ELECTRONIC ROAD PRICING VIOLATIONS

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (a) how many cases to date have been processed since the de-criminalizing of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) violations, and whether these cases exceeded the number of cases for a similar period when ERP violations were treated as offences; and (b) whether the amount collected for fees and administrative charges exceeded the amount collected for a similar period when ERP violations were treated as offences.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Mr Speaker, Sir, the rationale for introducing an administrative surcharge of $10 was because ERP violations are usually due to forgetfulness or carelessness, and not a wilful disregard for the rules. Therefore, on 1st June 1999, the Land Transport Authority introduced a new procedure to deal with ERP violations.

The administrative surcharge is levied to recover the administrative costs of processing an ERP violation. Instead of a composition fine of $30 (which was introduced in May 1998), motorists who commit ERP offences are requested to pay an administrative surcharge of $10 plus the ERP charges within two weeks of the violations. If they fail to do so, they would receive a Notice of Traffic Offence to compound the offence for $70 payable within 28 days. Upon expiry of this Notice, the matter will be referred to the Court.

In the two months preceding the introduction of the administrative surcharge (i.e. April and May 1999), the average number of violations per month for no CashCards and CashCards with insufficient balance was about 16,000. The same average after the introduction of the surcharge showed an increase to about 17,300 per month. The average amount of fines collected during the corresponding periods was about $533,000 per month before the introduction of the surcharge, and $288,000 per month after that. This is a reduction of about 45% in the amount of fines collected.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the introduction of the administrative charge has meant less work or more work for the Ministry in terms of appeals, for example?

Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, if we look at the number of violations, they have increased over the same period. But the Member has raised a very good point. What we have seen is that the number of appeals received has declined. For example, for the period prior to the introduction of the surcharge, which is April and May, the number of appeals was 6,479, and for the period after the introduction of the surcharge, the number of appeals went down to 3,324. Hence, the surcharge has worked.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary again, given the satisfactory nature of this exercise, would the Ministry consider other types of offences that fall within this type of category, for example, eating in MRT stations be regulated in the same manner?

Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the offences mentioned by the Member are totally different from ERP violations. But rest assured that the Ministry is constantly reviewing some of the procedures to ensure that there is an efficient and optimal use of our land transport system.