ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 5.30 pm

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

Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Road Traffic Act (RTA) for the following broad purposes:

(a) To provide for the issuance of special purpose licences for vehicles used in research and development and the test-bedding of new transport technologies;

(b) To revise outdated definitions and classifications, update and improve procedures to facilitate administration; and

(c) To step up enforcement measures against errant motorists with arrears in road tax, facilitate enforcement action against unlicensed vehicles and to provide for compulsory towing of stationary vehicles on expressways.

Sir, let me now highlight the key provisions in the Bill for the proposed amendments.

Clause 2 amends section 11(4A) of the RTA to empower the Minister to impose conditions in the grant of vehicular tax rebates under the Act. The current provision enables the Minister to prescribe a rebate on all or any part of tax payable for vehicles in accordance with their class, category or description. However, there is currently no express power to impose conditions in the grant of such rebates.

Clause 3 amends section 11A of the RTA to allow for the issue of supplementary licences for all motor vehicles and not just motorcars. This will enable the Vintage Vehicle Scheme to be administered under this section of the Act. Under this scheme, vintage vehicles, ie, those manufactured before 1940, are exempted from the payment of additional registration fee and COE, but they are restricted in usage to 28 days per calendar year. Owners are required to pay a fee for the supplementary licence when the vehicle is used on the road.

Sir, vehicle owners are currently given a 14-day grace period to renew their vehicle's road tax licence from date of expiry. Although no late penalty fee is levied during this period, a vehicle with an expired licence is prohibited from being used or kept on any road. As the compulsory insurance requirement is checked only at the point of road tax renewal, it is difficult to tell whether vehicle owners who renew their road tax licence late actually have the requisite insurance coverage during the grace period.

From records, an average of about 30% of the road tax renewals are effected during this grace period. To reduce the number of late renewals and the possibility that such vehicles may be driven without proper insurance coverage during the grace period, it is proposed to abolish the 14-day grace period. Such a move is in the interest of public safety. Clause 4 therefore allows for the imposition of a late penalty fee if the motorist fails to renew his road tax licence upon expiry.

Clause 5 amends section 28 to empower the Registrar to issue general licences in respect of all vehicles instead of only motor vehicles, and to suspend and revoke a general licence in certain circumstances. Clause 5 also aligns the general licensing provisions with those under the proposed section 28A pertaining to special purpose licences. For Members' information, such general licences are currently issued only to manufacturers, repairers and dealers of motor vehicles. They are for temporary use on new and unlicensed vehicles when they are driven on the roads to be sent for servicing or repairs before they are registered or re-licensed.

Sir, on 30th May 2001, the Minister for Communications and Information Technology announced that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Economic Development Board (EDB) were working on a scheme to encourage companies to conduct research and development in vehicle technologies here. Under this scheme, to be called the Transport Technology Innovation and Development Scheme (TIDES), new generation vehicles such as fuel-cell and hybrid vehicles can be brought into Singapore for test-bedding and research and development purposes. Since exemptions to Certificates of Entitlement and Additional Registration Fee will be granted to vehicles under this scheme, LTA and EDB will ensure that only vehicles used for test-bedding and research and development purposes will be granted such exemptions. This scheme is not meant to support commercial operations.

It is hoped that Singapore, with its excellent IT and physical infrastructure, will be regarded by many Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) as an ideal location for test-bedding and development of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). To facilitate the implementation of this scheme, clause 6 of the Bill amends the Road Traffic Act (RTA) by inserting a new section 28A to permit car equipment manufacturers and R&D institutions to apply for special purpose licences for vehicles to be used for such purposes.

Vehicles under this scheme must meet all prevailing vehicle safety and emission standards before they can be licensed. Inspection requirements are imposed before they can be used for testing on public roads. This will ensure that the vehicles meet Singapore's roadworthiness and safety standards. The amendments in clause 6 also require special purpose licence vehicles to possess a valid policy of insurance during the period of licence in compliance with the requirements under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap. 189).

Sir, motorists in arrears of road tax are liable to be charged in Court for keeping or using a vehicle without the requisite road tax vehicle licence. Under current provisions, the Court has powers to impose a fine for these offences, but is not empowered to make an order for the payment of road tax arrears. This results in many motorists delaying the payment of the arrears after settling their court fines. Clause 8 therefore creates a new section 29A to empower the court convicting any person charged with an offence under section 15 or 29 to order such person to pay any outstanding road tax. If the person defaults, the arrears can be recovered in the same manner as the recovery of fines. This new provision is in line with existing provisions in the Road Traffic Act, which allow the Court to order convicted motorists to pay up any arrears of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) or Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) charges.

Clause 11 repeals section 72 as it deals with an offence already covered by the Environmental Pollution Control Act (Cap. 94A). The Ministry of the Environment (ENV) has taken over enforcement against vehicles emitting excessive smoke since June 1999. The offences for excessive smoke emission are now set out in the Environmental Pollution Control (Vehicular Emissions) Regulations 1999, which is administered by ENV.

Sir, vehicle seizure powers under section 95 of the RTA can only be invoked when there is a person using the offending vehicle, or when there is reasonable belief that the vehicle is being used at the point of seizure. This hampers enforcement action when such vehicles are found parked or unattended on public roads. Some of these vehicles include de-registered or unregistered vehicles, foreign registered vehicles without requisite licences, eg, Vehicle Entry Permit, or with outstanding ERP notices, vehicles with false number plates and engine chassis discrepancy detected at Inspection Centres and authorised scrap yards. Clause 12 therefore amends section 95 to enable powers of seizure to be exercised even though the owner, driver or person in charge of the vehicle is not present.

Clause 13 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts section 100 to relocate the classification and description of public service vehicles (PSVs) as the second schedule to the RTA, which is created by clause 19. The schedule may be amended from time to time by LTA by order published in the Gazette. With rapid developments in the motor vehicle industry, such classifications and descriptions are best set out in a schedule, which allows greater flexibility to make timely amendments as required.

Clause 14 creates a new section 123A that will enable LTA to remove stationary vehicles from the expressways. Under section 123 of the RTA, powers to remove stationary vehicles and to collect towing charges presently reside only with the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP). Since 1998, as an interim measure, the DCP has authorised LTA to tow such vehicles under the Expressway Monitoring and Advisory System (EMAS). The new section 123A will empower LTA to compulsorily tow stationary vehicles found on expressways, regardless of whether the cause is a breakdown, abandonment or the commission of an offence. This will ensure that any obstruction or hazard on the expressway can be removed quickly. Clause 14 further makes it an offence for any unauthorised person to tow away any stationary vehicle from an expressway tunnel. This is to ensure safety for both the towing operator and the other motorists using the tunnel.

Finally, Sir, clause 16 inserts a new section 131A to include additional modalities for serving prescribed documents. This will facilitate the serving of notices and summonses. It replaces sections 131(3) and (4) that are deleted by clause 15.

Sir, this Bill contains several amendments, the primary objective being to keep the legislation relevant to support new developments in technology and improve procedures for better administration and more effective enforcement.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, clause 4 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill removes the 14-day grace period prior to the composition of the late penalty fee for the renewal of road tax. The 14-day grace period has been given for a long time for owners to renew the road tax licence from the date of expiry. There are all kinds of reasons why an owner may not be able to renew the licence on time. Why can the Minister not continue with the existing policy? As the grace period has been granted for so long and not to make things more difficult for the owners, why can it not be continued?

When a vehicle with an expired road tax is driven without insurance cover, it is a different matter. The Government should not make it less flexible than it is at present. How many of such cases were there last year when cars with expired road tax without insurance were involved in accidents without insurance recourse? How does the granting of a 14-day grace period affect public safety on the roads? Is a car without a current road tax inherently less safe? Or, by stretching the logic, does a car with a one year road tax safer than a car with a six months road tax?

The second point is on clause 8 which empowers the court to order payment for road tax arrears in addition to court fines. Under the present regulations, if a person is charged in court for using a vehicle without the required road tax, the court has only powers to impose a fine for the offence. It is not empowered to order for payment of road tax. I should point out that the road tax due should not be taken as arrears. Or, if it were, it should only be considered for that part that was due up to the time when the person was caught driving without the road tax. Technically, the road tax licence runs over a certain currency period. I am not a lawyer here. The professors of law in this House may clarify, but I plead for moderation in applying fines.

The third point is on clause 11 which repeals section 72 of the Road Traffic Act. This matter is now being dealt with under the Environmental Pollution Control Act. I am not sure. Perhaps the Minister could clarify who is now going after all the excessive smoky vehicles that we see running on the roads. In the days when it was not an offence making a phone call while driving on the road, I could tell the Minister that I had been one ever eager to make phone calls to the Police on these smoky vehicles when I saw them. Nowadays, I just see them passing by. And I must say that the Police has been very efficient in the handling of such reports, at least at the receptionist end. They always give me the impression that the culprits will be caught. I wonder, with this shift to ENV, how would the patrolling of these vehicles be handled. Does the ENV maintain a group of patrol vehicles on the look out for these smoky vehicles on the roads?

I would like to support this Bill.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill and not to answer the tough legal questions raised by the Chairman of the GPC on Communications.

Sir, I only have a couple of points to make regarding clause 14 which inserts a new section 123A into the existing legislation, so as to give the authority or an agent the power to tow vehicles away from expressways. I am sure that everyone agrees with the policy to remove stationary vehicles from expressways. Such vehicles pose serious hazards, especially where the road shoulders are not too wide. However, I seek clarification from the Minister about the new provision as set out in clause 14. First, why is there a need to provide additionally for removal of vehicles from expressways when the original provision in section 123 already provides for removal of vehicles generally in circumstances such as where the vehicles cause unnecessary or unreasonable obstruction to traffic or otherwise causing a hazard? It is quite easy in my view to include LTA officers within this main section.

Second, the new section 123A, subsection (2), imposes the duty on the authority or its agent to take the vehicle to a parking place, that is, near to that part of the expressway from which the vehicle is removed. Why impose such a duty on the authority? It can be inconvenient both to the authority and to the driver. In any case, the provision seems to be imprecise. What does it mean to be "near"? How would the driver know which parking place his car has been towed to? To avoid doubt and confusion, would it be better to designate car parks where the LTA or its agent would tow vehicles to?

Third, there is a requirement that the owner would be given notice in writing of the removal and location of the car. If a car owner of a stalled vehicle on the expressway were to leave the vehicle unattended while he sought assistance, he might well return to find his car no longer there. What does he do? Does he wait at home for a notice in writing to arrive at his doorstep? How long would that take? Would this not cause unnecessary anxiety? The first sensible response of any driver would be to report to the Police that the car is missing, presumed stolen. Would this not create additional work unnecessarily for everyone, for the authority, for the Police, for the owner of the vehicle? Why can there not be a simpler mechanism, say, a number for all drivers to call to find out whether the car has been towed away by the authority legally and, if so, where has it been towed to or whether it has been stolen?

Finally, there is a special provision barring the towing of vehicles from any, and I quote, "tunnel forming part of an expressway" other than by the authority or its agent. First of all, how does one know whether a tunnel is part of an expressway or not? And secondly, why should a car owner not be allowed to arrange for the towing away of his vehicle if that can be done in safe circumstances?

Sir, I hope some of these issues would be thoroughly addressed as the implementation of this provision may be the source of confusion and frustration to the motoring public if the operational issues are not sorted out. The motoring public should be properly informed.

Mr Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill keeps our legislation relevant to the support of the development in land transport technologies, and is in keeping with our on-going efforts to improve procedures for better administration and more effective enforcement.

However, I would like to comment on the proposed new section 123A, subsection (9), which states that the surplus from the sale or disposal of the vehicle under subsection (8) shall be forfeited by the Government when it is not claimed by the vehicle owner. My suggestion is that the surplus be donated to charity, as is the case of unclaimed lottery prizes. This will send a clear signal to the public that the primary intention of the Government is administrative, and it is an effective solution to the problem at hand. It is not just that Government is after their money.

This would also avoid criticism that the Government has actually profited out of the convenience of the legislated laws. Members of the public who fail to collect the sum of money due to them would be less unhappy with the Government because the money has actually been turned over to charity as provided for under the law. Should the Minister agree that the unclaimed surplus go to charity, then there should be corresponding amendments to section 123, subsection (5) of the principal Act which also deals with a similar issue.

I would also like to comment on the new subsection (8) of section 123A. It provides that if the Government wants to sell the vehicle under subsection (2), it has to give one month's notice in the Government Gazette. On this, my personal view is that most of our people do not have access to the Government Gazette. They do not read the Government Gazette at all. I propose that the authority should at least notify the vehicle owners in writing of its intention to dispose of or sell the vehicle to recover cost, and this is similar to that of subsection (4).

Next, I would like to touch on a few issues relating to the new section 131A. I can appreciate that the proposed new insertion aims to provide the authority with more ways to serve its notices and summonses on the people concerned. However, it does not adequately address the difficulties arising from the service of these notices or summonses. The most common complaint from the people on the ground is that they did not receive the notices or summonses in the first instance due to many reasons, and as a result, they had to pay heavier penalties.

In the case of summonses sent through registered mail, the problem is that most of the time there is no one at home and the intended recipient of the registered letter has to go to the designated post office to collect his notice or summons, and they have to go during working hours. If he drives, he has to find a parking lot, and if there are a lot of people, he has to queue up to just collect the summons. As a result, you have a very angry man there.

On the other hand, in the case of the summons not collected by the intended recipient, the authority will have to send another registered letter or resort to other ways of serving the summons on him. To the best of my knowledge, if a registered letter is not collected, the relevant authority will summon him to court. So most people feel that the whole process is an unnecessary waste of time, money and resources.

Whether it is in the court or at our meet-the-people sessions, much time is spent on ascertaining the reason why the defendants did not receive the summonses. Sometimes we do not know who is telling the truth and who is lying, and whether they have actually received the summonses or not.

I hope that the Minister can spell out clearly in the law the Government's stand on the issues relating to how the notices or summonses should be served. I propose that under section 131A, we should at least cover two key principles.

First, all summonses, notices or orders deemed to be duly served on the intended recipients by any of the channels as provided for under the new section 131A shall be deemed to be duly served on the defendant concerned. Secondly, it is the responsibility of the individual to ensure that all official documents sent to the address registered by him with the National Registration Office or the Land Transport Authority are duly acknowledged. In other words, the last known address shall suffice for the purpose of this section.

This will send a clear signal to the members of the public that unless it is for exceptional and valid reasons, they cannot claim that they have not received the notices or summonses, and use this as an excuse for not paying the composition fine before the due date. Then, the people will have to accept that the summonses have been duly served on them, and they have to pay the fines.

I hope that my above suggestions will be duly considered by the Minister. With that, I support the Amendment Bill.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all the Members for their support of the Bill.

First, let me answer the queries raised by the GPC Chairman. His first point is on why should we remove the 14-day grace period. He is right that the 14-day grace period was given a long, long time ago, at a time when possibly renewal notice was not sent, or it was sent and it would arrive at the recipient's home very near the date of expiry. But nowadays it is a different story. Because of greater efficiency, motorists would receive the renewal notice at least six weeks before the date of expiry. So there is really no good reason for them not to pay the road tax in time. Of course, there could be some reasons like if you are overseas for more than a month or so. If there are good reasons, LTA can consider waiving the penalty fee.

But the more important point is that, if you look at the trend, currently, as I mentioned in my speech, 30% of vehicle owners only renew their road tax during the 14-day grace period. And we do not have record to show how many of them actually do not have insurance coverage because we only check insurance coverage at the point of renewal. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to expect that many of them actually are driving their vehicles without insurance, and that is a very dangerous matter. Therefore, it is prudent to minimise this possibility by saying that they must renew their road tax before the date of expiry. That would enable LTA to check whether they have insurance coverage before the road tax is renewed.

Sir, his second point is about road tax arrears. Road tax is payable for keeping or using a vehicle. If a person keeps a vehicle and refuses to pay the road tax after the road tax has expired, then he owes the Government money. Therefore, anything that he owes must be paid back, because it is due to the State. Currently, after a court case, the court fines him, he still owes LTA money, LTA will then have to go and recover the money by asking him to pay. If he does not pay, we go to the court, take a court order to seize his vehicle and then auction and sell it. So it is a long process. That is why there are some people who actually ignore this and they refuse to pay up the arrears even after the fine. So with this amendment, the court can, at the time when the fine is imposed, also order the motorist to pay up the arrears.

Sir, Mr Chay's final point is about the enforcement of pollution or smoke emission. The enforcement is now carried out by ENV officers. So LTA no longer enforces this. I was told that ENV officers will take a different approach from the LTA. In the past, LTA officers actually patrolled and stopped vehicles and brought them for smoke testing. But I was told that ENV now would station their officers at strategic locations, use digital cameras to take pictures of vehicles emitting smoke from the rear, and then take enforcement action.

Sir, I now come to Prof. Chin's questions. Firstly, he asked why did we need to have an additional section 123A if we already have section 123. Section 123 is currently administered by the Traffic Police. So LTA has to go through the Deputy Commissioner of Police for all the enforcement actions. Administratively, it is not a very efficient way. By creating section 123A, LTA would be able, on its own accord, to take enforcement action and deal direct with the motorists.

He also asked about section 123A(2), ie, taking the vehicle to a parking place that is near to the expressway, why did we impose such a duty and what was the meaning of "near". The reason why we want to remove vehicles from the expressway is to ensure that motorists on the expressway would not be endangered by stationary vehicles. And how do we carry out this duty? We carry out this duty by appointing towing agents. The towing agents have to meet the requirement by getting to the scene within 10 to 15 minutes. So they cannot tow the vehicles too far away because then they may not be able to fulfil this requirement. Some motorists would want the tow operator to tow to their workshops, or other car parks and this would affect the operation of the towing operator. As such, the proposal stipulates that the tow operator would only need to tow to a place nearby. In fact, in practice, LTA would designate nearby HDB and URA car parks for these vehicles to be towed to. Sometimes, a motorist may make a request and say instead of this car park, why not tow to the next car park which is more convenient for him. In this regard, LTA can be flexible as long as the tow operator feels that it would not compromise on its stringent time requirement. So the word "near" is used for this purpose so that there is some flexibility on where the car park should be.

Sir, Prof. Chin made a very good point on what if a motorist is not at the scene when the vehicle is towed away, and what could he do to find out what has happened to his vehicle. Yes, the Bill says that he will be given a notice. But Prof. Chin is right that the notice would only come one or two days later. What he can do is to call the EMAS hotline number at 3334111, as suggested by Prof. Chin. I am sure a lot of motorists could see this number when they drive along the expressway. LTA would publicise this number, and if a motorist finds that his vehicle is not there, this is the number to call. In fact, this number is manned 24 hours. Of course, they can go to the police if they want, but the police would also ask them to call the EMAS hotline number.

Prof. Chin asked how would one know whether or not a tunnel is part of the expressway. Currently, the CTE tunnels have signages delineating the entrances of the tunnels to give motorists advance notice. With this amendment coming into operation, these tunnels, as part of the expressway, would also be gazetted and additional publicity would be given.

The last question raised by Prof. Chin is whether, in a tunnel, the motorist can arrange for his own tow truck to tow away the vehicle. Sir, motorists are allowed to use their own towing service on expressways, which are not tunnels, provided that the private towing service arrives before the EMAS towing service. But to ensure the safety and convenience of the other motorists on the expressway, it is important that stalled vehicles are towed away quickly, and not be left on the carriageway or shoulders. Therefore, if the EMAS towing service arrives first, the stalled vehicle would be towed away by the EMAS towing service.

When it comes to a tunnel, it is a very vulnerable environment. Because overseas experience has shown that a small accident in a tunnel could lead to a major disaster involving many casualties. Hence, it is necessary that tow operators are familiar with the tunnel regulations, entrances and exits. They should also be equipped with first aid and fire fighting skills, familiar with the location of tunnel safety equipment, the safety procedures and assist in an emergency evacuation. LTA's appointed towing operator is fully equipped with the set skills and knowledge. Other towing operators may not be trained to operate safely in the CTE tunnels. In addition, the appointed towing crew comprises two operators, one would assist to recover the stalled vehicle, and the other would ensure that safety procedures, such as the use of safety cones, are observed. This would ensure maximum safety inside the tunnel. Unlike other towing companies, they usually have only one-man-operated tow crew.

Sir, I come to Mr Ong Ah Heng's questions. First, he asked why the unclaimed surplus money could not be given to charity and why should it go to the Government. Sir, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus money to Government, after setting off against outstanding charges under section 123A, is consistent with the other fiscal provisions in RTA. These provisions are correct because we should not mix charity with the provision of unclaimed money going to the Government. The Government would have its own programme and budget for charity work. But this is unclaimed money and it should go to the State.

Sir, Mr Ong asked whether, under section 123A(8), publication by Gazette before the vehicle is auctioned, we should also make it a requirement to notify the owner before it is auctioned. Let me say that this notification in the Gazette is a requirement before the vehicle is put up for auction. But, administratively, once the vehicle is towed to a parking place, the vehicle owner will be notified, and if he does not collect the vehicle, he will be reminded to collect the vehicle. In the end, when the vehicle is not collected at all, it will then be put in the Gazette for a month before it is auctioned. Yes, administratively, I can ask LTA to send another letter again to tell him that we are going to auction his vehicle. We can do that administratively, but it is not required to be put in the law.

Finally, Mr Ong asked how we could make sure that people would not argue that they had not received the notifications or notices of summonses. The amendment here is to make it clear that, by using one of the means indicated in serving a notice, it is deemed to have been served. In fact, Mr Ong said that we should make clear that this is so. That is what we are doing now, that is, by passing this law and publicising it. As long as notices are served by one of these means, it is deemed to have been served and that it is the responsibility of the owner to comply with the requirement of the law. We cannot force the owner to acknowledge whether or not he has received the notice. What the law requires is that the Government agency has served the notice and it is therefore up to the individual or vehicle owner to comply with the requirement.

Sir, I believe I have answered all the questions and I thank Members for their support.

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.