ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Road Traffic Act to enable the Registrar of Vehicles and the Deputy Commissioner of Police to disallow the renewal of vehicle licences and driving licences of applicants who have outstanding warrants of arrest against them.

The purpose of this amendment is to deal with motorists who blatantly ignore the summonses and warrants of arrest issued against them for parking offences under the Parking Places Act.

Currently, a motorist is allowed to settle the parking offence notice by paying a composition fine. If he fails to pay the fine after three reminders, he is summoned to Court. If he fails to appear in Court to answer the charge, the Court will issue a warrant for his arrest. When this happens, the Police will first send him a letter asking him to surrender himself at the Police Warrant Enforcement Unit at the Subordinate Courts Complex and settle his warrant of arrest by paying up the fine there. However, if he still fails to do so, the Police will then have to take action to arrest him and bring him before the Court for prosecution.

Although the majority of motorists pay up their fines in time, there are offenders who still persist in ignoring the numerous and repeated reminders sent by the Police. In a major publicity campaign last year, the courts have made it clear that it is to the benefit of the offenders, if they are guilty, to settle their composition fines early. Not to do so may result in heftier fines when their cases are taken up in court.

Beyond such a publicity campaign, the Government must impose deterrent measures to deal with recalcitrant offenders who disregard repeated reminders and warrants of arrest. Although such cases account for only about 2% to 3% of the total number of car parking notices issued, in absolute figures, the number is alarming and increasing. In the 1980s, the Police received from the courts an average of about 20,000 warrants of arrest annually. This figure rose three-fold to about 60,000 a year between 1991 and 1993. As at 30th June this year, there were 9,920 motorists who have accumulated a total of 51,046 warrants of arrest. This amounts to an average of five warrants of arrest per offender. This situation cannot be tolerated.

Police have been taking action against these motorists. Since July last year, 9,180 offenders have been arrested. One of them had accumulated a staggering number of 166 warrants of arrest! He was fined $66,400 and in default sentenced to 664 days of imprisonment. He did not pay his fine and he is still in prison since 18th December 1993.

Despite such enforcement action by Police, the number of outstanding warrants of arrest remains high. Using Police's limited resources to go after each and everyone of these errant motorists is not an effective solution. Many police officers have to be deployed to make house calls. In many cases, the errant motorists are no longer living at their last known addresses. Valuable Police resources are wasted on these recalcitrants. We need a more efficient way to bring these hardcore offenders to task.

HDB has already introduced a number of measures against such parking offenders, such as debarring them from purchasing or renewing season tickets for HDB car park lots; withholding from them certain HDB services, such as the purchase and rental of shops, allocation of rental flats, approval of resale of flats, permits for renovation or upgrading and use of HDB facilities. However, these measures are limited in their coverage and leave out those recalcitrant motorists who do not need such HDB services.

The proposed amendment of the Road Traffic Act to withhold the renewal of vehicle licences and driving licences from recalcitrant motorists for parking offences will be more effective as it is more direct. It targets at all errant local motorists including those who do not need HDB services. Without a valid vehicle licence or driving licence, a person is not allowed to use a vehicle or drive on the road. If he does so, he commits an offence. Under the Road Traffic Act, the penalty for using a vehicle without a valid vehicle licence is a fine of up to $2,000. The penalty for driving without a valid driving licence is a fine of up to $1,000, or imprisonment of up to three months. As the current vehicle licence renewal cycle is six months or one year and the driving licence renewal cycle is one to three years, the amendment will compel motorists who own vehicles to settle their outstanding warrants of arrest quickly if they want to continue driving.

Sir, this amendment to empower ROV and the Traffic Police to withhold the renewal of vehicle licence and driving licences of recalcitrant drivers who ignore reminders and warrants of arrest is necessary. We have to tackle this problem more efficiently. For a long time, we have been too lenient and too tolerant with these motorists. I believe it is time for us to take them to task. At stake, it is not just a minor offence of parking violation, but one of total disregard for the law. The act of illegal parking is bad enough. The refusal to pay up the fine despite reminders and subsequently a warrant of arrest is totally unacceptable. With the amendment, such motorists must think twice before ignoring parking summonses for they run the risks of losing their driving licences and the use of their vehicles on the road.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

Sir, the figures given by the Minister are really startling as it relates only to one offence, namely, that of parking. Each year, between 1991 and 1993, at year end, there are 60,000 outstanding warrants of arrest.

Sir, as the Minister has mentioned, before a warrant of arrest is issued, three reminders would have been issued. Then a warrant of arrest is issued. I just wonder how we have reached this state of affairs! Singaporeans are a law-abiding people, but for parking, this seems to be a peculiar problem. Can the Minister tell us how many parking offences were committed in a year?

Sir, the GPC has been informed that, currently, there are approximately 11,500 motorists with one or more warrants of arrest. 27 of them have accumulated more than 50 warrants of arrest each. This is a serious matter and, therefore, warrants more serious action. I therefore support this Bill to deal with the recalcitrants.

Sir, whilst supporting this Bill, I worry as to how many of these offenders actually depend on driving as a key means of earning a living, for example, delivery man or despatch clerks. If a driving licence or road tax is not renewed when he presents himself, then the whole family's source of income is lost. This would then throw the whole family into a hardship cycle.

May I make these suggestions to the Minister?

(1) Some of the offenders may not dare to give themselves up as they are not able to afford to pay their accumulated fines. Can the HDB and URA disseminate widely circulars regarding the impact of today's Bill on them? They should try to settle with the authorities these summonses, rather than wait for the renewal date of the driving licence which, as you know, can be renewed for three years in advance, or vehicle licence, and then suddenly find themselves without a means to continue their livelihood. The HDB and URA should also try to work out instalment payments if these persons cannot pay at one go.

(2) Would the Minister ask the HDB and URA to give the CCC advisors a list of these persons? The grassroots leaders can also assist to alert these people.

Sir, I believe that there are deeper underlying reasons for non-compliance with regard to parking offences although these are not excuses. This Bill is required to check the problem. Through this Bill, all future offenders, hopefully, will take their parking offences seriously. However, for the past offenders, it is my hope that, guilty as they are, we can soften somewhat the hardship on the family.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is, in my view, a very harsh Bill, because it is not a question of asking the offender to pay a fine or asking the offender to be sentenced to a jail term but, in fact, the law is taking away the livelihood, ie, the rice bowl of a person who uses his driving licence or his vehicle as a means of livelihood. So I think, in this sense, it is a rather harsh Bill.

I think before the Minister enacts such a very strong law, what he should do is to examine the parking problem in Singapore. That is the key issue. Why do so many people commit parking offences? It may not be due entirely to his fault. If one has gone to other countries, there are places where it is clearly marked "Five minutes parking" or "One hour parking".

There are many instances where these people pay fines because they may be delivering goods. They may just want to go in to deliver the goods and their intention is to go out within five minutes. So they take a chance. Instead of putting a parking coupon, they think that they could rush in, deliver their goods and come out again. What happens is that, sometimes, when they go in, they are held back because of certain problems in relation to their work and, therefore, they cannot come back within five minutes. And when they come back, they see a parking notice slapped on him. Probably, he feels that it is not fair in that circumstances and also due to his busy work schedule, it may have just slipped his mind. In the first place, he is not willing to pay because he feels that it is not fair to him while he is trying to make a living. A parking notice is issued to him because he forgets to display a parking coupon. And because of a 90-cent offence, he ends up losing his rice bowl. For not displaying a 45-cent or 90-cent parking coupon, he may end up with a $66,000 fine. In our society, there must be something wrong with our system here. For such a minor offence, he can go to jail for 3-4 years. It is like the proverbial person who suffers the offence of stealing half a loaf of bread and he loses his life for it. We are coming to that stage.

For a minor parking offence, he may end up with a $66,000 fine, or he may lose his livelihood. His wife and children will also be affected. I do not know whether we have come to that stage. It is not, as the Minister said, as easy as just paying the 90 cents. In the daily working life of the people who are under great stress, it is not just the 90 cents. There are other problems too. My contention is that parking problem is a real problem in Singapore. And I think the Government should look into it rather than slapping more and more penalties on our people.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, referring first to Dr Arthur Beng's question about how many parking offences are committed in one year, I am told that there are two million parking offences committed in a year. The URA issued in 1992 about 840,000 summonses for parking offences. The HDB issued 1,246,000 such parking summonses. In 1993, the number was not much different. The HDB issued 1,236,000 and the URA issued 822,000. In other words, on average, we have issued about 2,060,000 parking summonses. I think this is a mind-boggling number.

To suggest that there is a parking problem and therefore we should examine the parking problem and be more lenient to such people, I think we are not facing the reality. All of us have been to our constituencies, we are involved in what is going on, and we know that there are enough parking places. We are also aware that sometimes people take the easy way out. When they see that there is space available along the road, they just park there. Or they find that the car park is a bit too far away or it is already full when they come back in the evening, although there are other parking places available elsewhere within the region, they also decide to take the risk and park just outside their own block, and thereby commit an offence. I think it is not just the question of a person rushing in to send his goods or do an errand and miss out for five minutes and the parking attendant comes and gives him a notice. From what I know, I think our parking attendants have been very tolerant. They will wait for the person for five or ten minutes, and if the person does not turn up, he will get a ticket. I think that has been very liberal. To say that we are harsh, I would suggest that these motorists think twice before they commit an offence. And I would say that we are very tolerant with them. The URA and HDB give them three reminders before issuing them with a warrant of arrest. To say that a person is forgetful, he may have amnesia and that he cannot remember that he was given three reminders, I think that person needs some other kind of help.

This person who is jailed because he could not pay up $60,000-odd fine chalked up 166 warrants of arrest. Can you imagine any person who just ignores warrants of arrest after warrants of arrest, and you say be kind and lenient to such a person? What sort of society will we become? A person who is prepared to disregard the law despite repeated reminders before a warrant of arrest is issued and, subsequently even with that, he refused to turn up in court before the Police decides to take action and you say we should be lenient to them. I think we should be very careful about suggesting this.

How do we mitigate the impact of this new law on such people? The suggestion by Dr Arthur Beng is that perhaps URA give them time and work out an instalment plan, and HDB also does the same thing, I think, yes, we can ask them to consider. We can ask both authorities to consider working out an instalment plan for such people who voluntarily turn up at the URA or HDB office and say, "I have this summons. Please, I can't pay now, but can you let me pay by two, three instalments or whatever?" I believe those of us who have dealt with such cases will know that HDB and URA have been very accommodating. They have allowed these people to pay by instalments. It is only when they still default that they finally land themselves in court. And this person who accumulated 166 warrants of arrest is one such case.

To ask URA and HDB to give the list of offenders to the MPs, I could suggest to them. But I am not sure if every MP wants to be burdened with this. On average, it will be about 7,000 such persons in every constituency. If you are prepared to do that, I think HDB and URA will be prepared to oblige. But I am not sure that MPs want to take on this role. I think these people who have accumulated the fines should take this law as the final warning to them and better get to the offices of URA and HDB quickly and pay up before the law catches up with them.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, can I just ask the Minister a further question?

Mr Speaker: All right, one clarification.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Dr Arthur Beng has suggested one solution, ie, to allow these offenders to pay by instalment. I have another suggestion. Before this law comes into being, perhaps the Minister should consider giving an amnesty to these two million-odd people who have outstanding car parking fines. Why not? I think this is an election year and it will be good.

An hon. Member: How do you know?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think this is a one-off thing and I would hope that the Minister will consider it. Because it will also come out with a clean slate. Whatever way you do it, you cannot deal with these two million offenders. It will always be on record.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Two million people were given notices or summonses by the URA and HDB. Most of them paid up. By the time they get a third reminder, only 3% refused to respond and were given such warrants of arrest. So we do not have two million people waiting to be given this notice. Actually, this should be the final notice to all these people who have outstanding warrants of arrest to turn up and settle with the URA and HDB. For all the others, if they have committed an offence, they have to pay for it. That is the only way. You must pay for what you have committed.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central): Sir, can I ask a question?

Mr Speaker: You want to seek clarification on the Minister's speech, yes.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: Yes. Can the Minister tell me the percentage of these offences which are committed by drivers of heavy vehicles? Because I think there are insufficient heavy vehicle parking lots.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I do not have the breakdown of offences committed by drivers of heavy vehicles, small vehicles, motorcyclists and the lot. They are all parking offences. To say that we do not have enough heavy vehicle parking lots, again, is missing the point. The point is that an offence has been committed and a summons given and he should pay the fine. If they know that they would commit an offence that they should not do it, they do not do it. If they think they cannot find a place to park in an HDB car park, find another place where heavy vehicles are allowed to park. And then take a bus or whatever it is to get back home. Having no car park lots next to your block is no excuse for committing a parking offence.

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 Wong Kan Seng].

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