ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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."

The main purpose of the amendments is to introduce measures which will enhance road safety, ensure smoother traffic flow and streamline procedures for more effective and efficient traffic enforcement and investigations.

Before touching on the amendments, let me briefly explain why the new measures are necessary. Singapore's road accident situation has improved since the mid-1980s. However, we still have a long way to go. Our accident death rate is relatively high. In 1995, there were four deaths for every 10,000 vehicles and this was more than twice that of countries like Britain, the United States and Sweden.

Almost all road accidents here can be attributed to the behaviour of motorists and pedestrians, all road users, in fact. An average of 7,200 people were killed or injured on the roads every year from 1991 to 1995. Although pedestrians were sometimes at fault, statistics show that 90% of these cases were due to the negligence or rashness of the motorists. The Police, therefore, has been proactive in its education campaigns and strict in its enforcement efforts to persuade motorists to use the roads safely. Whilst the majority has responded positively, a small minority has continued to display irresponsible and dangerous driving habits. This has led to certain worrying trends which must be checked. Let me now elaborate on the measures to achieve this.

Measures to Enhance Road Safety

Raising of age limits for motorists

First, the raising of age limits for motorists. Our young is over-represented in accidents. Statistics show that motorists aged between 16 and 17 years old are the most vulnerable on the roads. Compared with the average accident rates, those in this age group are about six times more vulnerable. Take the case of Jeffrey Tan Yew Hwa. He was only 17 and had just passed his riding test in July last year. Barely two months later, on 29th September 1995, he lost control of his motorcycle while making a right turn along Pasir Ris Avenue 3 and hit a lamp post. He was flung onto the road and died on the spot from severe head injuries. Exactly three months earlier, another 17-year old had met the same fate when his motorcycle hit the side of Benjamin Sheares Bridge and the impact threw him over the bridge.

Another tragedy is the case of National Serviceman Private Choy Ying Keong. He was on road marshal duty along Fort Road in June last year when he was fatally hit by a speeding car driven at 191 km per hour, by one Yong Kar Seong who was 17 years old then. Death from accidents is always tragic, but it is more so when the victims are so young. It is heart-breaking to think that they will never grow into adulthood. It is a loss to the nation and to their families. We cannot afford such carnage of our young. Even one death is one death too many. There are many others like them. They died tragically young. Should we allow this situation to continue? The answer clearly must be "no". We need to protect our young from doing harm to themselves and to others. Clause 5 of the Bill therefore seeks to amend section 62(2) to raise the minimum age limits for motorcyclists and drivers from the current 16 and 17 years old respectively to 18 years old.

Enhanced punishment for collision against overhead structures

Sir, I come to collision by public service vehicles or other heavy vehicles into structures or buildings. Over the last few years, there have been a number of such cases due mainly to the negligence of the driver. For example, six passengers were injured when a SBS double-decker bus crashed into a gantry post at Stadium Link on 19th September 1993. A more serious accident happened on 1st July 1994 when a lorry carrying an electrical cable drum hit the passage way of a building in Selegie Road. The impact pinned two passengers against the cable drum, killing them instantly. Then on 6th October last year, a crane-mounted lorry hit a gantry post along Ayer Rajah Expressway causing the post to fall. The result: a massive 3-hour gridlock that seriously inconvenienced all motorists. And just in this month alone, two double-decker buses crashed into the structures at Ang Mo Kio bus interchange on two consecutive days. In one of the cases, the bus driver and three passengers were injured. It could have been worse.

These collisions not only cause extensive damage to structures and buildings but, worse, also endanger lives. The drivers of such vehicles must be made to exercise greater care and responsibility. Passenger vehicle drivers especially owe a duty of care to their passengers whose lives are literally in their hands.

Clause 8 of the Bill seeks to create a new section 65A to make it a specific offence for a driver of a heavy motor vehicle or a public service vehicle to collide with any building or structure. First time offenders will be fined not more than $5,000 or jailed for not more than two years or both. Repeat offenders will be fined not more than $10,000 or jailed for not more than five years or both. This amendment will impress upon the drivers of such vehicles that they have a special responsibility to ensure the safety of the people whom they carry or on the streets.

Enhanced penalties for hit-and-run accidents

The number of fatal hit-and-run accidents has been rising over the years from two in 1991 to eight and seven in 1994 and 1995 respectively. We take a serious view of such accidents because fleeing from the scene after knocking down a person is an irresponsible act. The driver has a moral obligation to stop after an accident and assist the victim. It can make a difference between life and death. One is reminded of the case of teenager Moses Seow who was fatally injured after being hit by a van on the road shoulder of East Coast Parkway (ECP) on 31st June last year. The driver sped off without even stopping to check on the youth. But he left behind a piece of hard evidence: the van's season parking coupon had fallen out with part of the windscreen during the accident. Police later tracked him down and arrested him. Had it not been for this clue, the culprit would have got away scot-free. We need to address this problem urgently, firstly, because fleeing from the scene of accident is an irresponsible act and, secondly, because it is difficult to trace such culprits in such cases, and finally, because the number of deaths in such accidents has been on the rise.

Clause 13 of the Bill therefore seeks to amend section 84:

(a) to create a new subsection (7) to increase the fine to not more than $3,000 or one year's jail for first time offenders of fatal or serious hit-and-run accidents. Repeat offenders will be fined not more than $5,000 or jailed up to two years.

(b) to create a new subsection (8) to provide that in cases where the offender has been convicted and sentenced for the offence of causing death or serious injury and failing to render assistance, the court shall order the imprisonment terms for these offences to be served consecutively.

Enhanced penalties for inconsiderate and dangerous driving offences

We have also proposed to increase the penalties for reckless and dangerous driving and inconsiderate driving. The number of such incidents has been rising, from 1,431 cases in 1991 to 2,695 cases in 1995. If this trend continues, more people will needlessly be killed or injured on our roads.

Clause 6 of the Bill seeks to amend section 64(1) to enhance the penalty for reckless or dangerous driving from a maximum of $1,000 fine or six months' jail to a maximum of $3,000 fine or one year's jail in the case of first timers. For repeat offenders, it will be enhanced from a maximum of $2,000 fine or 12 months' jail to a maximum of $5,000 fine or two years' jail.

Clause 7 of the Bill seeks to amend section 65 to enhance the penalty for driving without due care or reasonable consideration. For first time offenders, the penalty will be increased from the present maximum of $500 fine or three months' jail, to a maximum of $1,000 fine or six months' jail. For repeat offenders, the penalty will be increased from the present maximum of $1,000 fine or six months' jail to a maximum of $2,000 fine or one year's jail.

Enhanced punishment for repeat offenders where serious injury or death is caused

The Bill also seeks to increase the penalties for repeat offenders of serious accidents involving death or serious injury. Currently, the Court can impose up to three times the maximum penalty for certain serious offences. These offences are:

(a) driving under disqualification or suspension;

(b) reckless or dangerous driving;

(c) causing death by dangerous driving; and

(d) drink driving. But he is liable for the enhanced penalty only if he had two previous convictions for the same type of offence. If death or serious injury was caused on the third occasion, the court can also impose caning of up to six strokes.

These offences are deliberate manifestations of irresponsible behaviour on our roads. They must be rigorously deterred. Clause 10 of the Bill seeks to amend section 67A. With the amendment, the enhanced penalties, including caning of up to six strokes, can be imposed as long as the offender has two previous convictions for any of the serious traffic offences and has also caused death or serious injury while committing another serious traffic offence.

In addition to this, we also proposed to include two more offences to this category of serious traffic offences:

(a) Refusal to provide blood or breath samples. As mentioned above, section 67A of the Act provides for enhanced penalties for repeat offenders of serious offences, including driving under the influence of alcohol. Currently, however, a motorist who is suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, cannot be given the enhanced penalties if he refuses to provide a blood sample.

In such an event, he can only be charged for refusing to give a blood sample and the penalty is only a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 or imprisonment of up to six months for a first offender and a fine of between $3,000 and $10,000 and an imprisonment of up to 12 months for repeat offenders. The new section 67A has therefore been amended to include the offence of refusal to provide blood sample under section 70(4) as one of the offences which will attract the enhanced penalty. A recalcitrant motorist will not escape the enhanced penalties simply by refusing to provide his blood or breath samples.

(b) Excessive speeding, ie, speeding in excess of 40 km per hour of the speed limit. Speeding, especially excessively, is a major cause of accidents. Speeding can result in minor, serious or fatal accidents. In 1992 and 1993, there were 93 and 96 cases of speed-related fatal accidents respectively. This works out to be about 41.3% and 39.8% of the total number of fatal accidents in both these years. Speed-related fatal accidents rose to 118 cases in 1994, accounting for about 48.6% of the total number of fatal accidents. In 1995, while the number of such accidents has decreased to 81, they still account for 37.9% of the total number of fatal accidents. The case of Private Choy again comes readily to mind. The car that hit him had earlier been seen speeding along the ECP, and an expressway patrol had clocked it moving at a speed of 191 km per hour. Before the patrol car could catch up with him, the car had turned towards Fort Road and killed Private Choy.

Excessive speeding is another manifestation of irresponsible behaviour on our roads and must be treated as a very serious offence. The inclusion of excessive speeding in this category of serious offences will impress this fact upon errant motorists. The new section 67A(1) thus includes speeding under section 63(4) as one of the offences which will attract the enhanced penalty and caning. But this is only if the offender had driven a vehicle 40 km per hour above the speed limit and an accident happened as a result, and death or serious injury caused.

Raising of composition fines

Under section 135 of the Road Traffic Act, Police may compound certain traffic offences by offering a composition fine of not more than $200. This ceiling for composition fine, set 11 years ago, is inadequate. Clause 15 of the Bill seeks to amend section 135(1) to raise the fine from $200 to $500. This amendment will give Police the flexibility to offer composition fines in cases where it may not be necessary to produce the offender in court.

Smoother traffic flow

Sir, I now come to the measures for smoother traffic flow. The traffic density on our roads is high. The Government has introduced many measures to keep congestion to a minimum. However, even with the best of efforts it will fail if motorists continue to park illegally. Illegal or indiscriminate parking causes inconvenience, obstruction, congestion and disrupts the free flow of traffic.

Despite intensive efforts by the Police at enforcement, illegal parking in certain areas continues to remain a serious problem During the first week of an illegal parking enforcement by Traffic Police last month, 139 motorists were summoned daily at the 12 areas where the problem was worst. Three weeks later, it was an average of 250 motorists summoned daily.

Clause 14 of the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact section 123 to allow the Minister, amongst other things, to make rules to provide for wheel clamps to be fixed on vehicles which have been parked illegally on the road. We hope that this measure will deter motorists from parking illegally, especially in the areas where the situation is extremely bad.

Streamline procedures for drink driving

Presently, under section 70 of the Act, a person is presumed incapable of having proper control of his vehicle if he has alcohol content in his blood in excess of 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. To ascertain this, police has to escort the motorist to the hospital for a blood test and the result will only be known after two weeks. The current procedure is therefore inefficient and manpower intensive. We thus propose using a device called Breath Evidential Analyser (BEA) to assess the alcohol level. This device measures the alcohol level in a motorist's breath and produces a printout of the result immediately. The printout can also be tendered in court as evidence. As the test can be performed by police officers at any police station, there is therefore no need to bring the motorist to the hospital for a blood test. The use of the Breath Evidential Analyser is expected to save police about 1,500 man hours per year. The breathalyser technique has been successfully used in UK, Sweden, Norway and the United States.

Clause 12 of the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact sections 69, 70, 71, 71A, 71B, 71C to deal with drink driving. Essentially, the new sections are a re-enactment of existing sections but with suitable modifications to give effect to the new regime of Breathalyser test and to provide for its results to be admissible in court.

Other Amendments

Apart from the measures I mentioned above, we are also introducing other amendments. These are meant to tighten the various provisions of the Road Traffic Act. These are:

(a) Presumption of incapability for drink-drivers

Currently, under existing section 70 of the Act, a person is presumed to be incapable of having proper control of his vehicle if the amount of alcohol found in his blood is above the prescribed legal limit. This has given rise to a situation where the defence tries to rebut this presumption by trying to prove in each case that the defendant did not lose control of the vehicle.

To prevent unnecessary debate, clause 9 of the Bill seeks to re-enact section 67(1)(b) to make the presence of alcohol exceeding the legal limit in a driver's blood or breath an offence in itself without linking it to the control of vehicle. The new section 67(1)(b) makes it clear that an offence is committed once the driver's alcohol content exceeds the prescribed limit. This provision is similar to the provisions in Malaysian and UK legislation.

(b) Driving under the influence of intoxicating substance

Presently, it is not an offence for a person to drive or to be in charge of a vehicle whilst under the influence of an intoxicating substance. This is an anomalous situation. To plug this loophole, the re-enactment of section 67(1)(a) has been expanded to make driving whilst under the influence of any intoxicating substance specified in the Intoxicating Substances Act, such as Toulene which is commonly known as glue, an offence. The same penalty for drunken driving will apply to this new offence. The presence of or an intoxicating substance in the body will be determined by a blood test in the same manner as it is currently done for alcohol or drug.

(c) Testing of alcohol content by medical practitioners

Presently, the Road Traffic Act requires consent of the motorist to be obtained before his blood can be taken to determine the alcohol content. However, in some circumstances, the consent cannot be given or sought, such as when the motorist is unconscious. In such cases, the alcohol content in the blood of the motorist cannot be ascertained and the motorist cannot be charged for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Under the new section 71B(1), the police will be given the power to direct the doctor to send a sample of the blood of the motorist taken by him while treating the injured motorist for a laboratory test to determine the proportion of alcohol or drug or intoxicating substances.

Sir, recently, there have been some letters in the press on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. Some writers said that the enhanced penalties are too harsh while others demanded even harsher penalties. One even suggested making hit-and-run drivers donate one of their kidneys as an act of penance. There is a need for balance and proportion. We cannot veer towards extremes of leniency or toughness. The proposed measures in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill are commensurate with the seriousness of the offences after taking into account the penalties for other crimes. Whatever one's views may be, the bottomline is this: the enhanced penalties are targeted only at a minority of reckless and dangerous drivers. The majority of responsible, law-abiding motorists have nothing to fear. In fact, the amendments are for their protection and for the safety of other road users. The interest that this Bill has generated among the public only confirms that the time is right to make these amendments. We are also of the view that these amendments addressed the concerns expressed.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill seeks to provide greater safety for road users by amending traffic laws such as empowering police officers to take stern action against traffic violators and enhance penalties for traffic offences. The main points of the amendment, as outlined by the Minister, are raising the minimum age for drivers of motorcars and motorcyclists, making it an offence for a driver who drives a heavy motor vehicle or a public service vehicle to collide with any building or structure, and enhancing penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol. I would like to focus my discussion on the raising of minimum age of car drivers and motorcyclists.

In recent years, despite the increase of motor vehicles on the road, the total number of casualties arising from motor accidents has steadily declined. In 1985, the total number of casualties, including motorcyclist casualties, was 9,506 and it declined to 6,727 in 1995. However, the number of motorcyclist and pillion casualties has remained high. Out of the total casualties of 9,506 in 1985, 3,899 were motorcyclist and pillion casualties. In 1995, out of 6,727 casualties, 3,538 were motorcyclist and pillion casualties, which account for 52.6%. In fact, for the last 10 years, the number of motorcyclist and pillion casualties had increased steadily and it has accounted for more than half of the number of total casualties since 1993. This shows that while the number of casualties caused by other motor vehicles has declined significantly, the number of motorcycle casualties remains high and is still increasing. This is a worrying problem which has to be tackled.

It is even more alarming if we look at the number of fatalities. Although the total number of casualties has declined, the number of fatalities remains more or less unchanged. From 1985 to 1995, there were more than 200 persons killed in traffic accidents every year. The number of motorcyclists and pillion riders killed in accidents accounts for more than 40% of the total number of people killed. In 1995, out of 225 persons killed in traffic accidents, 117 persons were motorcyclists and pillion riders, which was 52% of the total number of fatalities. In terms of the number of people killed in accidents, the traffic situation in Singapore during the last 10 years had not improved. If we look at it in another way, of course, we may say that we have been successful in preventing the number of fatalities from increasing, despite the increase in traffic volume during the last decade. Whatever is the case, the fact remains that we lost more than 200 lives on the road every year in the past 10 years and about half were motorcyclists and pillion riders. The trend is likely to continue, and it is a serious problem.

If we look at the age groups of fatalities, one realises that most people killed were under 30 years old. In 1990, 102 persons who were under 30 years old were killed and out of which 64 were motorcyclists and pillion riders, accounting for 62.7%. The same pattern continued in subsequent years, except 1995, in which out of 103 persons killed, 80 were motorcyclists and pillion riders. In particular, the fatality rate for the 15-19 age group was the highest. In 1990, within the age group of 15 to 19, 13 persons were killed in accidents and out of which 12 persons were motorcyclists and pillion riders. In 1995, 25 persons in the same age group were killed in accidents and 22 of them were motorcyclists and pillion riders. It is sad to see that so many young persons have lost their lives every year as a result of motorcycle mishaps.

A motor vehicle or a motorcycle can be a killer or a suicide machine. The person who drives a car or a motorcycle should be a mature and responsible person. Judging from the casualty and fatality statistics, it is obvious that young drivers have the highest probability to be involved in accidents and as a result, suffer from injuries and death. It is therefore sensible to raise the minimum age of car drivers and motorcyclists in order to reduce the number of accidents. For this reason, I support the Minister's move in raising the minimum age of motorcyclists from 16 years to 18 years and the minimum age of car drivers from 17 years to 18 years.

A motorcycle can be a convenient transport equipment as well as a suicide machine. It can also be a nuisance which creates disturbing sound and pollutes the air. The road can be a safer place without the zigzagging of motorcycles. We should therefore keep the use of motorcycles to the minimum which is necessary for supporting economic activities and traffic control. We should consider the possibility of confining its use to productive purpose and excluding it to be used for pleasure riding. No one, especially young persons, should be allowed to own and ride a motorcycle without proof that it is job-related and required in his work. If this is practical and feasible to implement, we can increase road safety, and reduce casualties and fatalities. We can expect to save many precious lives which are dear to their families and to the country.

Sir, I support the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill which is presently being debated.

The new measures to be introduced to ensure that road accidents can be further controlled are developments which should be welcomed by all road users. Mr Speaker, I commend the steps taken to increase the minimum age to obtain motorcycle licences and car licences, mindful that the majority of lives lost on our roads involve our citizens who are still very young. In this regard, I would like to ask the Ministry of Home Affairs why is the minimum age for obtaining a motorcycle licence increased by two years, and not one year, in line with the increase in minimum age for obtaining a car licence. I make this suggestion because I am aware that a number of our people, aged between 16 and 17 years, and who are from the lower income group, need a motorcycle licence to earn a livelihood in order to support their families and parents. I am referring to those who are compelled to work as a result of not being able to pursue their education further.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I would like to know whether the Traffic Police can consider reducing the minimum age for obtaining a motorcycle licence from 18 to 17 years for this group of people. In other words, I would suggest that the Traffic Police consider increasing the minimum age by stages, say, by one year initially, and thereafter monitor its developments before raising further the minimum age.

Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.

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

It gives me little comfort in reading the figures released by the Traffic Police Commissioner. The traffic accident rate dropped from 7,000 in 1994 to 6,900 last year and there were fewer fatal accidents, ie, 214 as compared to 243 in 1994. I consider there is no such thing as a low enough statistic for traffic accidents. As the Minister has just mentioned, one fatal accident is one too many.

Most traffic accidents are avoidable. It happens mainly as a result of careless, inconsiderate, or, worse, reckless driving. For those of us who drive every day, we have the tendency of being complacent and never really feel that we could be involved in any accident. It is borne out by the fact that, after every serious accident, invariably the driver is usually in shock and total disbelief. It is to the Traffic Police great credit in constantly policing our roads so as to ensure that motorists drive in a careful and orderly manner and that traffic laws and regulations are also being constantly updated to keep up with the increase in motorcar users on the road. However, we do need constant reminders that everyone behind the wheel is a potential candidate for road accidents and the enhanced punishment in the proposed Bill is but another such effective reminder of the serious consequence that can result from our driving behaviour.

I think most of us should have no qualms about the enhanced punishment proposed in the Bill. But some feel strongly that it may not be appropriate to introduce caning as punishment for traffic offences. It should be administered only in more serious criminal offences. My own knee-jerk reaction tends to agree with that view. However, after going through in detail clause 10 which stated that caning may only be imposed by the judge if the offender had, on two previous occasions, been convicted for causing serious or fatal injury to any person through reckless or drink driving, I am convinced that this amendment is not excessive as anyone who has been convicted twice for such serious offences and went on to commit a similar offence under the same circumstances a third time should have no excuse whatsoever and should be dealt with severely. This applies especially to those who have committed offences under drink driving.

Accidents, as a result of drink driving, can and should be avoided at all costs. Those who drink should never be allowed to drive as any intoxicated person behind the wheel is a potential killer. I am glad that there are constant reminders from the Traffic Police reminding us not to drink and drive. But despite that, accidents caused by drink driving increased from 76 cases in 1994 to 92 cases last year. This has to be checked.

Finally, I suggest that perhaps it is timely for the authority to make it compulsory when granting a liquor licence to any premises that they should provide some kind of breath evidential analyser so that the patron can make sure that their alcoholic level is acceptable before they drive off. Otherwise, they should find other means of transportation. This would help those who may not be aware that they have consumed alcohol that exceeded the acceptable level and also eliminate any excuses by anyone claiming that they have committed the offence without knowing that their drinking has exceeded the permissible limit.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member): Sir, could you please give me permission to seek a clarification from the Minister? If a person is convicted for speeding more than 40 km above the prescribed limit and is a third offence, would this person still be liable for caning if he has not been involved in an accident causing injury or fatality?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That person who speeds excessively, that is, more than 40 kmph, and is caught for committing a serious offence a third time, he will attract caning only if that accident causes death or serious injury.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Thank you, Sir. I would first like to make some general comments on the principal Act before turning to some specific amendments.

The Road Traffic Act has been amended umpteen times - to be specific 13 times since 1980 and this will be the 14th time in nearly so many years. The Act is unwieldy to read and is difficult to comprehend and co-relate. For example, the areas relating to disqualification are all over the place. Statutes should be written not just for lawyers and judges but for ordinary people as well, especially when it relates to road safety. If statutes cannot be read easily and understood by the general public, then the deterrent effect of many of the punishments is lost and we will continue to make more and more amendments to increase penalties without seeing positive results. It can give us legislators little joy to make such amendments when the message is not clear to the road users.

I would therefore urge the Minister to have the principal Act tidied up and have parts of it tabulated, if necessary, so that the whole Act becomes clear, coherent and readable.

Now, I would like to turn to some specific amendments.

Raising the minimum age for driving a car

A Traffic Police study, as reported in the media, found that the accident rate dipped as the age of motorists increased. The maturity of a motorist seems an important factor in road safety as young motorists are more accident prone than older ones. If we believe this, then just increasing the age for motorists by one year from 17 to 18 years appears to be a feeble amendment. We should not be diffident on this matter but instead consider an amendment that would more certainly make a difference. We should raise the minimum age for motorists to 20 or 21 years. This will not only contribute to road safety but also reduce the number of drivers on the road and translate into reduced road usage.

Sir, we are increasing prison sentences for first-time offenders by doubling the prison sentences. I am not referring to fines but prison sentences.

If you look at clause 7, we are increasing the prison term for a first-time offender for inconsiderate driving from three months to six months. For a first-time offender convicted of reckless or dangerous driving, the prison term is being increased from six months to 12 months.

Sir, what evidence has been presented to this House to justify the doubling of prison sentences for first-time offenders? We have heard that serious accidents are occurring. But how many of these are by first-time offenders? What statistics do we have to show how judges are meting out these sentences? How much of the maximum prison sentence is being meted out to first-time offenders by judges? Are we convinced that doubling prison sentences for first-time offenders is a good deterrent? Personally, Sir, I feel that if the threat of six months' imprisonment is not enough of a deterrent for a first-time offender, then how can we imagine that the threat of 12 months' imprisonment will be a better deterrent? Furthermore, the longer a first-time traffic offender spends in prison, the longer is his family being penalized, especially if he is the financial breadwinner. The taxpayers not only have to support the offender in prison, but at the same time the social consequences of a family without a major breadwinner for a prolonged period of time will also be borne by society. Therefore, Sir, we have to give serious consideration to all these matters before we double prison sentences for first-time offenders. And, here, I repeat again that I am not referring to repeat offenders who, I think, deserve what they are getting.

Sir, I think it is time for us to look at this whole issue of crime and punishment in road traffic offences in a holistic manner.