ELECTRONIC ROAD PRICING DEFAULTERS

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung asked the Minister for Communications if he will update the House on what non-criminal measures will be taken to deal with electronic road pricing defaulters.

Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Communications if he will consider a violation of the use of Cashcards and In-Vehicle Units as a minor or unintentional offence, requiring only the collection of a higher rate of fees payable from the car owner through a monthly or even six-monthly invoice.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 3 and 4 together?

Mr Speaker: Yes, you may.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Thank you. Sir, in March this year, during the Budget debate, Prof. Chin and Mr Chay Wai Chuen raised similar queries about the penalties for ERP violations. Most ERP violations arise from motorists either inserting their Cashcards improperly, or forgetting to insert their Cashcards, or having insufficient balances in their Cashcards. As it is not possible for motorists to evade detection under the ERP system, my Ministry agrees that such violations are not due to wilful disregard for our rules but to forgetfulness or carelessness.

I then informed the House that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) was working out a scheme to allow motorists who commit these ERP violations to pay the ERP charges and an administrative surcharge. I am pleased to announce that the LTA has finalised the details of this scheme.

Under the revised system, motorists who forget to insert their Cashcards into the IUs or have insufficient balance in their Cashcards when passing through ERP gantries, will be required to pay the applicable ERP fee plus an administrative surcharge within two weeks of the violation. The administrative surcharge is currently set at $10. The LTA will send a letter to the motorist informing him of the violation, and requesting him to pay up the charges within two weeks. If he does not do so within the 2-week period, he will then have to pay a composition fine of $70.

LTA will announce implementation details of this scheme soon.

With regard to Dr Neo's suggestion on a monthly or 6-monthly invoice, my Ministry had considered such a central billing system for the collection of ERP charges and violations when the ERP system was first designed but opted for the present smart-card system for several reasons. This is because the smart-card system does away with the need for an expensive central accounting billing operation. It also makes motorists more conscious of the cost of motoring as the deduction is immediate each time the vehicle passes under a gantry. Finally, the current system using Cashcards also safeguards individual privacy as details of movements of motorists would not be monitored. Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor the situation and refine the system as and when necessary.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, may I ask the Minister whether the current defaulters are still liable for the composition fine or they will be treated under the new scheme?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, in order for the new scheme to come into operation, changes will have to be made to the administrative system and that will take some time. LTA will require some more time before it can implement the system. So current defaulters under the scheme would continue to be treated according to the present administrative regime.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): May I ask the Minister about the administrative charge of $10? Could he enlighten the House as to what is it for that this administrative charge is levied? Is it for sending a notice to the owner of the car?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, as the name suggests, the administrative charge is to cover all the costs related to the administration of this new scheme which include the tracking of the offences, making sure that the motorists who do not pay the ERP charge do so within the two weeks and if they do not, making sure that they are issued the composition fine of $70. All this involves administration, manpower, computer time and it also involves the setting up of a total framework to make sure that such a violation scheme is not abused. After all, the purpose of this scheme is to make sure that motorists do use the system as it is intended, which is to have an IU installed, to have a valid CashCard inserted and to make sure that each time a motorist uses an ERP-controlled road, he pays the fee. More than 99% of people do that.

To cater to the small group of people who forget to do so, we have amended the system, according to feedback from Members of this House. We agree that under the ERP system, nobody can escape. Unlike the old system where people had to put up a disc, and some who did not put up a disc were not people who forgot to do so, but were people who were out to cheat the system. And that was when a composition fine was imposed. Under the ERP system, such a situation does not occur, because every motorist who passes through the gantry will be detected. So, on that basis, we have decided to change the system, and I hope motorists will continue to use the system as it is intended. But if they do not for whatever reason - forgetfulness, carelessness or whatever - they are not overly penalised, as it were.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am thankful to the Minister for the lengthy reply he has given, but I regret it does not really answer my question. Would he set out specifically what is this administration for which $10 appears to be the just punishment?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: I do not know where the hon. Member got the idea of a punishment from. I have just gone through a lengthy reply to the Member of the House to explain to him that we do not regard this as an offence. We regard this as non-payment of a fee. We wish to collect that fee and therefore we have to go through this exercise. The process of going through that exercise incurs expenses and manpower, and the charge for this expense and manpower is, at the moment, $10. It could go up, if the cost of administration goes up. But as far as we are concerned, at this stage, we are recovering the cost of administration, plus the ERP fee.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, would the Minister explain why he finds it fit to levy a $70 compound fine when the current fine, I believe, is $30?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, if the letter asking for payment is sent out and if within two weeks, no reply is given, that is tantamount to an offence. For such an offence, a levy of $70 is deemed to be the charge. In other words, a motorist is given two weeks to pay up, failing which he is deemed to have committed an offence. In the same way that he does not pay a parking charge or he does not pay any other Government charge, he is deemed to have committed an offence. And a notice of offence is then sent out.