ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology (Dr John Chen Seow Phun): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the objective of this Bill is to amend the Road Traffic Act (RTA) for the following purposes:

(a) To increase the fines for certain offences administered by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) under the Road Traffic Act;

(b) To implement tougher measures against motorists against whom there are outstanding warrants of arrest in connection with traffic or parking offences; and

(c) To facilitate the operation of an Automated Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) and Toll Collection System.

I will now elaborate on the reasons behind the proposed amendments.

Following a review of the penalty system for offences under the Road Traffic Act in 1998, it was felt that the quanta of maximum fines for the offences were generally adequate deterrence, except for 6 types of offences. These are:

i. Unlawful alteration of vehicles and trailers;

ii. Keeping or using unregistered vehicles;

iii. Failure by a resident of Singapore to inform the Registrar of his possession or use of a foreign-registered vehicle;

iv. Failure by a registered owner to produce proof of scrap or export within 1 month upon cancellation of registration of a vehicle by the Registrar;

v. Making false statements, forging licences, furnishing false particulars; and

vi. Using another vehicle mark, plate or documents, forging a mark, plate or document or using them, and driving or permitting an off-peak car to be driven with a tampered or altered supplementary licence.

The quanta of maximum fines for the 6 offences were set many years ago . The fines need to be raised in view of the relative severity of these offences and the fact that the number of cases has been rising over the years.

To cite some statistics, the number of cases for keeping or using an unregistered vehicle has risen from 69 cases in 1995, to an average of 76 cases each year from 1996 to 1998. During the same period, there was almost a three-fold increase in the total number of incidents involving Singapore citizens, work permit or employment pass holders illegally using Malaysian-registered vehicles in Singapore. The average number of cases of motorists failing to produce proof of scrap or export documents upon cancellation of registration has risen to 11 cases per year from zero cases in 1995. For cases involving the unlawful alteration of vehicles and trailers, there has been a rise from zero cases in 1995 to 9 cases in 1998. There were also 53 cases in 1998 involving forgery of licences and the driving of off-peak cars without valid supplementary licences - approximately a 140% jump in the number of cases handled from 1995 to 1998.

The proposed amendments to increase the maximum fines for these offences are thus necessary to check the trend of more persons committing these offences, and will serve as a deterrent to potential offenders.

The Government, had on 26th April 1999, announced its intention to implement a package of tougher measures against recalcitrant motorists against whom there are in force warrants of arrest in connection with traffic and parking offences.

As of September 1999, there were 39,197 outstanding warrants for parking offences. Together with other traffic-related warrants, a total of 54,604 warrants are still outstanding. These statistics show that a large number of warrants of arrest have been issued because many motorists who have committed parking or traffic offences simply ignore the notices requiring them to appear in court in connection with the offences. Ignoring a notice to appear in court to answer a charge, even when the offence is a relatively minor offence such as a parking infringement, is a grave matter as it shows a blatant disregard for the law. The Government takes a stern view of motorists who do not comply with such notices. Tougher measures will therefore be imposed to ensure that there is effective enforcement against motorists who commit traffic or parking offences and thereafter ignore the notices requiring them to appear in court in connection with the offences committed by them.

These measures include not allowing a motorist against whom there is an outstanding warrant of arrest to renew his road tax until he has been arrested pursuant to the warrant or he has surrendered himself, and his case conclusively dealt with by the court. It also includes giving powers to the Police, LTA, Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) officers to immobilise or seize and detain any vehicle which is registered in the name of a person against whom there is in force a warrant of arrest relating to a traffic or parking offence.

Motorists who settle their traffic or parking fines promptly will not be affected by these measures. Our record shows that about 95% of motorists settle their cases by the final reminder. However, warrants of arrest will be issued against those who choose to ignore repeated reminders to pay their fines as well as the notices requiring them to attend court to answer the charges against them. And if they still do not take action to surrender themselves when warrants of arrest have been issued against them, they will face the tougher measures which we intend to implement.

Sir, the Road Traffic Act also needs to be amended to facilitate the introduction of the automated Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) and Toll Collection System, which is targeted to be implemented early next year. The automated system will make it more convenient for Checkpoint users to pay their toll charges and VEP fees, as well as help to speed up the flow of traffic through the checkpoints.

Motorists will no longer need to purchase toll coupons in advance before going to the checkpoints. All they need to do is to insert a CashCard or dedicated smartcard with sufficient cash value into a card-reader installed at the immigration booths. The card reader will electronically deduct the toll charges from the CashCard or dedicated smartcard. Motorists driving Singapore-registered vehicles can use the CashCard, which they currently use for paying ERP charges, to also pay for tolls at the Checkpoints.

Motorists driving foreign registered vehicles will be required to purchase a dedicated smartcard at the Singapore Checkpoints before entering Singapore. The smartcard, called the Autopass Card, will record the vehicle number, date, time and point of entry of the vehicle. When a motorist leaves Singapore, the VEP fees and toll charges will be computed and deducted automatically when the Autopass Card is inserted with sufficient cash value into a card-reader. The Autopass Card may be used for subsequent trips to Singapore. In other words, when the foreign motorist returns the next time, he will not have to purchase a new card if he has with him the old card.

The automated system will cut down the transaction time currently taken for the issue and sale of Vehicle Entry Permits at the Checkpoints. While in Singapore, the motorist may use the Autopass as an ordinary CashCard and enjoy the benefit of cashless transactions.

Sir, let me now address the key provisions of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

Increasing fines for certain offences under the RTA

The provisions in the Bill which increase the maximum fines for the six offences I mentioned earlier are as follows:

(a) Clause 3 raises the maximum fine for the offence of unlawfully altering a vehicle or trailer -

(i) from $1,000 for a first conviction to $2,000; and

(ii) from $2,000 for a second or subsequent conviction to $5,000.

(b) Clause 4 raises the maximum fine for the offence of keeping or using an unregistered vehicle. The increase in fines is the same as in clause 3.

(c) Clause 5 raises the maximum fine for failure by a resident of Singapore to inform the Registrar of his possession or use of foreign-registered vehicle. Again, the increase in fines is the same.

(d) Clause 8 raises the maximum fine for failure by a registered owner to produce proof of scrap or export within 1 month upon cancellation of registration of a vehicle by the Registrar. The increase in fines is the same.

(e) Clause 10 raises the maximum fines for the offences under section 129 from $2,000 to $5,000. These offences include making false statements, forging licences, furnishing false particulars, and driving or permitting an off-peak car to be driven with a tampered or altered supplementary license.

Tougher measures against motorists with outstanding warrant of arrest

Presently, a motorist against whom there is in force a warrant of arrest relating to an offence under the Parking Places Act or the Road Traffic Act is allowed to renew his vehicle tax licence once he surrenders himself to a Police Station or the Warrant Enforcement Unit, and is formally arrested. However, the motorist may thereafter jump bail, not pay his fines or fail to attend court. Clause 6 of the Bill empowers the Registrar to deny a motorist the renewal of his vehicle licence until his case is conclusively dealt with by the court.

Clause 9 of the Bill empowers a police officer or an employee of LTA to immobilise or seize and detain any vehicle which is registered in the name of a person against whom a warrant of arrest is in force in connection with any traffic or parking offence committed by him. The powers conferred on an employee of LTA may be exercised in respect of any vehicle which is being used or parked on a public road or in a public car park.

The powers conferred on a police officer may be exercised in respect of a vehicle that is found at any place, including private premises. Police would tow or immobilise a vehicle found on private premises if, upon going to the private premises to arrest the offender, they cannot locate the offender but find his vehicle on the private premises instead. The vehicle will be released when the offender has surrendered himself or the warrant of arrest has been cancelled by a court. The powers conferred on a police officer may also be exercised by an auxiliary police officer who is authorised in writing by the Commissioner of Police to exercise such powers.

Automated VEP and toll collection system

Sir, to facilitate the implementation of the automated VEP and toll collection system, clause 7 of the Bill will allow the Minister to make subsidiary legislation for various aspects of operations, including the following:

(a) provide for the Vehicle Entry Permit to be stored in an electronic form on such stored value card, device or appurtenance as may be issued;

(b) provide for the levy of a fee for the issue of such stored value card, device or appurtenance;

(c) prescribe the manner in which any fee or tax is to be levied and collected, including the use of electronic or computerised or other facilities;

(d) prohibit the entry into or exit from Singapore of any foreign vehicle if any fee or tax payable is in arrears.

Clause 7 also empowers the court to order a person who has been convicted under those rules to pay up the outstanding arrears of VEP fees and any tax that may be levied under those rules. This new provision is in line with existing provisions in the Road Traffic Act, which allows the court to order convicted motorists to pay up any outstanding arrears of ERP charges.

Conclusion

Sir, the introduction of enhanced penalties to the various offences as listed under the Road Traffic Act will send a strong signal to deter would-be offenders from committing these offences and curb the rise of such incidents. Furthermore, the proposed amendments to deny motorists with outstanding warrants of arrests renewal of road taxes, and the empowerment of various agencies to tow away vehicles when the registered owners have outstanding warrants of arrests in force against them, will show that the Government is serious in taking action against motorists who blatantly disregard notices to attend court that are served on them in connection with traffic or parking offences committed by them. With the proposed amendments to facilitate the implementation of an automated VEP and toll collection system, motorists will enjoy smoother traffic flow at the Checkpoints, as well as greater convenience in the payment of tolls and VEP fees.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, I would like to speak in support of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. In principle, I have no objection to the proposed changes of empowering officials to take further action and steeper fines against people with outstanding warrants of arrest.

Illegal parking is, of course, causing a lot of inconvenience to many other law abiding drivers. Whatever reasons many of these errant drivers may give, especially when they go and see their MPs, they should be aware of the danger and the inconvenience they are causing to other law abiding citizens. However, I am quite puzzled by the Minister of State's figure just now, when he mentioned that there are 54,000 of such outstanding warrants of arrests. This figure implies that there are such number of people, who have committed traffic offences walking around and violating the orders of the court to attend to such cases, in which case I am wondering whether these measures that we are proposing in this amendment Bill will actually address the issue. If we have 54,000 people with outstanding warrants of arrests, certainly, I think it is a very serious situation for the Home Affairs Ministry to look into. But there again, for such cases, will these measures address the issue? Why is it so difficult to arrest these 54,000 people?

I think there are special issues and nature of the offences involved. Therefore, maybe the solution to address the issue of such warrants of arrest may have to be refined and dealt with at further length. If we just look at seizing the vehicles of the offenders at such places including their homes, then my question is: why is it so difficult to find the vehicles of these offenders in their homes and not able to arrest the person but rather to take away the car? I think there may be a need to really look at whether these are appropriate measures.

The errant drivers of vehicles who have committed offences need not necessarily be the owners of the vehicles. So, in a case like that, there again you have this problem of trying to adjudicate who is really responsible for the offences, and whether the punishment that is meted out on the owner of a car is really fair.

The second point I want to ask is on the introduction of this automated vehicle entry permit and smartcard for drivers of foreign vehicles. I am not clear exactly what the implications are, but I would like to ask how will the foreign drivers, with this smartcard that is issued to them, top it up with cash in Singapore? Is it through the ATMs? Do they have necessary accounts for this? And how will the authority at the Checkpoint verify and pinpoint the smartcard to a car or a driver? I suppose from the explanation given by the Minister of State, the identification is really from a card to a car. Then again, the issue is really not errant cars but only errant drivers. How then do we pinpoint the fault?

An errant foreign driver, for example, committing an offence can conveniently leave the payment of the fines or tolls to another driver who drives out to the gate at the exit point. What happens if there are offences where demerit points may be accumulated? Who then is responsible? Perhaps the Minister can clarify.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill.

However, there are a couple of clarifications and concerns that I have regarding these amendments. The new section 95A confers wide powers to police officers, auxiliary police officers and employees of LTA to immobilise, seize or detain any vehicle of a registered person subject to a warrant of arrest. This power can be exercised against a vehicle found parked anywhere, even on private premises. In the case of such premises, only police officers can exercise the power and then only if he cannot effect an arrest after making a reasonable attempt.

The Minister tells us that the default rate for summonses in road traffic cases is high and that provision has to be made in legislation to control the problem. I agree that when the default rate is high, measures may have to be taken to improve the situation. But I think this new provision may unsettle many. The immobilisation or removal of cars can be done even though they are properly parked. 54,000 immbobilised vehicles in Singapore in car parks can give rise to a totally new dimension of what Singapore means by a "fine" city. It also could be done in the person's own driveway and garage. Is such a far-reaching power necessary?

One need not have to have a vivid imagination to picture what will happen when a car is immobilised, for example, in a HDB car park or in one's own driveway. Neighbours would be quick to notice that something is wrong. The stock answer may be that if someone is under a warrant of arrest and he does not surrender he must face the consequences, such as social embarrassment. But should all subject to such warrants deserve the same treatment? I certainly hope that such a power be used only in extreme situations and not as the first recourse in a situation where a person against whom a warrant has been issued cannot be found.

In the case of those who disobey the law frequently, I have no doubt that the use of this law would be appropriate. Where a person is intentionally avoiding arrest, one can understand the need for stern action. But not infrequently, there are occasions when, due to some circumstance, such as a change of address or failure to effect proper delivery of the notice of summons, a warrant of arrest may be issued.

Members of this House, I am sure, have come across cases where the person against whom the warrant is served does not understand the terms of the warrant at all. The notice is usually worded in legalese, that is to say, in English legal language, which is, to a layman and sometimes even to a lawyer, quite incomprehensible even if he knew English. In such cases, perhaps the Minister can clarify whether there will be an opportunity given to defaulters to answer the warrants before such overt actions are taken against him.

I should like to know whether there was any consideration given to a more graduated enforcement of such sanctions. What I mean is whether the Ministry has considered the need to distinguish between those who have been habitually ignoring warrants of arrests and those who are subjected to the process for the first time. Is there a possibility that the legislation could be improved by specifying that these sanctions should only be applied, for instance, to cases where there is habitual disobedience to notices of summons?

Sir, the proper treatment of offenders in a just society requires the principle that the punishment must fit the crime. It also follows that in bringing the offenders to justice, we are not seen to take what may be viewed by the public as excessive means, especially when the perception of the public, as the Minister conceded just now, may be that traffic offences, other than the moving offences, may not be regarded as serious offences.

Moving next to the provision concerning the giving of notice to a person about the immobilising or removal or detention of vehicle, it is interesting to note the contrast between the means of giving notice through this Bill and the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill that will be considered later. In the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill, the persons affected may be informed through four means: delivering the notice or document to him, another adult member or employee of his family, leaving it at his last known business address, sending him a registered letter to his business address or any address furnished by him, and if any of the above cannot be done, through notification in the Gazette.

Under the present Bill, in the case where a vehicle has been detained, the service of notice is only through the post sent to him at his usual or last known place of residence or business in Singapore. It is difficult to see why the notice requirements in the Road Traffic Act, which covers more serious offences, should be less than those in the Parking Places Act. If anything, there should be a higher standard of notification, as more serious offences are involved. This requires further thought given the consequences of the seizure. It is provided, for example, that after three months if the person had not been arrested or surrendered himself, the vehicle may be disposed of by auction or in such manner as the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the authority thinks fit. This may deprive the person affected of one of his most substantial assets besides his flat. I should like to ask the Minister to clarify whether the difference in the notice procedure is intended and why the notice procedure is not as elaborate as that stated in the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, with these few points that I hope the Minister can clarify, I support the Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern arises out of clause 6 and clause 9 of this Bill. But clause 6 really alarms me. I see that by clause 6, a person who has been arrested pursuant to a warrant may be refused a vehicle licence renewal, as the Minister puts it, even if he has not been tried and his guilt determined by the court. This reverses the presumption which perhaps, to some extent, is being eroded in Singapore today. It reverses the presumption that any person who is accused of any offence is innocent of the offence until he has been proved to have committed the offence to the satisfaction of a court. But here we have a proposal that even before the court tries the offender and pronounces him guilty of the offence, he should be punished by not allowing him to renew his licence. That, I find very alarming and, as I have said, it tends to reverse the presumption. It assumes that this man or woman is guilty of the offence which he or she stands charged.

It is also undesirable for the reason that it may act as a compulsion for the person to plead guilty to an offence charged simply to get the vehicle's licence renewed. Compelling someone to plead guilty is, as I have said, very undesirable and I think it may even be an offence under the Penal Code if the police try to compel anyone to plead guilty. So I do urge the Ministry to reconsider the provision in clause 6 and see whether it should be made law.

It is an important principle of law, and I hope that it is accepted by the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs, that the presumption of innocence should not in any way be dented in Singapore. On the other hand, it should be strengthened. So I have very grave reservations of clause 6 of the Bill. I think it should be taken out completely. If the man has been arrested and a date has been fixed for his trial, which I take will be the case, he will be on bail, compelling his attendance for the trial, then no action should be taken until the decision of the court is known. That would be the civilised way of proceeding.

Then there is clause 9 which seeks to insert a new section 95A. Prof. Chin has raised a number of questions on this and I would endorse my support of what he said, and say that it may result in penalising members of the family who may be using the car, where the person who is registered may not be available. He may be out of the country for all we know. But the members of the family may be using the car and they may need the car. Is it the intention to penalise the family who is using the car to put compulsion on the person who has absconded or is evading arrest? That again, may I say, is an undesirable principle. It smacks of the collective punishment theory which was applied in Malaysia during the years of Emergency and was strongly criticised, not only in Malaysia but outside Malaysia, for punishing members of a village or community because of the wrongdoing of one or two members of the community.

I see that the power to release the vehicle is given to the Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the Registrar. But it would appear to me that the Magistrate's hand is tied in that the clause goes on to provide specifically that he may refuse to release the vehicle unless the man surrenders himself to a police officer. There again, it is a form of compulsion that is being used and in the result punishing somebody else.

Finally, on the question of the 54,000 warrants of arrest. Has the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology inquired from the Ministry of Home Affairs or the police officers how diligent are the Police in executing warrants of arrest? What would be the position if the police officers, through shortage of manpower or for whatever reason, suddenly forget about the warrant of arrest, which is lying on the shelf somewhere, and they have not made any attempt to execute it? Are you going to require, first of all, the Police or whoever is authorised to execute the warrant to say what attempts have been made, and in what manner, to execute the warrant of arrest? If not, the owner or driver is being punished for something that the Police have not done. That again is totally unfair.

I would therefore ask the Ministry to reconsider this Bill again, particularly the two clauses (clauses 6 and 9) of the Bill.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, may I raise two concerns for the Minister of State. The first relates to the new penal powers under the Act, and the second relates to the automated system for Causeway traffic.

The first concerns the penal powers under clause 9. Singaporeans, as we know, are very attached to their cars. No matter how much we raise the prices, etc, they want them, and the car prices therefore have raised themselves. And we should be very concerned about powers that use the cars as pressure points to solicit the payment of fines. Let me turn my attention particularly to the new section 95A, subsections (9) and (10). As I read them, these clauses would actually allow the Police to detain and then auction a vehicle for failure to pay fines. A further understanding is that these powers would be invoked once there is a warrant of arrest. The threshold for this warrant of arrest may be as low as a single parking offence. And as the Minister of State himself has mentioned, there are currently 54,000 warrants of arrest. That is a lot of cars to auction. This is a very serious power to punish and it can be, I would argue, onerous and unjust. This is primarily because under the new subsections 95A(9) and (10), the notice of auction is merely in the Gazette. The Gazette, of course, is a formal official way of giving notice of things, but it is not read very commonly. In other words, the fact of an auction may not be well known, and this might lead to a paucity of people who would bid for the car, and this might drop the value below what is a fair and market rate. This is certainly the experience in other countries, and in other forms of execution of court processes in Singapore.

I understand, of course, that these matters must be taken seriously. People who do not pay their fines should not get away scot-free. But I would argue that there needs to be a balance between the legitimate interest of the State and the sanctions we wish to enforce. There needs to be a balance between the quantum of the fines, just still relatively small though, they keep going up all the time, and the values of the cars which are one of the largest assets any Singaporean can claim.

My next concern on the same issue is on the effect of third parties. Here I do not mean the families so much, but people with a legitimate commercial interest in the car. Because car prices are so high, most of us owe tonnes of money to the bank or the hire purchase company. They take the car as a security for their repayment. May I ask the Ministry whether these rights would be preserved if there was an auction? And if there is a shortfall, because the auction price is low, and the company is short of money to recoup its loan, what happens then?

I would ask the Minister to reconsider the provisions of penalties, first, to have a higher threshold before these detentions and auctions are exercised. Let us use it only for those who are really recalcitrant. Secondly, to reserve a price for the vehicle. This need not be done by amendment but can be done by practice in the auction. So at least it ensures that a fair market value, par values and years of depreciation, etc, are taken into account.

Let me move on to my second concern. This is for the automated system for cars that come across the Causeway. I would just like to ask the Minister of State whether in the short term at least, there are ways to ensure that the shift to the new system would not add to the Causeway jams and will not affect the ease at which our Malaysian neighbours can visit us and our tourism. I mention this because obviously we do not like the same thing when we go to visit Malaysia. When there are new notices and new forms to fill, and we do not get them, we feel very inconvenienced, and I would not like the same to happen to our Malaysian neighbours.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Members for their support of this Bill.

First of all, let me clarify that the authorities have been taking action against offenders, and let me give you some of the measures that have been taken. MND, for instance, in 1994 introduced a set of measures to reduce the large number of outstanding warrants of arrest for parking offences at URA/HDB car parks, for example, by clamping the vehicles of motorists with outstanding warrants of arrest for URA/HDB offences, if they were found contravening parking regulations at the car parks. The Police also carries out regular operations to locate and arrest these offenders with outstanding warrants of arrest for traffic and parking related offences. Further, the Police has put in place stringent mechanisms at immigration checkpoints to detect and arrest these motorists. So this also answers Mr Jeyaretnam's point about whether the Police has been diligent in their enforcement actions.

Even with all these measures, the problem did not go away. In April this year, the Government announced its intention to introduce tougher measures. In fact, in July this year, URA and HDB introduced a new measure which would deny such motorists the renewal of their season parking tickets if they purchase these season parking tickets for parking in public car parks. All these measures are actually part of a comprehensive set of measures that we are putting in place now to tackle the problem. So what we are seeing here today is the rest of the measures that will be put in place. And why are we taking this comprehensive approach? Let me say that under the current system, motorists are already given ample opportunities to settle their fines. Let me describe the procedure for settling a parking composition fine. Let us say an original notice was issued on day X. First reminder will be sent half a month from day X; second reminder will be sent by registered post one-and-a-half months from day X; final reminder will be sent three months from day X; court summons will be sent by registered post four months from day X; and warrant of arrest will be issued six months from day X.

As Members can see, there really is little or no reason why errant motorists do not take action after so many reminders. It is not justifiable to claim unfamiliarity with the system after so many reminders. We know, as MPs, residents come to us with summonses and ask us to help to either appeal for waiver or reduction of fines. They know that they are in the wrong and yet some of them simply ignore these reminders. So what is needed is a strong signal to motorists that they must be prompt in taking responsibility for committing traffic and parking offences by settling their fines. If they are responsive, it would save them from the inconvenience of the more stringent measures which we are putting in place now. And it would also save the time and resources of the various enforcement agencies in issuing summons, reminders and warrants of arrest.

Prof. Chin is concerned that immobilising a vehicle can be unsettling to the public and he asks whether it is necessary. The aim of these stringent measures is precisely to make owners realise the importance of settling their offences quickly to avoid facing such a situation. Motorists should realise that they cannot blatantly disregard notices to attend court that are served on them. So the issue really is the blatant disregard for the law.

Sir, let me address the other points raised by Members. First, Mr Chay asked why is it that you cannot arrest a person at his home, and why do you need to resort to detaining or seizing the vehicle. As I said, there are limitations to the resources that we have, and the numbers are just increasing too large. So there is a need for more effective measures. Mr Chay is questioning whether it is effective. But, obviously, the rest of the Members think that it is very severe. So we think that it would be effective. And when we talk about seizing the vehicle, it does not mean that you need to seize it only in the homes. For LTA, the area of jurisdiction will be the roads and the public parking places. For the Police, because Police has jurisdiction also in private premises, therefore, they can arrest the person, and they can seize or immobilise the vehicle in the homes and other areas under their jurisdiction.

Members also raised a point on how do we differentiate the driver from the owner. Let me say that there is a current procedure. The current procedure is that whenever a person commits an offence, usually the vehicle number is recorded, and the authority will write to the registered owner and ask whether the offender is the registered owner or somebody else. So if it is somebody else, then by law he has to furnish the information and the Authority will go after the offender. Therefore, there will not be a problem because if the registered owner is not the offender, his vehicle will not be targeted. So it is as simple as that.

Mr Chay also asked about the VEP. VEP violations will not result in demerit points. So the question of whether it is the driver or owner will not arise. What LTA will do is that it will recover any fines or unpaid fees from cars upon exiting the Checkpoints. So it is very much like a parking system. For the foreign motorists, we will not be able to tell who the registered owner is. So what we will do is we will go after the person who drives the car because he has to leave the country at some point in time, and that is where we will go after him. But of course if he just drives in Singapore without going out of the country, we have a system to track that because the vehicle entry permit is only given for two weeks. After two weeks, if he does not go and renew the vehicle entry permit, we will go after the vehicle which may be somewhere in Singapore.

Sir, Prof. Chin Tet Yung brought up the difference in delivering notices between the two Acts. Let me inform him that in the amendment, this is in new section 95A(7) where it mentions about the means of delivery. But this is not the only means of delivery because if you refer to section 131 of the RTA Act, it also mentions about the other means of delivery. So if you compare the two Acts, the only difference is that, in the PPA, the additional means is by way of publication in the Gazette plus also the serving of notices to an employee of family. So he is right in the sense that it is slightly more elaborate for PPA. But the other means are all there. Therefore, we believe that both notice serving procedures provided in both Acts are adequate to enable the effective discharge of the law.

Sir, let me now turn to Mr Jeyaretnam's point. He is concerned about clause 6 and also the immobilising, seizure and detention of vehicles in clause 9. He thinks that this is against presumption of innocence. I do not think so. The authorities are given powers in discharging their responsibilities to do certain things. For instance, if LTA suspects that a car on the road is not safe, LTA has the power to detain the car. So these are the powers that the Government is asking Parliament to provide to the relevant authorities to ensure that they can carry out their functions properly. I do not think that we are presuming that the person is guilty before the court trial. So my point is that the whole objective of this amendment is that we should not allow people to disregard the law and that they should show respect for the law. It is actually contempt of court if they just ignore the court orders and the warrant of arrest. So what we are doing here is to put in place an effective means whereby the various agencies can effectively carry out their functions.

Again, if Members are concerned about whether family members would be using the cars, and so on, let me say again that the idea of the Bill is to ensure that the person settles the warrant of arrest speedily. Because all he has to do is to surrender himself to the police and he would be given bail and the Authority will release the vehicle. So it is not as if we are going to detain the vehicle for a long period of time. All he has to do is to simply surrender himself.

Members have also expressed the concern whether the Authority would be trigger-happy. Let me say that the Authority will first employ other means and seizing the vehicle will in a sense be the last resort. We would not be going out and start clamping vehicles, as some of the Members have feared. Because of the limitation of resources, there is good reason for the authorities to target those recalcitrant offenders first, as Prof. Chin has mentioned, and thereafter, extend it to the rest if they continue to ignore the warrants.

Mr Simon Tay raised a valid point about the notice of auction in the Gazette and whether people will know about the auction. Gazetting is to provide the legal cover for the auction. But I do agree with him that we can actually do other things like publishing it in the papers, and so on, to make sure that more people will know about the auction.

He also mentioned about credit companies or hire purchase companies. Legally, these vehicles rightly belong to them. Therefore, they can actually approach the Authority and if they can prove that the vehicles belong to them, the vehicles would be returned.

Finally, Mr Tay mentioned about the Causeway jam. In my speech earlier, I mentioned that the system will actually help to reduce the jam. At the moment, when foreign vehicles come into Singapore, they have to pay for the entry permits. Whereas in the new system, they just put the card into the card reader. This process is in parallel with the immigration process. If they do not have a card, of course, they will have to purchase it. But, as I said, it is only once off and it would not be worse than before. Presently, they have to purchase a permit.

Sir, I think I have addressed most of the questions.

Mr Jeyaretnam: By way of clarification and without being disrespectful to the Minister of State. I wonder whether he really understood what I was saying about the presumption of innocence. I do not get that impression that he understood it. This clause would suggest that the person has been arrested pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued against him. If he is arrested, he is brought to court and perhaps punished for not turning up and then released on bail to face trial for the offence for which he was arrested. The presumption of innocence is that that man or woman in front of the court is innocent of the charge until the court pronounces that he or she is guilty. Therefore, no action should be taken by any Ministry pre-empting the decision of the court and seeking to punish indirectly either the person or any other member of the family or other persons. That is exactly what I was trying to convey. The presumption of innocence before the trial and no one should pre-empt the decision of the court.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have explained that by immobilising his vehicle, we are not presuming that he is guilty. In many of our law enforcement actions, we inconvenience individuals. The police have powers, for instance, if they feel that you have committed an offence, to detain you for certain hours and then they charge you in court. So are you saying that by detaining the offenders in the remand prison, it is presumed that they are guilty? Obviously, not.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I answer that? They are in the remand prison because they cannot post the bail that has been offered to them. That is the only reason they are in the remand prison, or because certain offences are not bailable. It is something quite different from the subject that we are talking about.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: The police can do so if they have reason to believe that they want to perhaps do certain other investigations, and so on. The powers are given to them to do that and there is no presumption of guilt here.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Speaker, may I ask three points of clarification briefly. The first was that in the Minister of State's reply, he suggested there was a division between registered owners and drivers. I understand the general position. May I ask the Minister of State whether this will also apply for parking offences. In other words, if a vehicle XYZ is parked in a certain spot but the offender is not the owner, does it mean that that car will not be seized, detained and auctioned under the powers so long as the driver is different from the registered owner?

The second clarification I wanted to make was that I am gratified by the assurances about the auction. But does it mean that the Ministry and the Authority are taking on a duty to have an open and fair auction? I mention this because in certain US cases, from all these advertisements you can buy a Porsche for $50. It may not be true. But what they mean is that these auctions are so badly attended that the price drops dramatically. Is there a duty on the Authority to ensure a fair market price if there is an auction?

The third point of clarification is simply on my point about the Causeway problems. I do take the Minister of State's assurance that they will improve things in the long term. My point was simply more about the short term implementation. Will we ensure and, I think we always do, give sufficient notice to the other side?

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also clarify with the Minister: of these 54,000 warrants of arrest, how many of such errant drivers are actually owning their vehicles.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Just two points of clarification. First, the Minister mentioned very limited resources in relation to the execution of warrants. How limited are they vis-a-vis the 54,000 outstanding warrants? And the second point is that he mentioned that there are some who are more recalcitrant than others in terms of the warrants of arrest. Does he have the breakdown of how many of these persons who are subjected to warrants of arrest are first-timers, and how many are really those who are habitually disobeying the summonses?

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: The short answer to Mr Chay and Prof. Chin is that I do not have these figures with me on how many are recalcitrants, how many are first-time offenders, and how many are owners of vehicles. I also do not have the number of persons that the Police deploy for such enforcement.

Mr Simon Tay asked a few questions. On the Causeway jam, the purpose of the exercise is really to speed up the clearance, not just for the long-term but even for the short-term. And as I mentioned, if you were to compare the automated procedure with the current procedure, you can expect improvements because we are doing through electronic means. As I said, the smartcard will be used and reading of the smartcard is in parallel with the immigration clearance.

On the fair market value for the cars, the Government has a duty to ensure that the vehicles are auctioned off because the Government cannot keep the vehicles forever. So that is why we are asking for the power from this House to allow the Government to dispose of the vehicles. And when you dispose of the vehicles, what is a fair market value? How do you actually determine that it is a fair market value? As far as the responsibility of Government is concerned, we have to ensure that reasonable means are employed to publicise the auction but there will still be people who say, "I do not know about the auction." Because of that, can you say it is not a fair value? Publication in the Gazette is one means and it also fulfils a legal requirement. The other thing that we can do, as I said, is to publish in newspapers and ensure that more people will get to know about it.

Finally, owners versus drivers. I am not so clear about this point. If it is a parking offence, I believe that we will probably go after the car owner. Otherwise, I foresee a loophole here. In other words, a person who has committed an offence can say that it is somebody else who does not own a car. I believe, subject to confirmation, this is the case.

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. - [Dr John Chen Seow Phun].

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