Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to answer first in Mandarin to the points raised by two Mandarin-speaking Members of Parliament. (In Mandarin) Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Sembawang mentioned the Points Demerit System. According to him, the system of awarding points is too drastic. If you commit a traffic offence three times, you would reach the maximum of 12 points, that is, if you get four points for each offence, then after three offences you will reach the maximum of 12 points allowed to you and your driving licence will be suspended for up to six months. In his view, this is too drastic. However, we have heard the Member for Toa Payoh saying that this system is not strict enough as we should consider the plight of the families of victims of such accidents. He has also given a number of instances of negligent driving by professional drivers to support his point of view. However, as this system is new, I do not think the professional drivers need be over-concerned about it. Whether the effects of the implementation of this system will be as bad as what the Member for Sembawang thinks, we will be able to know only after some time. He has also recommended that the period of suspension should not exceed one week. Of course, he is quite justified in being concerned about the plight of professional drivers as, if I am not mistaken, he is the adviser to the Taxi Drivers Association. But I think we will have to wait for a certain period to see the full effects of this new Bill. He also brought up the question of the ticketing system, and added that the officers should not abuse their powers. I think every one with any conscience - every Government official, every civilian, every Member of Parliament, and every law-abiding citizen -believes in this. But what is an abuse of authority, or what constitutes an abuse of authority? This is rather ambiguous and cannot be defined clearly. However, if the Member does come across instances where such abuse has taken place, I shall be pleased to know more about the details of the particular case so that I can try my best to investigate and see what can be done. The Member for Bras Basah mentioned that the Bill is only a means of treating the symptoms and is not a fundamental solution to the problem. The provisions of this Bill are new, but we know that in many other countries similar provisions have already been effectively implemented. Let us wait for some time before assessing the effects of this Bill and come to the conclusion whether or not it is sound or effective. He also mentioned the point about reducing the number of vehicles as the basic and fundamental solution to the problem. He further mentioned that the minimum age of drivers should be raised from 17 to 21 years. On these two points, of course, the reduction in the number of vehicles will help to reduce accidents because, in theory at least, if there are fewer vehicles, the number of accidents should correspondingly decrease. But this is not something that we can do immediately because reducing the number of vehicles may affect the livelihood of many people. The policy of the Government is very clear. In the last few months, we have repeatedly announced our policy in respect of this problem. We will try our best to restrict the number of unnecessary vehicles on our roads. On the question of the age of the drivers, there are several conflicting points of view. Young people, of course, feel that the age should not be raised. There are some young people who are reckless or who are not so careful. But up to now, we have no concrete and positive evidence to show that drivers in this age group of 17 and 21 years are accident-prone. We know that young people today learn a lot of skills, and they learn various skills at an early age. Of course, they would like to obtain the skills at an even earlier age. And driving is one of the skills they would like to acquire at an early age. So for the time being, I cannot give him a very satisfactory answer because I think time is needed to see the development of these events. (In English) Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may now answer the other Members of Parliament in English. I appreciate the support of the Member for Katong. He raised the point on the re-issue of driving licences. He 3pecifically maintained that a re-test should be given to those whose licences have been suspended, and not just re-issue licences to them on expiry of the suspension period. We all know that our driving test centres are unable to cope with new drivers right now. So if we are going to implement his suggestion, I think the queue will be even longer. `There is merit in his suggestion, but it takes some time to see whether it can he worked out administratively. He also mentioned about "L" motorcyclists. The Ministry of Communications has recently introduced administrative action to ensure that an "L" motor-cyclist should try to pass a riding test within three years or else he has to re-sit the Highway Code test before another "L" licence can be issued to him. This is, in fact, one administrative step ahead to persuade "L" riders to sit for the test. The large number of these "L" motor-cyclists that we see on our roads is partly due to the fact that the majority of them just do not bother to apply for a test because the fee for an "L" driving licence is just twice the fee for an ordinary driving licence. But with the introduction of this new ruling, I am sure the number will be reduced. Regarding his comment on Government vehicles, I can only assure him that Government vehicles enjoy no privileges. To the Member for Serangoon Gardens, I thank him for his support of the Bill. He mentioned about the positive measures instead of the Points Demerit System which, he says, is negative in approach. Legal action by itself is negative. It is only by educating our people, the next generation, to be better educated, that I think the approach through education will be a more positive one. As for awarding privileges to good drivers, I doubt this could be implemented administratively because it will become too complicated an issue. The Member for Toa Payoh has suggested that jaywalkers should not be let off so lightly, and he commented that the penalties provided for jaywalking are not enough. I mentioned in my speech that initially the penalties are meant to educate the jaywalkers, hut if we find that they persist in jaywalking and their accident rate is still high, then the existing law has provision to increase the penalties. It is, therefore, not necessary to provide heavy penalties to deal with them at this stage. The existing law is quite adequate, and because it is something new I feel that initially jay-walkers should be given a chance. As for the Member for Jalan Kayu's comment that the law is made in one Ministry and enforced by another, I have listened to it with deep interest and I have no comments to offer. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee supports the Bill. He has specifically pointed out that the penalty of six points for dangerous driving is too lenient. The Points Demerit System can be administratively changed. If it is subsequently proved that six points are not adequate to deal with this group of reckless drivers, perhaps they can he increased. I hope I have answered all the questions.