ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank Members for speaking in support of this Bill. Some questions have been raised about sentences and some Members have raised the question of raising the age limit for motorcyclists and motor vehicle drivers beyond 18 years to 20 or 21 years. One Member has even suggested not to increase the age qualification for riding a motorcycle to 18 years but only to 17 years. There was a suggestion about making it a condition for the issue of liquor licence to whoever who wants to run clubs and pubs, to install a breath analyser equipment, and so on.

Sir, I thank Members for all their suggestions. I think we want to take an incremental approach by looking at our traffic situation. We have amended this Act, as Dr Soin rightly pointed out, 13 times in the last 16 years because we have to react and respond to changing circumstances. The situation has changed because more people can afford cars and motorcycles, and people need vehicles to go to work. Therefore, more vehicles are seen on our roads and accidents do happen. Despite the strict enforcement action and education campaigns, we still have serious accidents happening in Singapore. We still have people violating traffic laws. So we have to change these laws from time to time to deal with specific situations.

Looking at the age limit, for instance, I think by raising it from 16 years to 18 years for motorcyclists is one step that we should take right now. To go beyond that, we will have to see whether the situation will improve. If it does not, then we will definitely look at it again and see whether we should increase it to 20 years, or even 21 years. But we have to consider that any change in the age limit, whether it is for motorcyclists or motor vehicle drivers, will have an impact on other parts of our society and the economy. I think we have to bear that in mind.

For instance, if we were to raise the driving age limit for motor vehicle drivers to 20 years, what will happen to the National Servicemen who were called up and have to become drivers in the SAF? Do we give them an exemption? Or what happens to those who leave school at the age of 18 years and are not required to do National Service, like females, and they need to work, and they become drivers? Do we say that they cannot become drivers? Of course, we can look at all these special circumstances and give exemptions. But I think I want to move step by step as far as age limit is concerned.

On Dr Ker's suggestion to limit motorcyclists on the road only if they use it for work, it is possible, but I think there will be a lot of practical implementation problems. We will then need to set up a section in the Traffic Police Department to decide who needs a licence for work, who does not need it for work and who needs it for riding for pleasure. Actually, there is no harm in riding for pleasure, provided, of course, that the person who goes on the road, whether in a car or on a motorcycle, does so responsibly and follow all our traffic rules. If he does all that and no accident is caused, then we should not stop him from riding on our roads.

On Mr Zulkifli's suggestion to increase the qualification age for motorcyclists to 17 years, I think statistics have shown that it is not wise to do so. In fact, we know people in the age group of 16 and 17 do have a higher preponderance to accidents. The older a person gets and becomes more mature, the probability of an accident happening will be less. So I am not keen to just raise it only to 17 years. I would rather raise it to 18 years.

On Mr Kenneth Chen's suggestion to require pubs, hotels and whoever that has got a liquor licence to instal a breath analyser equipment, I think this suggestion can be considered, but it will be difficult to make it a requirement, although we can. Because I want to guard against a situation where customers going to such a place with a breath analyser equipment, take a test and say, "Oh, it is OK", but that machine may not be functioning. If it is not functioning or poorly maintained and eventually he is caught outside the pub for drink-driving, then what happens? I think a lot of difficulties will arise as a result of that. While we want to encourage pub owners to do that, I think they should do so only if they properly maintain the equipment. This can help the customers but it is not the final test. The final test is when the Police brings the person to the doctor or his test result on the new BEA shows that it is positive or over 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, that is the final test.

On Dr Soin's question about increasing the sentence, we have increased the fine. But in today's circumstances, paying a fine is not a problem to many people. What is $1,000? What is $5,000? Many people can afford it, especially when they need the licence for making a living. But going to jail is quite a different matter. So if three months is too little, which we have seen to be too little, we increase it to six months. Although the law provides for six months, we know that the courts seldom impose the maximum penalty, unless there are very strong reasons to do so. We should leave the court with a wider discretion to decide whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment of up to six months. That is the reason why we are increasing the jail term because we see the need for it. It has a stronger deterrent effect. No doubt the family may suffer as a result of the person going to prison. But that person, before he commits a traffic offence, should seriously think about his family before driving or riding recklessly.

The point made by Dr Soin about the Road Traffic Act being a bit difficult to read or understood by the layman is well taken. I will ask my officers to take this up with the Attorney-General's Chambers. And the next time we have a law revision of all the other laws, we can then take a look at it.

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 and passed.