mentioned earlier, I feel that they are sufficient to deter anyone, other than caning. Caning should be reserved for really violent crimes. Of course, I am not saying about a person who has been banned and then he committed reckless and dangerous driving. Probably in those circumstances, one may consider that punishment as a necessity. But as I said earlier, we are a civilised society, and caning should be reserved for violent crimes, but not for this offence.

The Minister mentioned that if you are caught driving under disqualification for a third time and if you cause injuries and death, you will be subject to all these punishments. May I suggest that he must be convicted for causing injury or death, because one could be driving but, through no fault of his, he knocks somebody down, especially when he is disqualified on non-technical grounds. He was in control of the vehicle but he caused that injury through no fault of his. And yet he will get this sort of punishment. He must be convicted for causing grievous hurt or death before this particular provision is brought to bear.

The next point I would like to bring to the Minister's attention is this. One of the amendments is that it is an offence now merely to apply or obtain a driving licence while under disqualification. I thought in this modern era of high-tech and computers, the Police or the ROV should have the proper machinery to keep a record of those disqualified in the computer and when you apply, they will inform you, "Sorry, you can't apply because you are under disqualification.", rather than having this all-embracing clause where once you apply for a driving licence, you have committed an offence and you can get a fine of up to $5,000. While SBC and ROV could remind licensees, "Your licence fee is due next month." or "Your road tax is due two months later.", I see no reason why this aspect cannot be introduced rather than penalising someone who applies for a driving licence, bearing in mind that disqualification varies from one year to 10 years. So during this long period, surely you do not expect an ordinary motorist to remember, "Is my licence going to expire or not?" If he applies, you penalise him.

My suggestion is that we have a proper computerised recording system. This particular clause should be deleted from the Bill, and we should not penalise people merely for applying for a driving licence while under disqualification. I feel that this ought to be run that way.

Sir, the next point I would like to bring up is this. The Bill seems to discriminate against an owner of a vehicle and a non-owner of a vehicle because under the provision if you are convicted the second time, and on the application of the DPP, your vehicle can be confiscated. Whereas if you do not own any vehicle, you do not have to suffer this extra penalty here. The next point is what would happen to someone buying a car under hire purchase. I suppose he would not be penalised because the hire purchase company would not know whether this man, in his lifetime, is going to drive his vehicle while under disqualification. So this is another discrimination. Would it then lead to a result that every time one buys a car under hire purchase he drags his instalments over a long period of time so that he would not get penalised under this Bill?

Sir, while I support the Bill, as I said earlier, I would urge this House to really consider the necessity of the provisions I have mentioned earlier.

Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew: Mr Speaker, Sir, generally, I support the Bill that we should enhance the punishment for reckless, drunken driving and repeat offenders who have been disqualified. But I voice the same concern that the owners of vehicles who have lent their vehicles to such people, knowingly or unknowingly, should not be penalised to the same extent of having their vehicles forfeited because, to them, the vehicle may cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars compared to the fine of $10,000 which the offender is expected to pay, of course, on top of the jail term.

I am concerned about the proposed section 43 (3B)(b) that owners of vehicles, who are not the offenders, should lose their vehicles just because they lend it to them, whether knowingly or unknowingly. They always say that vehicles are actually very well designed engineering machines, but we need only one loose nut behind the steering wheel to wreck it or to kill somebody. Let us put away the nut, but let us not punish the owner of the vehicle who is not the offender.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have participated in the debate. I shall comment on the points in the order in which they were raised.

Dr Arthur Beng asked two questions. One, whether a person who has been disqualified, is there a way of reminding him what is in store for him if he were to repeatedly commit the offence and, eventually, he is subject to these enhanced penalties. I think this is a good idea. Probably, it can be done when and after he is disqualified in the first round. I will ask my Traffic Police to look into this. Probably, when he is disqualified for the first time, some advisory note can be sent to him, just as is done with the case of demerit points.

He has raised the question whether a person who has been disqualified ought not also be disqualified from owning a car. Of course, this raises a separate issue altogether on which there is already disagreement from one of our Parliamentary colleagues. I think this raises several more serious issues as to whether there should be a linkage between an offence which is related to the use of a car with the possessory or right of ownership of a vehicle. Our thinking, at this time, is that it is not necessary to do so.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang asked, first, about a campaign. He wanted a mass media campaign on these new enhanced penalties so that each offender will be told. As I have mentioned that the majority of drivers in Singapore are not prone to such repeated offences, it may be that the publicity and advisory campaigns should be targeted at those who have committed the first offence because that is the trigger which would lead on to the second offence and the third offence.

What is important for the majority of motorists is to constantly keep up with campaigns, on road safety awareness, and on dos and don'ts of good driving on the roads. That will continue to be done. In fact, Traffic Police is poised to launch a major road courtesy campaign. Although the accident rates might have come down, I think what is sorely lacking in Singapore amongst drivers is consideration by one driver for the interests of other road users. The road bully situation is a good manifestation of lack of road courtesy among the driving public.

Then he asked what about those who drive without driving licence, in other words, not those who have a driving licence and then were disqualified but those who may drive without a driving licence at all. The answer to his question is that that is already an offence under our Road Traffic Act. Perhaps the thrust of his question was whether such offenders should also be dealt with under the ambit of this new provision. My discussion with the Traffic Police shows that the number of those offenders who drive without driving licencei s not that many, and it does not pose such a serious problem as to include them. Also, my approach in the crafting of this Bill is to restrict it as narrowly as possible to the real serious offences.

He asked about foreigners who commit offences here. Although there are foreigners who commit traffic offences here, the number is not that great because when foreigners come here, they know that the laws have to be complied with and that we are very strict. For example, when you catch a foreigner committing a moving offence, he is booked and he is, in fact, accompanied to either the Traffic Police headquarters or police station and he has to pay the penalty or fine. His question was: what about those coming from abroad who might have been disqualified in those countries? I will ask my Traffic Police to look into this. I presume that other countries have pretty much the same procedures like ours where, if you are disqualified, you have to surrender your licence. In other words, when he comes to Singapore, he would not have a driving licence, or in possession of a driving licence. If he were to fraudulently still possess a driving licence, his question was: can we liaise with the other countries? It can be done, but I think it is quite a major task for other countries to supply us with thousands of names. Since the number of foreign driver population is not that great, I am not sure whether that has to be done. But if the Traffic Police tells me that, yes, it is a pretty serious problem, I will certainly take the suggestion into consideration.

Mr Kenneth Chen spoke on forfeiture. He was talking about a case where a person knew that the driver whom he was lending the car was disqualified but since there was a slip of the mind and so on, he wanted it to provide for a case where a person has "explicit knowledge", to use his words. I am not sure what is the difference between "knowledge" and "explicit knowledge". If you look at the provision, I think it is quite clear. There is a safeguard, if I may mention to the others who have expressed reservations. The proposed section 43 (3B) says that the order for forfeiture should not be made by the court if the court is satisfied that "the person who has committed the offence had used the vehicle without the consent of the owner (that means he stole it, for example, or did not have his permission) or where he had used the vehicle with the consent of the owner, that owner had no knowledge of his disqualification." So if the court is satisfied that you, the owner, have no knowledge of his disqualification, even though you may have consented, the court will not make the order. It is sufficiently clear. We do not have to add extra verbiage to this, like "knowledge" or "explicit knowledge". It is not going to improve it. Either you have knowledge or you have no knowledge. So I think that safeguard is quite clear.

I think the comments made about the provision on forfeiture answer Mr Zulkifli's point about forfeiture. He said he was less comfortable about the provision on caning and asked whether I could alleviate the anxiety that he has. What I can do is to recapitulate what is the situation for the caning provision. First of all, I want to stress that it is not mandatory. It is for the court. Secondly, to whom it will apply? Let us take, of the four categories, drunken driving. It is not going to apply to the offender who is convicted for drunken driving for the first time. It is not going to apply to him when he is convicted for the second time. In fact, some have asked me: why not apply it to the first time or the second time offence? But it is not going to apply to him for the second time offence. It is not even going to apply if he is convicted for the third time unless he has caused death or serious injury. Is that going too far? I am not sure it is going too far. If you ask someone who has lost his loved one, a child or wife, and he has lost the loved one in a road traffic accident where the accident was caused by a drunken driver for whom it is a third timer, I think that bereaved parent has every right to ask this House why is it that we have not taken stiff penalties to have prevented this. In fact, those who have given me feedback that perhaps we should have provided for this earlier than the third offence may have a point, but certainly I do not think it is going that far to provide for caning. And if I may take this opportunity to link up with the points raised by Mr Ling How Doong when he says caning in our society should be reserved for criminal or quasi-criminal activities. I take the point of those that caning, while it is part of our criminal justice system, must not be lightly or indiscriminately applied in our legislation. But, as I said, is it lightly or frivolously applied here? I do not think so. It is a measured response to a recalcitrant offender, a third-timer for the same offence, appears before the court, has caused death or serious injury and the court will not automatically apply. The court has to consider the criterion in the legislation which is:

'... the court is satisfied, by reason of his previous convictions or his antecedents, that it is expedient for the protection of the public or with the view to the prevention of further commission of such offence that a punishment in excess of that prescribed for such a conviction should be awarded,' So this is the criterion given to the court.

Yes, Mr Ling may have a point that this should be reserved for violent crime. But I would like to ask whether or not such an offender, say, for drunken driving, reckless and dangerous driving, third conviction, causes death or serious injury, is it not reasonable to equate him with a person who commits a violent or serious crime? I think it is perfectly justifiable. It is a proportionate and measured response.

He says a person who causes death or serious injury might not be at fault for having caused the death or serious injury. In that case, I should think that the court will take that into consideration because this is not a mandatory penalty. If it can be shown to the court that he was drunk when driving but it was not his fault that he killed - I am not sure whether such a situation can arise, but if it does happen - I guess the court will take into account the totality of the facts of the case and the circumstances before it imposes such a penalty.

Mr Ling How Dong made another point that for drunken driving, one can be disqualified for technical grounds. I tried to follow his reasoning but I am afraid somewhere along the line I lost it, because the provisions of sections 67 and 68 of the Act are quite clear as to the ingredients of the offence that go into drunken driving. And in any case, these enhanced penalties are not just for first timers but it is for repeat offenders.

Sir, I believe I have answered Mr Robert Chua also because he had reservations over the forfeiture of vehicles. He said owners of vehicles who knowingly or unknowingly lent a vehicle should not be penalised. Obviously, we have a disagreement here because the approach in this Bill and the approach which I commend to the House is that where a person knowingly gave his vehicle to a person who has been disqualified, these provisions provided in the Bill should apply. "Unknowingly?" Of course, I fully agree with him, and the court will not forfeit the vehicle.

Mr Ling How Dong: Sir, I raised a point whether the Minister would consider not to punish those who merely apply for a licence while under disqualification?

Prof. Jayakumar: I am sorry I missed that point. Yes, that was a consequential provision. It is not a new provision. It is already in the Act. I agree with Mr Ling that it may seem very odd to have such a provision with today's computerisation. The only reason that I have retained that provision - and if it is retained, penalties have to be rationalised - is that although we have computerisation, renewal notices for driving licences are sent in advance one and a half months to sometimes two and a half months ahead of the date of expiry. The Traffic Police tells me that although we have computerised our records, in some cases there is a short time lag, where the court's conviction, before it is computerised, there can be a few days' window and some drivers would take advantage of this, knowing that they are disqualified, to apply at the Post Office for a driving licence. So this is done with knowledge. Perhaps, as we improve, we do not need this provision, but it is to take care of a short time lag in our system where a person, having been disqualified, receives a notice and he can go during the short time lag to have it renewed. As I said, perhaps we can do away with the provision later on.

Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just clarify what I said. What I was suggesting was that the owner of a vehicle should not be the one to suffer for the offence committed by the offender, because the cost of his vehicle can be a lot more than the fine to be imposed on the offender himself. So the owner should be spared.

Prof. Jayakumar: I have taken his point. The question is one of approach. The approach that this Bill takes is that such offenders are so serious in the potential harm that they can cause to other road users that where a vehicle owner with full knowledge gives consent to a person whom he knows to be disqualified, you are more or less aiding and abetting. I think it amounts to that. Whatever other terminology may be used to describe it, that is what it amounts to. The question is: should such an aider or abettor be spared? He may know now because of this provision that he has got to be careful. But if there was no deterrence, then people would merrily continue to lend their vehicles even when they have knowledge. The point is if they have knowledge, then they should not do so.

Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew: Would the Minister consider putting it the other way? Someone who knows that the offender is a repeat offender lends his vehicle knowingly, so that it amounts almost to abetting, then the vehicle is forfeited rather than to have it done the other way right now. Would the Minister consider this?

Prof. Jayakumar: We can have as many refinements of this Bill as possible. The important point is: if we agree that there should be a deterrence even for those who lend their vehicles, then we give this approach a trial and see how it works. The way in which such legislation is implemented, I do not think it will lead to injustices, but it will be an effective deterrent. We can have many permutations of putting the same point in different ways, but I think this drafting has been done with some care and let us give it a try.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be changed to "1993". This will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

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