ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 6.37 pm

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."

Since the Road Traffic Act (RTA) was last amended in 1996, the number of fatal and injury traffic accidents has remained fairly constant. There were 5,700 such accidents in 1996, 5,600 in 1997, and 5,200 for the period January to November 1998. Our roads are generally safe.

This is due to the success of the two-pronged strategy of public education and strict enforcement adopted by the Traffic Police (TP). For many years now, TP has been organising annual campaigns to educate motorists on road safety. In May 1997, TP organised the Speed Management Campaign for the first time because speeding has become the single most prevalent cause of road fatalities in Singapore. It also organises annual Anti-Drink Drive Campaign to coincide with the year-end festive season.

Although most motorists have responded positively to TP's public education campaigns, a minority has continued to display irresponsible and dangerous driving habits. The proposed amendments in this Bill are targeted primarily at four groups of such motorists, namely, foreign motorists who flout our road traffic laws, motorists who cause death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless driving, handphone driving offenders and road bullies.

Extension of the Driver Improvement Points System to holders of foreign driving licence

Firstly, the Driver Improvement Points System (DIPS) will be extended to include holders of foreign driving licences. Currently, the TP administers the DIPS, which awards demerit points for the more serious traffic offences such as speeding, dangerous or reckless driving, beating red lights and failure to give way. Singapore driving licence holders can have their driving licences suspended once they have accumulated 24 demerit points or more over a two-year period under the DIPS. In addition, Singapore driving licence holders who commit serious traffic offences can have their driving licence suspended by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) pending trial, or disqualified from driving by the Courts after conviction for the offence.

As Singapore is not the issuing authority for foreign driving licences, our laws do not currently empower DCP to suspend these licences nor the Courts to disqualify holders of foreign driving licences from driving on our roads. It is timely to rectify this anomaly because a significant number of foreign motorists have been involved in fatal and injury accidents on Singapore roads in recent years. Of the 271 motorists who were involved in fatal accidents in January-November last year, 67, or 25%, of them were foreigners. In fact, since 1994, roughly one in five motorists who were killed on our roads were foreigners.

Clause 8 will introduce a new section 47F to empower the Court and DCP to prohibit holders of foreign driving licences from driving on our roads if they accumulate a certain number of demerit points under DIPS to attract suspension by DCP, or if they are convicted or have committed offences in the Road Traffic Act that attract suspension or disqualification. The penalties that currently apply to a motorist convicted of driving while under suspension or disqualification shall similarly apply to holders of foreign driving licences who breach the prohibition order. For example, the penalty for a first-time offender who is convicted of driving while under suspension is a fine of $5,000 or a jail term of one year, or both. Hence, a holder of a foreign driving licence who is convicted for the first time for driving on Singapore roads despite being prohibited from doing so would face a similar penalty.

Motorists who cause death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless driving, etc.

Secondly, motorists who cause death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless driving, etc, will have their licence suspended once they have been charged in Court. Currently, under section 47C of the Road Traffic Act, DCP can suspend the driving licence of a motorist once the motorist has been charged in Court for the offences of causing death or serious injury while driving under the influence of alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit, a drug or an intoxicating substance, or without insurance coverage. The suspension prevents the motorist from driving and endangering the lives of other motorists and road-users, pending trial.

However, DCP is not empowered to do so for all other offences, no matter how serious they may be. What this means is that until the Courts decide on the case, which may be up to a few months, the motorist can still drive if he wants to although he is a proven risk to other road users. This situation is clearly unsatisfactory.

Members of the House may still recall the tragic accident that occurred at Bendemeer Road in May last year, which the Court dealt with recently. In that accident, a sports car ploughed into a crowded bus stop at Bendemeer Road, killing three women and injuring six others, some permanently disabled. The Court has sentenced the accused to two years' jail and disqualified him from driving all classes of vehicles for life. But it took six months for the case to be concluded.

Clause 7 of the Bill seeks to amend section 47C to empower the Deputy Commissioner of Police to suspend the driving licence of a motorist once he has been charged in Court for any of the following offences:

(a) Causing death to any person by dangerous or reckless driving under section 66 of the Road Traffic Act;

(b) Causing death to any person while committing a rash or negligent act under section 304A of the Penal Code;

(c) Causing serious injury to any person by dangerous or reckless driving under section 64 of the Road Traffic Act; and

(d) Causing serious injury to any person while committing a rash or negligent act which endangers life under section 279 of the Penal Code.

The proposal will give the Traffic Police more flexibility in dealing with motorists who threaten the safety and security of other road users. However, I would like to assure Members that the Traffic Police will exercise these powers judiciously and only in clear-cut cases, like the Bendemeer Road case.

Handphone driving offenders

Thirdly, making handphone driving a specific offence. Handphone driving offenders are currently charged for inconsiderate driving under section 65 of the Road Traffic Act. First-time offenders are usually offered composition, which attracts a fine of $170 and 9 demerit points. Subsequent offenders are charged in Court and, if convicted, the Court can order the forfeiture of their handphones.

Handphone drivers are a menace to other road-users as they are less likely to be able to control their vehicles properly. With handphones becoming very affordable today, the problem of handphone driving is likely to worsen unless we nip the problem in the bud. The problem is clearly manifested in the number of summonses issued by the Traffic Police for handphone driving, which has surged from 400 in 1993 to 2,100 in 1997. In January-November last year, 1,700 summonses were issued to motorists for handphone driving. Just imagine the number of handphone drivers who have not been caught.

To signal the seriousness of the offence, clause 12 of the Bill introduces a new section 65B to make the act of using a mobile phone while driving a specific offence in the Road Traffic Act. The Bill defines "use" of handphone to mean holding it in one hand while using it to communicate with any person. The amendment will also give the Traffic Police greater flexibility to vary the penalties for the offence of handphone driving to ensure that they are adequately deterrent. The penalty for a first offender upon conviction in Court is a fine of up to $1,000 or a jail term of up to six months, or both. For a repeat offender, the penalty is a fine of up to $2,000 or a jail term of up to one year, or both. These penalties are similar to existing penalties for inconsiderate driving.

Road bullies

Fourthly, road bullies. Empowering the Court to disqualify drivers who are road bullies. Road bullies were a major cause of public concern in the late-eighties and early-nineties. In 1991, for example, 35 motorists were charged in Court for causing hurt to fellow motorists. Fortunately, a combination of tough Police enforcement and deterrent sentences handed down by the Courts, including jail terms, have helped to keep the problem in check. But the problem still rears its ugly head from time to time. In June last year, for example, a trailer driver was attacked with a screwdriver by a road bully and warded in the hospital for two days for injuries to his head, back and neck because of a dispute over the right of way along the East Coast Parkway. The road bully was convicted and sentenced to eight months' jail by the Court.

The Courts are currently empowered to disqualify driving licences of motorists for driving-related offences, eg, dangerous driving, but not for their conduct, eg, assaulting another driver or his passenger. We are proposing to empower the Courts to disqualify drivers who are road bullies from holding driving licences if they are convicted of various Penal Code offences, including voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing grievous hurt to other drivers or their passengers, arising from disputes over the use of a road or public place, such as road accidents. Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to amend section 42 to give effect to this. The period of the disqualification will be left to the Court to decide.

Proposals to reduce the number of motorists with outstanding warrants of arrest

Let me now touch on the amendments relating to the proposed measure against motorists with outstanding warrants of arrest. There were 54,000 outstanding warrants of arrest relating to traffic and parking offences as at 30th November last year. 300 motorists had 10 or more outstanding warrants of arrest.

Warrants of arrest are issued against persons who fail to turn up in Court when ordered to do so by the Courts. We should take a serious view of such people because they basically have no regard for our Courts. On its part, the Police mounts regular operations to arrest motorists with outstanding warrants of arrest, including paying house visits to their homes. But it is not always able to arrest them because the motorists concerned may have either shifted homes or do not reside at the addresses provided in the official records.

Currently, a motorist with an outstanding warrant of arrest relating to an offence under the Road Traffic Act or Parking Places Act is allowed to renew his driving licence as soon as he has executed his warrant of arrest. Execution here means surrendering himself to a Police station or the Warrant Enforcement Unit, and he is formally arrested. But during the period when the motorist is released on bail pending the Court hearing, some jump bail and do not attend the scheduled Court hearing, thus necessitating the issue of a fresh warrant of arrest. This is a blatant abuse of the Court process.

To curb such abuse, a motorist with outstanding warrants of arrest will not be allowed to renew his driving licence until the Court has conclusively dealt with the case. Firstly, clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend section 35(8) to empower the Deputy Commissioner of Police to refuse to renew the driving licence of the motorist until after the offence has been tried and determined by the Court. Secondly, clause 6 seeks to introduce a new section 42A in the Road Traffic Act to give the Court the discretion to disqualify a motorist possessing a valid driving licence from driving if he has failed to attend Court after being arrested under a warrant and released on bail. In the case of a foreign driving licence holder, the Court will, in lieu of disqualification, issue a prohibition order under the new section 47F to prohibit him from driving on our roads pending the determination of his case. The period of disqualification or prohibition will be left to the Court's discretion.

Other amendments

Sir, now I come to other amendments. The Bill also proposes a number of other minor amendments. For example, to address the Singapore Civil Defence Force's operational need for more drivers, especially heavy-vehicle drivers, clause 9 seeks to amend section 49 of the Road Traffic Act to include SCDF, in addition to the SAF, as a competent driving authority for certifying and issuing restricted driving licences to its personnel to drive vehicles owned by SCDF. Clause 10 of the Bill seeks to amend section 62 so that the minimum qualifying age for driving licence holders of invalid carriages is raised to 18 years old, similar to that of the existing minimum qualifying age for a motorcycle licence and a motorcar licence. To clarify the legal position for foreign motorists and visiting forces, clause 4 of the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact section 38 to consolidate the laws relating to foreign driving licences and driving licences of members of the visiting forces.

Conclusion

Sir, this Bill will send a strong signal to all motorists that we do not condone bad driving habits and take a stern view towards irresponsible behaviour that puts the safety of other motorists and road-users at risk. The Traffic Police will continue with its public education programmes and messages to drive home the importance of road safety and safe driving.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

These amendments cover two specific types of behaviour on the roads - not just anti-social behaviour, but behaviour that may endanger both life and limb, namely, "road bullies" and drivers who use mobile phones without proper hands-free kits. The legislation in this regard is to be particularly welcome. Road users must be protected from the irresponsible, the inconsiderate and the insensitive. There are several points that I would like to raise, not in objection to the legislation, but to clarify the provisions and intention of the legislation.

First, road bullies - clause 5. This new provision is complicated. It refers to several provisions in the Penal Code regarding the causing of death, grievous hurt or hurt. It then provides that if a driver or a person in charge of a vehicle were to commit any of the offences referred to, in relation to a dispute on the road, he may be disqualified from holding a licence, if the judge is of the view that "it is undesirable for the offender" to drive a vehicle.

First, the reference to only certain Penal Code offences. It is quite likely that in a dispute between road users, the hurt caused by one may be the result of provocation by another. The Penal Code provides for voluntary causing hurt and grievous hurt due to provocation in sections 334 and 335 respectively. These provisions which allow for lighter punishments where provocation exists are not mentioned in the new section 42(1A).

I should like to ask the Minister whether these provisions are deliberately excluded from the amendments - so that those convicted under these sections will not be subject to disqualification of licence.

I would support such exclusion. What I would not like to see, however, is a situation where the prosecutors charge the drivers under the sections mentioned in the amendment, but not sections 334 and 335, even though the facts suggest the presence of provocation. This may result in the offender getting a heavier sentence and disqualification even though there was provocation.

Second, I turn to the types of punishment. The technique adopted to control traffic offenders are fines, terms of imprisonment and/or disqualification. That there must be such types of punishment, there can be no doubt. But I would like to say that we should look into alternative means of rehabilitating the offenders. This may include the requirement to undergo social counselling, a course on road manners, or a stint in community service. The intention is to make drivers more socially conscious. I believe that many Members have come across in their Meet-the-People sessions, drivers who have been, or are facing, disqualification. More often than not, these drivers are the sole breadwinners in fairly large families. Disqualification, even for a short period, directly affects the welfare of the family in general. Disqualification should therefore be used after all other means of educating the errant driver have failed.

Dangerous driving: I turn next to clause 11 purporting to amend section 64 of the Act to allow for the arrest without warrant of drivers charged for "reckless or dangerous driving". My first question is: why is there a need for such a power? Have there been occasions where the offender on the road has to be immediately apprehended? How will officers be advised to be cautious about the use of this power to arrest without a warrant? Perhaps, the Minister can let us know how these matters will be dealt with by the Police.

In this context, I believe it is unfortunate that the opportunity has not been taken to review the offence of "reckless or dangerous driving". The language defining the offence is couched widely and very much dependent on the officer's perception of what constitutes driving that is "dangerous to the public". This is always an unsatisfactory situation, because views may differ from officer to officer, and drivers may feel genuine grievance in being charged with such an offence. Indeed, if the Bill is passed today, the driver can be arrested on the spot without a warrant. I would like to appeal to the Minister to consider redefining this offence at the next available opportunity.

Mobile phones: Clause 12 enacts a new section 65B that makes it a specific offence to use a mobile phone while driving. This is especially welcome. Cases have been reported where the use of handphones had distracted drivers, resulting in accidents, sometimes serious; sometimes fatal. However, I have a few queries relating to the new provision that I hope the Minister will address.

First, car phones. Before the advent of the handphone or mobile phone, some cars may have car phones installed. These phones are similar to desktop phones, that is, the driver may still need to hold the handset to speak. He then is still "using" the phone, as defined in the amendments. Are these types of car phones still in use, and, if so, are they exempt from the legislation? The new definition of "mobile telephone" is certainly wide enough to cover this - is this intended?

Second, the offence, as defined, is a "moving offence", that is, no offence would be committed if the driver were to use his mobile phone at any time while the car is stationary, such as waiting at the junction for the lights to change. Can the Minister confirm that that is also the intention of the legislation?

Third, are persons convicted of using mobile phones under this provision subject to disqualification of licence? It would be good if such an option were present to deter offenders repeating the offence.

Finally, given the potential dangers of using handphones and being distracted by them in high-density populated areas or fast expressways, and given the ubiquitous nature of the handphone these days, is it not time to require car sellers to ensure that any car they supply should be provided with a mobile phone car kit?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments to the Road Traffic Act are important measures to improve the safety of our roads. I support the Bill.

Dr Lily Neo (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the amendments to the Road Traffic Act. I would like, however, to express my views over some of the proposed amendments and to indicate my concerns over certain areas of the new proposals.

Amendment to section 35(8)

I am of the view that this amendment is good. The amendment appears to provide that the Deputy Commissioner may refuse to renew the driving licence of a holder if the holder has been arrested under a warrant but before trial. Unlike the existing section 35(8), the police need not execute the warrant. The amended section 35(8) requires the warrant to be executed.

Amendment to section 38. The old section 38 is limited to Malaysian driving licences. The amendment seems to widen its scope of application to any foreign driving licence or permit.

The new section 38(1) provides that a foreigner who holds a valid foreign licence is permitted to drive in Singapore during a period of 12 months from the date of his last entry. Sir, isn't his entry into Singapore for any period sufficient to permit him to drive in Singapore? What happens if the foreigner's foreign driving licence has a validity period of less than 12 months? Why must the section specify that the foreigner be temporarily in Singapore? How do you define "temporarily"? What happens if the stay of the foreigner is for a period, such as 10 years?

The new section 38(2) uses the words "driving permit" instead of "driving licence" as in section 38(1). It appears that no valid foreign driving licence is required as long as there is a permit. Amendment to section 42

I note that the conviction under the aforesaid sections in the Penal Code is not sufficient. One needs to prove that the commission of these offences has got to do with the use of the road or public place and the behaviour of the offender. I am of the view that this is a bit harsh, as this appears to have punished the offender "twice", that is to say, the punishment under the Penal Code as well as disqualification. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is against natural justice. Why should the offender be deprived of holding a driving licence? By analogy, is it reasonable to prohibit any parent who commits an offence of persecution of children from having children?

Insertion of new section 42A

I note that the existing section 42 empowers the court (and not the Public Prosecutor) to give an order of disqualification upon conviction of the offender. The new section 42A proposes to give power to the Public Prosecutor to apply to the court for such an order for disqualification when (a) the offender is accused (not convicted) of an offence and fails to appear before the court to answer the charge; (b) the court has issued a warrant of arrest; and (c) the offender has been arrested and released on bail. A further requirement is that the officer must inform the offender that such application would be made against him if he stubbornly fails to appear before the court to answer the charge on the next date fixed.

I am of the view that this new section 42A is also harsh especially in a case when the offence committed is a minor offence. When an offender is accused of any offence, it does not follow that he will certainly be convicted. As long as the offender is not convicted, he is presumed to be innocent. Sir, section 42A gives me the impression that the prosecution is attempting to make use of such discretionary power (if this section is passed and becomes law) to apply for disqualification to frighten, if not threaten, all offenders for the purpose of ensuring their appearance before the court. The present practice is such that if the offender fails to appear before the court, a warrant of arrest will be issued. If he is arrested, he will be released on bail. If he fails to appear again (ie, if he jumps bail), the bailer will have to show cause. If he does appear, he will be fined for his early failure to appear. I must agree that such practice is not satisfactory to ensure appearance by the offender but it is more appropriate and fair to the offender before his conviction.

Amendment to section 47C

I agree with this amendment as the offence is of a serious nature and would endanger other road users.

New section 65B

I note that the punishment provided in this new section 65B is identical to section 65 (driving without due care or reasonable consideration). It is therefore crystal clear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this new section 65B is inserted for the purpose of covering the use of mobile telephone. I believe the Minister for Law had previously indicated that there was no necessity to have a specific provision to cover use of mobile telephone, as section 65 is sufficient to cover such a situation. The proposed insertion would now therefore contradict what the Minister had argued before.

Sir, I am of the view that section 65B is not necessary and I agree that section 65 does cover wider situations than just use of mobile phone. My experience as a driver is that it is very dangerous, while driving, to look at the pager when it sounds, to use a walkie-talkie, to meddle with the audio system or to watch television (which some motor car owners have installed). Section 65 covers all such situations. However, the new section 65B is of limited application and the insertion of which is to lengthen the Act unnecessarily.

If this new section 65B is to be inserted, then one must ask whether this section covers the use of walkie-talkies. If the answer is in the negative (which seems to be unclear as the definition of mobile telephone includes any hand held equipment that is designed and capable for tele-communication) or it is covered by section 65, then why should one insert section 65B?

Sir, the definition of "use" is also ambiguous. When one uses the mobile phone while driving, whether one is holding the phone with one hand (sounds like holding with one hand is an offence while holding with two hands is not!) or using a hands-free car kit, it is equally dangerous as one's mind would be pre-occupied in conversation. Furthermore, a driver may sometimes hold and dial the mobile phone before it is connected and in such a case, would he be caught for using the mobile phone?

In conclusion, this new section 65B is not necessary and the definitions are ambiguous and not satisfactorily drafted.

Mr Ong Kian Min (Pasir Ris): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill and appreciate the opportunity to express my comments and thoughts on three issues which I feel we should take the opportunity which this Bill presents to address.

Sir, in considering the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act, I think we should bear in mind the most important objective of such regulations, which is the deterrent effect they have to prevent the offences they create. Not only must the laws be clear as to what is prohibited on our roads, the penalties which they impose must reflect the seriousness of the particular offences in question and be sufficiently severe to deter people from committing the offences in the first place. After all, what is at stake here are the lives of all the people who use our roads daily, whether as motorists, pedestrians or passengers.

My first point relates to clause 7 of the Bill where it is proposed that section 47C of the principal Act be amended to add to the circumstances under which the Deputy Commissioner of Police may immediately suspend the driving licence of a person who has caused death or serious injury to another person while driving. I would like to ask the Minister whether other offences which provide mandatory disqualification upon conviction by the court should also be covered. Such offences include reckless or dangerous driving and illegal racing under sections 64 and 116, respectively of the Road Traffic Act, theft of a motor vehicle or component parts under section 379A of the Penal Code, and driving and being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of drink or drug under sections 67 and 68 respectively of the Road Traffic Act.

Sir, please allow me to elaborate on the drink-related offences I last mentioned. The problem of drink driving is of concern in Singapore because of the growing number of such cases, especially during the festive periods, which led the authorities to launch the Anti-Drink Drive campaign in December last year. The Straits Times on 12th December 1998 reported that in the first 10 months of last year, 493 motorists were convicted of drink driving and all of them were disqualified from driving by the court. It was also reported that on 17th December 1998, 23 persons were charged and convicted in court for drink driving offences and all were given sentences which included jail terms and driving bans.

Sir, over the years, the law relating to drink driving has been progressively enhanced and penalties for drink related offences made heavier and heavier by previous amendments to the Road Traffic Act. I agree with this approach. The public has been continually warned of the effects and consequences of drink driving. But the increased incidence of drink driving indicates that the problem is rooted more in the irresponsible attitudes of people rather than in ignorance. Since drunkenness is self-induced, drink driving is therefore totally preventable. Our laws should therefore have a strong deterrent effect on would-be offenders who risk their own lives and the lives of others by drinking and driving.

Sir, as it now stands, the Road Traffic Act provides that any person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, has so much alcohol in his body that the proportion of it exceeds 35 microgrammes in 100 mls of breath or 80 minigrammes in 100 mls of blood is guilty of an offence regardless of whether he is in fact fit to drive or capable of having proper control of his vehicle. On conviction, unless the court, for special reasons, thinks fit to order otherwise, the offender shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of not less than 12 months. What this means to the layman is that once he is caught with alcohol in his body exceeding the prescribed limit, it is almost without doubt and without exception that he will be disqualified by the court. However, only when death or serious injury results may his driving licence be immediately suspended from the time he is charged with the offence until the offence is tried and determined in court. When no death or injury is caused, there is no provision for immediate suspension of the accused's driving licence.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether he would consider imposing immediate suspension in drink driving cases by including this as an additional category of offences in the proposed section 47C(1A) of the Road Traffic Act. To me, if drink driving is so serious and so undesirable, the ingredients and test for the offence strictly and objectively applied and the sentence of mandatory disqualification is certain, then why wait until the offender is charged in court and convicted before taking him off the roads? This would help to drive home the seriousness of this offence, making it clear to every driver that every time he drives while under the influence of alcohol, he is endangering his own life and the lives of others and it should not make a difference whether any injury or death has been caused by his irresponsible behaviour.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

7.12 pm

Mr Ong Kian Min (Pasir Ris): The second issue I would like to raise relates to the proposed section 65B as set out in clause 12 of the Bill. This new section deals with the use of mobile telephones and other telecommunications equipment by motorists while on the road. In recent years, the mobile telephone has become quite ubiquitous in Singapore. For many people on the move, it has become an indispensable tool in their busy schedules. As the use of mobile telephones becomes more and more common and widespread, I support the urgent need to have express laws on their use while driving on the road. It is also important that the laws are clear and leave no room for doubt or argument as to what manner of use is prohibited as many people will be affected by these laws.

Looking at the proposed section 65B, I am afraid it is less than clear as to the meaning of the word "use" in its context. The word "use" has been defined to mean "holding a mobile telephone in one hand while using it to communicate with any person". This definition appears to be too restrictive as the ordinary meaning of the word "communicate" in English is to speak to another person. Does this cover situations where the motorist is in the process of punching in the numbers on the keypad, or when he is holding the phone to his ear while waiting for his call to be answered by the other side, or when he is doing some mobile banking, or accessing his SingTel voicemail? But clearly, all these situations are just as dangerous as the driver has to steer with one hand, hold his telephone in the other and take his eyes and concentration away from the road in doing so.

The point I would like to make is that offenders may have all sorts of excuses to show that they were not communicating with anyone at that point in time when they were stopped by the policeman. Further, it may be difficult for the prosecutor to prove that the mobile telephone was actually in use at the material time. Can the records of the mobile telephone operator be produced in court as evidence? But what if the operator's records show that the phone was not in use at the alleged time of the offence as recorded by the traffic policeman's watch? Perhaps, this section should be worded to allow our policemen some judgment in apprehending motorists who appear to be or are in the process of using the mobile phone while the vehicle is in motion.

Sir, lastly I would like to express my sadness when what should have been ordinary road courtesy and manners find its way into our legislation. I refer to road rage or road bully and clause 5 of this Bill which seeks to enhance the penalty and empower the Court to disqualify a person if he has been convicted of any specified offence which arises from or which is connected with a dispute between him and another person over the use of the road or public place. So, a dispute over a parking lot could result in the aggressor being banned from driving. I feel one thing that has to be emphasised most strongly, even as Singapore aspires towards having a world-class transportation system, is the importance of inculcating good road habits in all road users here. Besides having the appropriate laws to regulate the use of our roads, we should also stress the importance of being courteous and considerate to our fellow road users. There is no point having the most efficient and impressive transportation system if it is not also safe and pleasant to use.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I too rise to support the Bill.

As Mr Ong Kian Min said earlier, the primary purpose of any legislation is to serve as a deterrent to prevent the offences from being repeated. The Minister had said earlier that the passage of this Bill will send a clear and loud message to all those would be offenders of our roads. And I believe in many aspects, he is right, except in one particular area where I thought he would have taken this opportunity to enhance the penalty for such offences, and that is in the area of causing death through reckless and dangerous driving. He also highlighted the case where a motorist ploughed through a bus-stop, killing three persons and seriously injuring others and the penalty for that particular offence was two years' imprisonment and suspension of driving licence for life. I have given it some thought and I have also discussed it with my grassroots leaders and the consensus is that the penalty in this particular case is not severe enough. This case is over, and I think it is all right for me to bring it up in Parliament.

In Singapore, where other minor offences attract heavier penalty, I believe that the current penalty in this particular category is insufficient. For instance, if the penalty for outraging of modesty or rape would attract long imprisonment and severe punishment through caning, I wonder why a case of causing death through dangerous driving attracts only two years' imprisonment and suspension of driving licence for life. I believe that we should enhance the penalty in these areas and probably I would even advocate the introduction of caning for such offences. This might not be the right occasion for the Minister to address these problems but I hope he will give his due consideration and bring up such issues in future amendments to the Act.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. Let me try to deal with the points raised by each of the Members.

Prof Chin asked why did we deliberately exclude sections 334 and 335 of the Penal Code from the amendments. Yes, we have indeed deliberately excluded sections 334 and 335 of the Penal Code as these relate to offences committed on provocation. In the situation where a motorist reacts to provocation, depending on the circumstances of the case, he may not necessarily be a road bully. Nevertheless, he would be punished under the Penal Code for his actions. As the amendment is meant to deal with road bullies, the Bill therefore has made a distinction between the cases which involve provocation.

On the question of other kinds of help and rehabilitation of offenders and suggestions of social counselling and so on, I think all Members agree that motorists who flout our traffic laws should be penalised so that they realise the seriousness of the offences which they commit. However, for some of the less serious traffic offences, I agree that there may be scope to consider other forms of censure or punishment which could complement the existing forms of penalties.

Currently, we know that offenders who are liable for suspension for their first or second time are already being given the chance to attend the one-day retraining course. This course consists of defensive driving skills, inculcation of good driving habits and so on. A remission of the suspension period will be granted if the motorist passes the course. I will study whether it is appropriate to adopt other measures suggested by Prof Chin, for example, community service or compulsory counselling for certain groups of traffic offenders.

On dangerous driving and why we arrest people without a warrant, dangerous and reckless driving is a serious offence. It carries 24 demerit points on conviction. It is therefore imperative that the Police has the powers to immediately detain the offender, investigate the case and then produce the offender in Court as soon as possible. But if we were to take the normal course of events like now, it will take up to a few weeks to have the offender produced in Court by way of Notice to Attend Court. So this proposed amendment is meant to empower the Traffic Police to deal with such drivers in a decisive and expeditious manner so that they cannot further endanger the lives of other road users. The Police will use these powers judiciously. They have administered section 64 of the Road Traffic Act for many years and they know from experience the circumstances under which an offence is classified as dangerous driving or reckless driving, rash driving or negligent driving. They will use their years of experience to classify these cases and deal with the case accordingly before the person is arrested for dangerous driving.

On the question of car phones and whether car phones which were already installed in the cars in the past are still in use, yes, they are still in use. Drivers who use the car phones without the hands-free kits while driving would be committing an offence. The proposed amendment is meant to cover all kinds of hand-held communication equipment. So walkie-talkie would also be counted as a communication device. The driver is said to have committed an offence if he holds it in one hand and uses it to communicate with another person. If people would do what Dr Lily Neo thinks that holding it with two hands, and they are not committing an offence, I would suggest that they try it and they will see whether they will be committing an offence or not. They will be committing an offence, maybe not for handphone driving but for dangerous driving which will carry a much more serious punishment. So do not try it.

I come to the question of whether it is an offence when a person uses the phone when the vehicle is stationary or when he stops at a traffic junction, and when he moves off, he stops communicating. There is no offence if the driver uses his mobile phone without the hands-free kit while the vehicle is stationary, including while waiting at the junction for the lights to change, as long as the driver stops using the phone immediately when he moves his vehicle. The proposed amendment makes it an offence to hold on to a communication or telecommunication device and communicate with another person only when the vehicle is in motion. So when the motorist calls on the mobile phone and listens to a voice-mail, he is "talking" to that person, and he will be committing an offence. Again, do not think that he can get away by just talking to a voice-mail and that he is not talking to another person. It must be a person who left the voice-mail. The motorist should concentrate on driving and controlling his vehicle and looking at the road and traffic situation when the vehicle is moving. Therefore, I would advise motorists in general not to use the phone unless it is absolutely necessary and if they have to use it, do use a hands-free kit.

Prof Chin also asked whether persons who are convicted of using mobile phones under the provision are subject to disqualification of the licence. Persons convicted under the new provision would not be liable to mandatory disqualification. However, the Court has a discretionary power under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act to disqualify any offender of any traffic offence which it considers serious enough. If the Court thinks that it is very serious, the Court may order a disqualification.

Prof Chin also asked whether in densely populated areas and expressways and so on, we should not require car sellers to ensure that their cars which they sell should have hands-free mobile phones. I think we will leave it to the car sellers because not all motorists want to have a car phone. So fixing a car phone and charging motorists may not be a fair thing to do. We will leave it to the market to decide. Although the use of hands-free kits for driving is not an offence, the Traffic Police would want to encourage people to refrain from using the hands-free kits as far as possible.

Let me now come to Dr Lily Neo's comments. She said that the old section 38 is confined only to Malaysians. Yes, indeed it is. Singapore is a signatory to the United Nations Conference on Road and Motor Transport Convention on Road Traffic, 1949, and as an contracting state to this Convention, we have to recognise the driving permits or licences. They mean the same thing; some countries call it a permit, some countries call it a licence, so there is no confusion here. They are issued by contracting parties for a period of up to one year without requiring the motorist to sit for any driving test. The Road Traffic Act did not formally recognise the obligations under the Convention in the past. But this amendment is necessary now to formally state Singapore's recognition of the foreign driving licences or driving permits issued by the signatory states. As the recognition of driving licence is for a period of only one year, a foreigner staying in Singapore for more than one year is required to obtain a Singapore driving licence. However, if the driving licence is valid for a period of less than one year, then the driving licence would only be recognised for the period of the validity of the foreign driving licence. Foreigners who wish to remain here and drive for more than a year should convert to a Singapore driving licence.

On the question of section 42 on road bullies, this section is targeted at motorists who show violent behaviour when reacting to situations connected to driving. As a result of situations such as flashing of head lamps, overtaking and disputes over parking spaces, motorists have been known to cause serious injury to other persons. Innocent road users should not be subjected to the potential danger posed by such motorists. Hence, those who exhibit such violent behaviour when reacting to situations arising from the use of the road and choose to take the law into their own hands should be penalised for the errant act. There is no question of double penalty. It is just part of the penalty imposed by the Court. For example, in many of our offences, we say that the Court can impose a fine, a jail or both. By fining the person and jailing him at the same time, we are not saying that the Court is punishing him twice. It is the same punishment. Now we just add another one called "disqualification". If one commits certain offences of the Road Traffic Act, one can also be subject to disqualification. So there is no double punishment as such. The analogy of Dr Neo is that a mother or parent convicted of abusing the - I believe it is not persecuting but abusing the child - means that the parent cannot have children. I think that is not the correct analogy.

On whether it is too harsh under section 42A to disqualify a person for failure to turn up in Court, I think we have tried very hard to get these people with warrants of arrest to turn up in Court. I think the patience of the Warrant Enforcement Unit and the Police as well as the Court is wearing thin. People just ignore warrants of arrest. There are more than 55,000 warrants of arrest outstanding and there are hundreds of people with 10 or more warrants of arrest in their names. So, we have to take a very serious view of people who totally disregard the law of Singapore and show contempt of the Court when ordered by the Court to turn up and they did not turn up. We will have to deal with such people who simply refuse to turn up in Court.

When an offender executes a warrant of arrest, that is, when he surrenders to the Traffic Police or goes to the Warrant Enforcement Unit, the Police would inform him that if he fails to turn up in Court at the hearing date, then an order of disqualification may be preferred against him. In other words, a warning will be given to that motorist to turn up in Court because failure to turn up in Court means that an application will be made to the Court to disqualify the driver. I think that is fair. If not, people would just take for granted that any notice to attend court can simply be ignored. I think that is not a good healthy thing to encourage in Singapore. This is not meant to be punitive but to be preventive so that these people do not waste the court's time, the police's time and everybody else's time in trying to chase after them.

Dr Lily Neo also asked that since section 65 already can take care of handphone driving, why do we need section 65B to make it a specific offence. We want to have a specific offence for handphone driving so as to provide more flexibility to the Traffic Police in dealing with handphone driving. If we do not do that, they will find that of all the offences under section 65, only one of them, for example, handphone driving, is very serious, and if they want to enhance the punishment for the offence by increasing the demerit points and imposing the fine, they will have to increase it for all the offences under section 65. We think we do not have to take such a blunderbuss approach. It is better that we create a distinct offence so that the police will have greater flexibility to vary the composition fine and the demerit points and to take any other action or measure against the offender without affecting the other motorists who commit offences under the more general provision of section 65 of the Act.

I have talked earlier about a handphone driver trying to drive with both hands holding his handphone and leaving the steering wheel free. If he does so, he will be committing a more serious offence, and that is called dangerous driving. Dangerous driving is punishable with a fine not exceeding $3,000 or imprisonment up to 12 months, or both, for a first offence. For a second and subsequent offence, the person would be liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to an imprisonment term not exceeding two years, or both. So this is more serious than just a handphone driving offence. So do not attempt to drive with both hands on the handphone.

I now come to Mr Ong Kian Min's questions. His main point is really to impose an immediate suspension on those who are found or suspected to have alcohol beyond the limit in his blood. I would ask the police to look into this and, if necessary, we may do as he suggests. But I think we have to take the measures one step at a time and we will see whether it is necessary to impose such a disqualification or not the next time when I look at the Road Traffic Act.

On the question of definition of mobile phone driving and whether it is adequate or not, if there is a need to re-define it after we have put the new law into force, we will re-define it. The way it is defined now, I think, is adequate. If it is not, I will consider amending the definition.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen talked about enhancing the punishment for motorists who cause death while driving a vehicle. In 1996 I amended the Act to provide for enhanced punishment for this offence. So far, the situation is good. Of course, from time to time, we have very serious cases and we all get very worked up over such irresponsible driving behaviour, but we have to take such incidents, not just a particular one, in perspective. If we were to enhance the punishment for accidents which resulted in death, we would have to re-look at the rest of the offences and see whether it is in proportion or in keeping with the sentences of the other offences. But we will bear that in mind.

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.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1-

The Chairman: In page 1, line 4, the words "No. 2" will be deleted; and

(ii) In page 1, line 5, the citation "1998" will be changed to "1999". These will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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