ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 6.05 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

New driving licence

The Police currently issues driving licences to those who pass the driving test. The driving licence serves as a reference document not just for the Police but also other interested parties like insurance and car rental companies, overseas traffic authorities and employers.

The existing driving licence has remained unchanged since 1969. It is made of paper, flimsy, and awkward to carry around in standard card holders. Unlike the driving licences of many other countries, it does not bear a photograph of the licence holder.

Under the current system, drivers are required to renew their licences once every one or three years, paying a fee of $20 or $60 respectively. Each year, approximately 700,000 people renew their licences, with about 62% of drivers renewing their licences for one year, while the remaining 38% of drivers renew their licences for three years. This current system of regular renewals was introduced a long time ago when the lack of computer technology made it difficult to retrieve or check licensing records that were more than three years old.

This Bill proposes to amend the Road Traffic Act to introduce a new driving licence. This driving licence will be durable, credit-card sized and will bear a photograph of the licence holder. The new driving licence will also be valid for life for Singaporean citizens and permanent residents. Technology now allows Traffic Police to maintain licence records over long periods of time. This system of lifetime driving licences is already in place in several European countries, such as Belgium, France, Germany, Norway and Switzerland.

However, foreigners who convert their native driving licences to the new photocard driving licence will not receive the lifetime licence, but one that is valid for a maximum period of five years. This is because many of them will not be working in Singapore after five years. They will not need the Singapore licence when they do not live and work here anymore. If they do, they can renew their licence.

Road safety will not be compromised by the introduction of the new lifetime driving licence. As is the case now, elderly drivers will still be required to undergo regular medical checks at age 60, 63 and every year thereafter to certify their fitness to drive, in order to retain their licences. The Traffic Police also has several measures in place to revoke, suspend and disqualify the licences of incompetent drivers, such as the Driver Improvement Points System.

The new photocard driving licence will be introduced in December this year. Existing drivers will only need to obtain the new driving licence upon the expiry of their existing paper driving licences. For example, if a motorist currently holds a licence that expires in July 2003, he will only be able to obtain the new photocard driving licence in July next year. There is therefore no need to rush to obtain the new driving licence. All drivers will be able to obtain it progressively, as their existing paper licences expire.

The introduction of the new driving licence will bring greater convenience and reduce cost for licence holders. Motorists will only pay a fee of $50 to obtain the new driving licence, instead of the $20 or $60 they pay every one or three years currently. Traffic Police informed me that most drivers obtain their driving licence around the age of 21. If they drive until the age of 60, they would have to pay a total of $780 over the years to renew their licence, under the current system of periodic renewals, assuming, of course, the fee remains unchanged at $20 per year, and assuming that they stop driving at 60. With the new driving licence, they only have to pay $50, provided they do not lose or damage their driving licence. Motorists will also no longer need to worry about the hassle of renewing their licences every year or every three years. If their licence is lost or damaged, then they would have to pay $25 for a replacement.

These changes will affect a large number of Singaporeans, and Members' constituents may have questions regarding the new driving licence. The Traffic Police will send a letter to every household informing them about the changes. They will also post a list of questions and answers on their Internet website to explain the details. I had earlier on asked the Clerk of Parliament to distribute to all Members a copy of the questions and answers, and the press release on the new driving licence. I hope Members will find these materials useful.

Deletion of section 62A (2) and section 62A (3) of the Road Traffic Act

We are also taking the opportunity to delete some obsolete sections in the Road Traffic Act. In 1990, my Ministry introduced section 62A(1) to disallow drivers above 70 years of age from driving heavy vehicles. At that time, we gave elderly drivers a three-year grace period, up till April 1993, to comply with this new provision. This was to ensure that no elderly driver would suddenly be deprived of a livelihood. Sections 62A(2) and (3) provided for this 3-year grace period. Now that the grace period is long over, these two provisions are therefore obsolete and will be repealed.

However, I wish to emphasise that section 62A(1) still remains in force, and we have not changed our stand on disallowing drivers above 70 years of age from driving heavy vehicles.

Enhanced measures against hit-and-run drivers

The Road Traffic Act is also amended to enhance the measures we can take against hit-and-run drivers. The number of hit-and-run cases involving injuries or fatalities remains high. There were 179 hit-and-run cases in the year 2000, and 154 cases in 2001. These figures were higher than any of the preceding years since 1993. The act of hitting a person and driving off without stopping is wholly unacceptable. This is especially so when such a failure to render assistance can mean the difference between life and death to the victim.

My Ministry proposes to enhance the measures against hit-and-run drivers in the following ways: . Firstly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police will be empowered to suspend the licence of a driver charged for failing to stop in an accident, which has caused death or serious injury, while he awaits court trial. Under the Road Traffic Act, a serious injury means any injury which causes a person to be in severe bodily pain, or to be unable to follow his ordinary lifestyle, for a period of seven days, as certified by a medical doctor.

Secondly, we will enhance the penalty for hit-and-run drivers by making it mandatory for the court to disqualify a person convicted of a hit-and-run case, from holding or obtaining a driving licence for at least 12 months from the date of conviction. . Thirdly, Police officers will be given powers of arrest, search and seizure without a warrant in hit-and-run cases. This power is crucial as investigations into these cases are time-sensitive. In past cases investigated by the Traffic Police, the Traffic Police have found drivers who would attempt to replace or remove damaged parts of their cars to evade arrest. For example, in one case, a hit-and-run driver had tried to evade arrest by replacing his car's front bumper, bonnet and side mirror, which had been damaged because of the accident. With the powers of arrest, search and seizure without a warrant in hit-and-run cases, the Police would be able to swiftly search a suspect's car and seize any evidence before the driver tries to dispose of it. Such powers are therefore necessary to prevent offenders from tampering with any evidence of the offence.

Currently, a person convicted of hit-and-run where death or serious injury is caused can expect to be fined up to $3,000 and/or imprisoned for a term of up to 12 months. However, there is currently a disparity between the penalties for drink-driving and hit-and-run. The existing penalties for drink-driving are a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for a term of up to 6 months, and mandatory disqualification from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of 12 months.

This disparity between the penalties may result in a drink-driver who causes an accident to flee the scene. If the culprit driver surrenders himself to the Police or is traced through Police investigations after the alcohol in his body has subsided several hours later, the Police will not be able to prove that the driver was driving under the influence of alcohol, as his blood specimen will not indicate the presence of alcohol. In this way, a drink-driver who flees the accident scene will not face mandatory disqualification of his driving licence even if he had caused death or serious injury in the hit-and-run accident. To address this, the amendment to introduce mandatory disqualification of the driving licence in the case of hit-and-run drivers where death or serious injury is caused, will create parity in the penalties for both drink-driving and hit-and-run.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, these measures will make our roads safer.

I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. I particularly welcome the move to provide driving licences for life at a reasonable cost announced by the Minister of $50. I do hope that the Minister would consider free licences, as is the case with ICs or, at least, on a cost recovery basis for such licences. But, I suppose, $50 would be regarded by most as reasonable for a life-time licence.

I turn to the powers of suspension of licences which have been increased as far as the Deputy Commissioner of Police is concerned. This is a very necessary power but must be used judiciously. This is especially so when the driver is the sole breadwinner of the family and when driving is a necessary part of his work. Very often, hon. Members would have to write to Traffic Police to review the suspension of drivers whose family incomes are seriously affected when the drivers are suspended. While I am, of course, not questioning the need for such a power or the exercise of it in appropriate circumstances, I would hope that there will be at least an appeal procedure set up for the driver to take when he wishes to contest suspension. Decisions made must be consistent as this is a quasi-judicial function and made only after due consideration is given to the seriousness of the offence, the driving record of the driver concerned and the effect such an suspension has on the driver and his family.

Finally, I should like to ask the Minister to look into the rule that says that after a driver is suspended for a reasonably long period such as a year and above, he or she must retake the road test. While I agree that the driver must show proficiency in driving after such a long layoff, I would also like to suggest that they be allowed to take the test, and perhaps an amended test, as soon as the period of suspension ends, instead of waiting in the queue with the others. This has frequently meant that they are actually suspended for a longer period currently while waiting for the test. In many instances, their income has already been seriously affected and this prolongs the suspension even more. The suspended driver should be allowed to return to driving within a reasonable period and that means providing a test as soon as practicable.

Madam, the Traffic Police and LTA have been doing a good job in educating the driving community to drive or ride with care and not to speed. It would seem that in many instances, the public education campaigns may not have had the desired effects and I would hope that the Minister would still look into new ways of educating drivers, especially those booked for speeding offences. Suspension should be used only on the most serious offences with the demerit system, and with certain offences having their points increased, it is easy especially for those who drive for a living to fall within the suspension range. I believe we should review the system to see whether before suspension, a driver can have sufficient warning about his poor driving record and, if needed, educate as to how he may be a better driver before he commits another offence.

Madam, I support the Bill.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Madam Deputy Speaker, regarding the power given to the Deputy Commissioner of Police to suspend the driving licence of a person who is charged for hit-and-run where death or serious injury is caused, such power is not new. In the case of a person charged for causing death or serious injury to another person while under the influence of drink driving, reckless driving or dangerous driving, the Deputy Commissioner of Police already has such powers. But I can assure the House that the Deputy Commissioner will exercise his power to suspend the driving licence judiciously. It will only be invoked if the errant driver has been charged for an offence of hit-and-run. He will not be suspended if he has not been charged. The moment he is charged, then, of course, the Deputy Commissioner has the power to suspend the licence.

While the suspension or disqualification of a person's driving licence may cause some hardship to the family, especially if the person makes his living by driving, such suspension or disqualification of driving licence is necessary in the interest of safety of all other road users. Suspension or disqualification takes a dangerous driver off the roads and, therefore, it will ensure that other road users are protected from such people. Of course, the person who is to be suspended can always make an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner will consider the appeal. But when considering the appeal, he will be very cautious in not putting a dangerous driver back on the roads again.

People who have been suspended or disqualified from driving for a year or more are required to retake the driving test, as is currently the case. This is because these are persons who have already committed serious traffic offences. By requiring them to retake the driving test, it will then ensure that they have improved on their skills and they have changed their driving habits before they are allowed to get on to the roads again. In the case of a person who makes his living by driving, the Traffic Police is always prepared to help to speed up his retest if he has a case to ask for an early test. But that depends on a case-by-case basis.

Prof. Chin asked whether under the demerit point system, we warn drivers about their poor driving record if they have a poor driving record. Indeed, this is already done by the Traffic Police. Under the Road Traffic Act, the Traffic Police is required to warn drivers by giving them notice in writing when a person accumulates 50% of the maximum number of demerit points at which suspension will be imposed. More importantly, I would say for such people who have to make a living through driving, they should be more careful on the roads and not to do anything that may cause danger or great harm to other motorists or road users, so that their licence would not be suspended.

On the matter of educating the motorists, I think every year the Traffic Police conducts road safety campaigns. People do not pay heed. They think that they are safe drivers, until they get into trouble. For those who speed anyway, they will continue to speed until they get caught. While we try to educate them as much as possible, basically it is the attitude of the drivers to be courteous on the road, to give way to other people and to consider the interest of other road users as well. I hope that our motorists on our roads can be as courteous as some of the others in other countries.

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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.