Hansard, Monday, 8 July 2019

1 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry is keeping a close monitoring on the development of the recent air pollution incident in Pasir Gudang and whether it will affect Singapore given the close proximity.

2 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of the Pasir Gudang chemical spill in March 2019 (a) how does the air and water quality in Sengkang, Punggol, Pasir Ris and Pulau Ubin compare with other parts of Singapore from 2008 to 2018, particularly during the northeast monsoon seasons; and (b) what contingency plans are there in the event of an environmental disaster in Johor affecting residents in the aforesaid areas.

Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please?

Yes, please.

Thank you. The National Environment Agency (NEA) monitors and reports the air quality in Singapore through a network of five national air quality monitoring stations across the island. These stations are representative of the ambient air quality of the North, South, East, West and Central regions. Criteria pollutants, namely, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter (PM), both PM2.5 and PM10, are continuously monitored and reported on an hourly basis as the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI). In addition, NEA monitors the coastal water quality continuously through buoy-based monitoring sensors deployed in eight locations around Singapore, including the Straits of Johor. This is supplemented by monthly collection samples from 48 sampling points around Singapore.

From 2008 to 2018, the air and water quality in the northeast region was comparable to the rest of Singapore, including during the northeast monsoon period.

The air and water quality in Singapore has not been affected by the recent pollution incidents in Pasir Gudang. The ambient levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in the northeast region were also well within safe limits. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) also deployed portable standoff chemical gas detectors in the northeast and did not detect any toxic chemicals in the air.

NEA and SCDF are in contact with Malaysia’s Department of Environment (DOE) and Fire and Rescue Department (BOMBA) on this latest incident and will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates if there are significant developments.

Our agencies have put in place precautionary measures to guard against any potential pollution impacts arising from chemical incidents, including those from transboundary sources. NEA’s existing air monitoring stations in the northeast region are able to measure the ambient concentration of a variety of VOCs, including benzene, toluene and xylene, in the parts per billion range. These capabilities, and with the support of SCDF’s portable detectors, should allow us to detect a transboundary plume and to alert our population accordingly.

Mr Melvin Yong.

I thank the Minister for his reply. According to media reports, the Johor Chief Minister Dr Sahruddin Jamal had announced yesterday that the state government is looking into relocating their high-risk chemical factories. I would like to ask if Singapore is actively engaging Malaysia on this to ensure that any relocation does not inadvertently place us at an even higher risk of resultant air pollution.

Both NEA and SCDF are aware of the kinds of chemical industries existing today in Pasir Gudang. It is our existing arrangement to inform each other to ensure that if there are movements of major complexes, we inform each other. So, in this case, when they do and if they do relocate, we will be informed.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, just a few supplementary questions arising from remarks in the mainstream media in Malaysia and contradictory comments by a Minister in particular about the quality of mop-up work done after the Sungei Kim Kim episode and then, a retraction thereafter. My first question is pertaining to the answer to a Parliamentary Question that the Minister gave in April this year with regard to the deployment of chemical gas detectors in the northeast area. Are there any plans that NEA has to make this deployment permanent in view of repeated environmental concerns that are raised in Johor, in particular about incidents that happen affecting school children and members of the public there?

The second question pertains to whether the Ministry is conducting any studies on low, constant exposure to VOCs, given the large number of residential homes in the Sengkang, Punggol and Pasir Ris region, in particular, and the northeast in general. Is the Ministry pursuing any studies in this regard?

Finally, we understand from local reports that there are 252 chemical factories in Pasir Gudang. Is the Ministry aware of how many of these are considered to be high risk by internationally accepted standards?

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. As I had said, all the monitoring stations that I mentioned just now are permanent deployments. These are to detect the ambient levels of VOCs as well as the pollutants in our air. However, when there are complaints from residents of persistent odours or smell that inconvenience them or cause them alarm, SCDF would also then put in the monitoring instruments to ensure that these are either non-existent or, if they are detected, to take the appropriate measures to advise accordingly.

As for low constant VOCs, there are very few studies available to advise how much of it should be of concern to us at the ambient level. In fact, all countries except one that we know of, do not even publish their VOCs on their websites. Usually, these are small. Actually, many of us are, in one form or another, already exposed to VOCs on a daily basis like from the glues and the things that we handle regularly. Therefore, when we publish, for example, the PSI, it is based on benchmarks that have been established from proper medical impact of such pollutants or chemicals by bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from the US.

Can I ask the Member to repeat the last question?

The last question was on the number of high-risk chemical factories at Pasir Gudang.

Yes. There is a constant exchange, as mentioned just now, between SCDF and BOMBA of Malaysia, as well as between NEA and DOE of Malaysia, to exchange information as new factories come up and the kind of risks and protection that they have put in place for each to respond to each other. BOMBA and SCDF carry out very regular joint exercises at our borders to work together and cooperate.

3 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on the current level of our rail reliability and how such continued efforts are going to be sustained and funded.

Sir, our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) service has now stabilised. Our intense efforts to improve rail reliability are producing results. Reliability measured by Mean Kilometres (km) Between Failure (MKBF) shows significant and sustained improvement. In the 12 months ending in June 2019, the MRT network achieved an MKBF of more than 950,000 train-km – almost one million train-km. This is a seven-fold improvement over 2015. Commuters have felt the difference. Recent surveys by the Public Transport Council (PTC) show that commuters’ perceptions of MRT services have improved.

Our MRT is now on par with other world-class systems like the Taipei Metro and Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway (MTR).

These improvements are the result of a concerted multi-year effort. It required rigorous operations and maintenance, disciplined investment and countless personal sacrifices by thousands of public transport workers who have worked day and night to improve the network. We should give them our thanks. I would also like to thank commuters for their patience and understanding. In particular, for the Early Closures and Late Openings (ECLOs), which have given the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the rail operators precious engineering hours to step up maintenance and renewal as our MRT lines age.

Our efforts to improve rail reliability have, however, come at substantial expense to both the operators and the Government. First, the rail operators have ramped up their operations and maintenance to support the much higher level of reliability. Between 2016 and 2017, the total cost of running the rail network has increased by around $270 million. As the fares paid by commuters do not cover operating costs, the rail companies are operating at a loss. In the latest reported financial year, Singapore MRT (SMRT) Trains incurred a loss of $86 million. Singapore Bus Services (SBS) Transit’s train division also lost tens of millions of dollars.

Second, the Government has spent around $1.9 billion to take over ownership of all rail operating assets. While the $1.9 billion is once-off, the Government is now also responsible for the proper and timely renewal of these assets, and this is a huge and continuing financial liability. Under the rail financing framework, the Government pays for the full upfront cost of civil infrastructure and the first set of operating assets. The subsequent operations and maintenance of operating assets are supposed to be fully paid for by the operators, through the collection of fares and non-fare revenues, such as advertising. The depreciation cost of operating assets is supposed to be largely recovered by the Government through licence charges.

But in practice, as fares have been inadequate to cover the cost of operations, Government subsidies have exceeded their intended scope of funding the civil infrastructure and the first set of operating assets. With intensified maintenance to reach the current level of reliability, the Government operating subsidies have increased further. Over the next five years, the Government expects to spend $4.5 billion on operating subsidies. So, this is nearly $1 billion a year. This will be on top of the Government spending $25 billion on civil infrastructure, to build and equip new lines.

LTA and the rail operators are working closely to keep costs under control. We are redesigning our systems and processes. For example, LTA is using its asset renewal programme to install new technologies, such as condition monitoring sensors. For new MRT lines like the Jurong Region Line, LTA is actively engaging the rail operators upstream on the design of the system, to ensure that it is designed and built with efficient downstream operations and maintenance in mind. The rail operators are also pooling their engineering and maintenance capabilities and collaborating with ST Engineering to cut out duplication and raise productivity. All these upstream interventions are necessary, but they will not fully offset the higher costs of operating and maintaining a highly reliable rail network.

Members may ask: why did fares fall below operating cost? PTC’s fare formula is supposed to keep fares in line with macroeconomic cost factors, such as inflation, wages, fuel costs and increases in the network capacity, with a productivity extraction. But until recently, the PTC fare adjustments were not fully implemented. If we had strictly followed PTC’s fare formula, the operators would have been better able to cover the costs of the intensified maintenance. As it is, the additional costs have been partly covered by increased Government subsidy and partly absorbed by the operators who have been incurring substantial losses. So, this is clearly not sustainable.

PTC’s current fare formula is valid until 2023. We will continue to operate under this formula. But we must have the discipline to implement the formula fully, as we adjust fares over the next four years. In due course, the PTC will need to review the fare adjustment mechanism to reflect the increased operating cost to support the intensified maintenance and the additional operating subsidies from the Government to the MRT system. Meanwhile, the Government will provide the operators with a temporary enhanced maintenance grant. The details are being worked out between the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the Ministry of Finance.

Mr Speaker, we have stabilised our MRT service. But we have to sustain these efforts over the long term in order to prevent problems from gradually building up again. This requires discipline: on the operating side to ensure that LTA and the operators invest in upgrades and preventive maintenance of the rail system long before problems become apparent and serious and, on the commuter side, to implement regular fare adjustments to keep the rail system financially viable and Government subsidies under control, so that we can sustain a high quality and affordable public transport network.

We have entrusted the important task of fare review to the PTC and they will be fair to commuters, taxpayers and operators. I seek the Members’ full support for the PTC as and when they make recommendations on transport fare adjustments.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister. I would just like to ask one question. Now that we are at the sweet spot of 950,000 MKBF, does MOT strive to achieve a higher number? The reason why I ask this is because, in life, whilst it is always good to have nicer things, ultimately, somebody needs to pay for it.

Sir, I fully support the sentiment that the Member had just expressed. As an engineer, we know that after one million MKBF, we can always try for two million, three million, four million. But it all comes at a cost. The question is, are commuters prepared to pay at such a high level of reliability? It is a little bit like the quality control chart which we studied in engineering. We know that once you have hit a certain sweet spot, as the Member puts it, you can still achieve higher quality control but the incremental cost required is extremely high. In fact, the curve is not like that of plateauing; the curve is exponential.

And the same thing with rail reliability, at one million MKBF which is what we have targeted. We had surveyed the performance of metros around the world and only a handful consistently achieved a million or crossed a million. And a million, in fact, is a very good, reliable level of service. It does not mean no more delays of more than five minutes, but it means that the frequency of occurrence is tolerable. It will not be often that you encounter such delays. And, if you want to achieve an even higher level of reliability, then one must be prepared to pay for more.

My own sense is that if we can consistently maintain this one million MKBF, that should be good enough. But if for various reasons, future Singapore commuters are demanding an even higher level and are prepared to pay for that greater level of reliability, well, for that, we leave it to the next Transport Minister.

But do not forget one thing, that having crossed a million, it does not mean it will always be up there.

I am a chronic heart disease patient, and I know that I have to take the medication for life. I have just done my blood test. Almost perfect picture. My doctors are happy, I am happy, my family is happy, but it does not mean I can stop the medication. The moment I stop the medication, I know what will happen. Likewise, with the railways.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions. One, I agree with the Minister that having an improved MKBF does not mean that MKBF will always be at that level. In that light, I would like to ask the Minister whether this would be a suitable time to consider introducing service quality as one of the factors in the Fare Review formula. I say this because this will help set the bar for service quality and help to deter decline in service quality in future years.

My second supplementary question is that I would like to ask the Minister: does LTA monitor the frequency of delays of less than five minutes, and if not, are there any plans to do so? This is really to enhance the commuter experience on an everyday basis.

Sir, we monitor all delays. We track all delays, we log all delays and we analyse all delays, whether it is one minute, 30 seconds, five minutes or 10 minutes. That is how we are able to churn out the data.

Secondly, service quality and how do you track it. One major service quality is MKBF – frequency of delays – which is what we are monitoring.

Another is "crowdedness" of train. That is why we included the Network Capacity Factor, in the Fare Formula, as a proxy for crowdedness.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr Speaker. Minister, I understand that the current fare levels do not cover system operating cost for rail and they have not for some time. I just have two supplementary questions related to that.

The first is what is the targeted proportion of Government subsidy for rail operating cost in the longer run? And, second, what kind of changes are we looking at to fare levels? Do we have to expect fare levels in the longer run to reach that target level?

As I have said, this was before my time when there was a big public debate, resulting in the White Paper on public transport. The Government, and I suppose this House, reached a certain long-term view about how one should fund public transport, and it was as what I had articulated in my reply just now. The intention was that the Government will pay for the infrastructure, that means, the tracks, the viaducts, the underground tunnels, plus the first set of operating assets, which include the trains. Subsequent train operations, which include future replacement of the operating assets, have to be paid for from the fare revenue plus non-fare revenues, which include advertising. And if we achieve that, then the operating subsidy would have been zero. But now, it is more like more than 30%.

So, we had a certain long-term view about what the operating subsidy should be; it should be zero. But instead, there is a substantial gap. Can we close it overnight? I think that is not practical. So, my more limited objective in the medium term is to be able to cover the recent level of intensified maintenance, which has cost the operators a lot of money but has delivered the current level of reliability, which seems quite satisfactory. We should try to recover that. How? At what pace? I think PTC will take that into account. But as I said at the reply, we have just adjusted the formula last year, and we have done one round, four more rounds to go. I think let us keep to the formula. Meanwhile, the operators have to be helped. And that is why the Government is footing the bill through this temporary enhanced maintenance grant.

But the key point is, over the next four years, let us have the discipline to implement fully the fare formula adjustments which are needed. But I will leave it to PTC to elaborate their case. I would urge Members to fully support them. But at the same time, bear in mind that this additional maintenance expenditure, which has to be continuously incurred, which allows us to achieve this current level of reliability, has to be paid for.

At the end of the day, let us do not forget, as a total system, who pays for the system. It is people like you and me, taxpayers as well as commuters. The Istana does not have a printing press of money. The money has to come from either taxpayers or commuters. And we just have to find a balance – what is an appropriate level.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I thank the Minister for his reply. My question pertains to rail reliability. Over the last few months – April, May, June – we have had reports in The Straits Times about various resignations in SMRT. Can the Minister share with the House what has been the impact of this reported string of resignations on SMRT's plans towards sustained rail reliability for the long haul?

The second question pertains to resignations from maintenance and engineering roles, functions which have traditionally been raised in this House as an area for improvement. Is that an issue of concern for the Ministry? Given the maintenance and engineering resignations from within SMRT, does it constitute a significant number such that Singaporeans ought to be concerned that we start slipping in terms of the targets that the Minister has set?

Finally, given the number of corporate-related resignations from SMRT, is there any concern that the Ministry has about morale within SMRT and whether the system can continue to move forward reliably?

There was a recent report, not quite by all media, but a Straits Times report. It was only in The Straits Times. Probably one particular journalist who reported that there was a major upcoming resignation by the Head of Trains in SMRT. I read it and I immediately texted the Chairman of SMRT. He was in the air then. As soon as he landed at the airport, he replied to me that "it is fake news". The Straits Times gave an apology, but in tiny font size.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Yes, I understand apologies usually are like that. We have had to deal with some of these as well; and it is always a small section somewhere and you wished it were larger. Generally, the larger point, of course, is about those numbers that the same reporter I believe you are referring to has reported consistently on SMRT issues. Thirty, I believe was the number for human resource-related resignations. And my concern is whether there is a deeper issue within SMRT that the public ought to be concerned about.

Sir, with the change of leadership of SMRT, which has been leading it in the last three years, the team that I have worked together, both aboveground and underground. I know them well. It is a very good team of people. Sometimes, some attrition is useful.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister what is the MKBF for East-West Line because my constituency is in Jurong and the East-West Line is actually quite old. So, is there a plan for even individual lines to reach an MKBF of a million as it is now just an average across the country?

At my level, I look at the whole network. But yes, I also look at individual lines. After all, there are only five lines. So, it is not too difficult to track them. Out of five lines, three are already above a million, and the other two, which include the East-West Line, are not too far behind. East-West Line continues to make progress. The reason, I did explain a few days ago, between North-South Line and East-West Line, both are almost 30 years old and we are changing out some of the core asset items. We started this process with the North-South Line, so the North-South Line benefited from this earlier renewal process. The North-South Line now is 1.4 million MKBF. The East-West Line will eventually catch up and exceed one million.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his explanation of targeting operating subsidy levels. I understand the original target subsidy level was about 0%. Today, it is about 30% or so. I would like to ask the Minister would he have any views on the target balance between commuters and taxpayers going forward. The operating cost subsidy level going forward, should it be closer to 0% or 30%? What are his views on this?

I am an engineer. I am formula-driven. So, the more important thing is discipline. The fares have to be adjusted through a formula, which is what we all agreed, and having debated, discussed and settled on the formula, and the formula will last for a period, in our case, five years. I think much more important is to achieve that discipline. Each time the adjustment comes out, the calculation, what is the output, stick to it. That, I think is much more important.

If you do that and if you are able to do that for four more years, including trying to see how this enhanced maintenance, which has given us today's outcome, can be better funded through additional fares, then I think we would be, in the short term, in a much more comfortable position than what we are today.

Should we drive towards zero? We must never give up on this hope, but if it is not possible in the medium term, it does not matter. The key point is we must not allow the operating subsidy percentage to continue to rise. If from 0%, it now deteriorates to 30% and continues to deteriorate, I think that would be a bad outcome. But if we can reverse it, which I think we can, if we are able to stick to the formula plus taking a look at how the enhanced resources that we have put in can be recovered, then I think, we will be home.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel compelled to ask this because some of us only look at what is happening now in the rail system. I checked my notes last night and at the first MOT Committee of Supply after the last General Election in April 2016, the Minister mentioned to this House that this Government will solve all the rail problems by the end of this term of Government. I was sitting there and when I heard the Minister say it, I nearly fell off my chair. That night, I wrote to the Minister and I told the Minister that we have set ourselves an uphill task and I was concerned that we may have over-promised. I know the problem would be solved but I was cautious as to whether it could be solved within four to five years.

I think today, compared to 2016, it was a seven-fold increase in MKBF. So, with that in mind, Minister, can I ask, what are your thoughts between April 2016 and now, and whether going forward – I know you have said it is for the next Transport Minister to decide – maybe some goals and objectives?

Then and now – then my hair was white, now my hair is black. Chemistry helps! [Laughter.] It is not my style to over-promise because, in politics, we all know this mantra: under-promise, over-deliver. But, when I look at the situation at that time, and having interviewed the various stakeholders, I decided that, no, this is an occasion to break the rule and to set a stretch target in order to rally the whole troop – the tens and thousands of workers out there – towards a common goal and get them inspired. That is why I opted for this figure.

It was not a million initially, in fact. I started off with 800,000. That was set after looking at the global data of the other metros. I thought 800,000 was something doable, during this term of Government. As we go along, we found that, hey, we actually can push further. So, I rounded it up to a million.

But, as I have articulated just now, having reached the million, the more important thing now is to have the discipline to ensure that the financial adjustments are made in time and, at the operational level, do not be complacent, because you can just walk backwards very easily. Especially for the old lines, the North-South and East-West Lines, after you have renewed the core asset group, even if you do very little, they may be able to deliver a very reliable service because that is how engineering systems work. They talk about this bathtub curve. It is very critical that LTA and the operators and the leadership are fully aware of this. It does not mean that once you have achieved some level of reliability, it will always be there; you can walk backwards very quickly. It may not be immediate, but it will show up in a few years' time, as we experienced not too long ago.

4 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there is a need to review the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act in light of the Court of Appeal's judgment in Adili Chibuke Ejike vs Public Prosecutor; and (b) how will the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act continue to function as key legal tools to battle drug trafficking within, into or through Singapore to make Singapore drug-free.

Adili Chibuike Ejike was charged with importing almost two kilogrammes (kg) of methamphetamine, commonly known as "Ice" into Singapore. A person will be guilty of importing under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) if: (a) he is in possession of the drugs; (b) knew of their presence and their nature; and (c) brought the drugs into Singapore without prior authorisation.

In practice, it can be difficult to prove a person's state of mind. To address this, MDA builds in presumptions. When these presumptions apply, a person charged with importing prohibited drugs can be presumed to know of their presence, as well as their nature. It is then for the accused to give sufficient evidence to rebut the presumptions.

There is also the legal concept of "willful blindness". Under the law, a person will be treated as having knowledge of a fact, if it can be shown that he: (a) suspected something was amiss; (b) yet, did not verify his suspicion out of fear of legal consequences; and (c) he had reasonable means of discovering the truth.

Adili was arrested at Changi Airport in November 2011 after flying in from Nigeria. Two packets containing close to two kg of Ice were found concealed in the inner lining of his suitcase. Adili claimed that an acquaintance in Nigeria had told him to pass the suitcase to an unknown person in Singapore and he was given about US$5,000 for his travel expenses. He claimed that he does not know what the suitcase contained, why he had to deliver it, and he did not ask those questions of his acquaintance. The one issue was whether Adili could rebut the presumption that he knew the nature of the drugs in his suitcase. The Court of Appeal noted that the prosecution, in their cross-examination of Adili and in their arguments in addressing this issue, had conceded that Adili did not actually know of the presence of the drugs.

Members will appreciate, once the prosecution accepts that the accused did not know of the presence of the drugs, then the presumption cannot apply. The presumption allows the Court to conclude that the accused did know. But if the prosecution accepts that the accused did not know of that fact, then obviously the presumption cannot be relied upon. This legal reasoning is neither novel nor new and is not in any way different from the Government’s understanding of the law. There are other observations made by the Court of Appeal on willful blindness. We are studying those observations carefully and will set out the Government's views in due course, and whether any legislative amendments are necessary.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Speaker, my understanding is that the presumptions in MDA continue to be key legal tools to combat the trafficking of drugs, that is, the supply of drugs, into Singapore. I have asked the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to confirm whether my understanding is still valid and correct. And, if it is valid and correct, that is, that the presumptions continue to be legal and muscular tools, then arising out of this decision, can the accused now claim a defence that he had no knowledge just by virtue of the drugs being well-concealed? I certainly hope that an accused should not be able to avail himself of such a defence.

Our drug laws have been effective and remain so. We have presumptions under the MDA because it can be difficult to prove a person's state of mind as it is something that is intangible and cannot be seen. The presumptions under the MDA impose a legal burden on accused persons to rebut the presumed facts on a balance of probabilities. The presumptions were introduced precisely to address the difficulty of proving an accused person's subjective state of knowledge. This has been our policy intent right from the beginning. The fact alone that the drugs were well-hidden would not cause the presumptions to be rebutted. Instead, the outcome of each case depends on a holistic assessment of all its unique facts and circumstances as well as the evidence. Our Courts in the past have carefully scrutinised such claims to assess if they are credible such that the presumption is rebutted. And I am confident that they will continue to do so.

Moreover, when the presumptions apply, the accused persons bear the onus of persuading the Court that such claims are credible and should be believed. The outcome of each case depends on its unique facts and circumstances as well as the evidence, and Adili's case turns on its facts. One point worth noting is the robustness of our criminal justice system. If the prosecution fails to discharge its burden of proof, an accused person will be acquitted.

5 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past two years, how many incidences of unauthorised drones have occurred; (b) whether the offenders were found and, if so, what consequences did they face; and (c) whether there are plans to enforce a larger no-fly zone around major transport nodes, such as the airports.

6 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on the investigation of the recent incidents of flight delays at Changi Airport due to the presence of illegal drones and what further measures will be taken to prevent such incidents in the future.

7 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport what are the measures put in place to ensure the prompt removal of drones that have intruded into restricted areas and their identification.

8 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has ascertained the persons responsible for the flying of the unauthorised drones which resulted in flight delays and the shutting of a runway at Changi Airport on 18 June 2019 and what are the actions to be taken to prevent similar delays in the future.

9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the disruptions to flight operations at Changi Airport arising from unauthorised drones on 18, 19 and 24 June 2019 (a) whether the Government has identified the drones in question, the identity of their owners or operators and the reasons for their operation at the material time; and (b) what are the Government's plans to prevent or minimise further disruptions to airport operations from drone operations, especially by unregistered or unidentified owners or operators.

10 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport in view of the latest incident involving unauthorised drones adversely affecting the operation of Changi Airport (a) whether the Ministry has completed its investigation into the incident; and (b) what are the measures taken to prevent future incidents.

11 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport how many drones have been detected in the recent two incidents involving unauthorised drones near Changi Airport and what is the outcome of the investigation thus far.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 5 to 11 together?

Yes, please.

The recent drone intrusions are the first confirmed intrusions into Changi Airport that we have encountered. They disrupted airport operations and led to 55 flight delays and eight diversions over two nights on 18 and 24 June 2019. Although the impact of the recent drone intrusions has been moderate, these intrusions can have severe impact on airport operations. At Gatwick Airport, for example, drone intrusions shut down the entire airport for three days, affecting approximately 1,000 flights.

Police investigations into the drone intrusions are ongoing. We have learnt from the experiences of other airports that identifying the perpetrators can be challenging and will take time.

Meanwhile, our priority is to detect the drones promptly and prevent them from affecting air traffic and endangering public safety. We have taken a multi-agency approach and deployed national resources towards ensuring the safety of Changi Airport operations.

The drone intrusions have caused some to suggest that we should ban the use of drones. There are many beneficial uses of drones. Besides commercial applications, such as drone deliveries and inspections, there are also many recreational users in Singapore. Our schools and institutes of higher learning use drones to teach Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM), including robotics and programming. It is, therefore, important that we continue to take a balanced approach.

By and large, the community of drone enthusiasts fly their drones responsibly and are sensitive to the needs and concerns of other users that they share public space with in our crowded urban environment. Our laws governing the use of drones prohibit their use within five kilometres (km) of an aerodrome, unless a permit has been granted by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS). We have assessed this no-fly zone prohibition to be sufficient.

However, there will be a few selfish and irresponsible persons who operate in flagrant disregard of the law as well as the needs and concerns of others. We will, therefore, tighten the approach to regulating drone uses and dealing with errant drone users through the following measures.

First, we will introduce a mandatory registration regime for all drones operating in Singapore as well as a licensing framework for pilots of large or more capable drones. This will ensure that drone operators are made aware of their responsibilities and undertake to conduct their activities in a responsible manner.

Second, there will be stricter enforcement actions against errant drone operators. Last week, two persons who operated a drone close to an aerodrome were charged. This morning, a company pleaded guilty to a charge of operating a drone without a permit. The company was fined $9,000. Further, there is one other case being investigated for breaching the existing drone regulations. If convicted, they could face fines of up to $20,000. In conjunction with this, the Government is also looking into increasing the penalties for errant drone users.

As with other forms of new technology, finding the right balance in terms of regulations will take time, particularly since drone technology continues to evolve very quickly. This is why CAAS established the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Advisory Panel earlier this year to help review and recommend enhancements to the regulatory framework.

Meanwhile, we have strengthened our counter-drone capabilities at the airport. We stand ready to invest in and deploy additional capabilities to monitor and enforce the safety of our airspace.

Mr Melvin Yong.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I am glad to hear that the Ministry is looking into compulsory registration of drones. I hope that this could be done sooner rather than later. So, can the Senior Minister of State provide an estimated timeline when drone registration may take place?

My second question is we need to go beyond registration. We know that some of this technology allows the operator to fly the drones beyond a certain distance. Given Singapore's small land space, this can even be operated outside of Singapore. I would like to ask if the Ministry has plans to put in place an unmanned aerial traffic management system to track all drones that are in operation within our airspace in real-time so that it can facilitate the authorities to go after any errant operators before it reaches within the high-risk areas, such as the airports.

I would like to thank the Member for those two supplementary questions. On the first query on the timeline for the mandatory registration, we have set up the UAS Advisory Panel in May 2019, who will be looking into some of these issues, including the suggestion to mandate the registration of UAS and we hope to be able to do so by the end of this year. We are urging the Advisory Panel to double up their efforts so that we can bring the timeline earlier.

As to the Member's suggestion of some form of central flight management system, I had, in a previous Parliamentary Sitting announced that we are currently looking into this concept of a central flight management system, whereby registered UAS will be monitored for their activities and where they are operating. However, this is only useful for UAS operators who are cooperative. As for UAS operators who are uncooperative, with the intention of performing malicious activities, relying on our existing sensors to pick up these illegal activities will be of the utmost importance.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Speaker, may I follow up with a question on the drone intrusions? Do we have reason to believe that the recent intrusion at Changi Airport is done by foreigners, whether through foreign control, because we have noted that in the vandalism case on a Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) train at Bishan depot, the intruders were all foreigners?

I would like to share with Mr Ang Wei Neng that, currently, the incidents are being investigated by the Police. It will be too early to prejudge whether these are committed by foreigners or locals, or the profile of the perpetrators. So, I would urge Mr Ang Wei Neng to give us some time to complete the investigation before we are able to make the necessary announcements.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State. I have one supplementary question. We know that enforcement is not the easiest of tasks, but it is a necessary step to ensure there are compliance and smooth operations. Is it possible for the Ministry to conduct active enforcement 24/7, like intercepting the drones at the boundary of the no-fly zone, because it seems like it is a very tedious task? How will the Ministry go about it?

Picking up the activities of drones can be very challenging because the drones are basically quite small in size. Of course, the ideal situation will be to be able to detect the activities of drones on a 24/7 basis.

But having said that, I think we need to look at the modus operandi of these drone users. Like I have mentioned before, there are cooperative UAS users and, in those cases, the central flight management system will be very useful in identifying exactly where these drone users are operating and the activities of these drones. Should there be situations where there are accidental intrusions into some of these restricted areas, the central flight management system will be able to quickly identify these users and inform them about the accidental intrusions.

However, we are now dealing with illegal, unauthorised malicious, deliberate activities by UAS users. In these cases, we need to have a risk-stratified approach where certain areas will be given priority in terms of assessing the activities and detecting where they are operating. One example will be near aerodromes, such as the Changi Airport area, where we will have the capability to detect as well as disrupt these activities in the shortest possible time.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, were there any geofencing solutions in place in Changi Airport by June 2019? If so, why were the existing geofencing solutions inadequate to prevent the disruptions in June? I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State, in light of Minister Ng Eng Hen's comments last week, does CAAS or the Changi Airport Group (CAG) intend to set up a specialist anti-drone unit to deal with drones?

I would like to thank the Member for those supplementary questions. In fact, the Member is correct to say that there are certain solutions like geofencing technology to disallow the operation of certain drones into restricted areas. However, this will only be possible if the user is using a drone that is fitted with that kind of capability. For example, if the users were to use DJI drones, these will be equipped with geofencing capability where the drones will not be allowed to operate in certain restricted areas.

Unfortunately, in this particular case, we are of the assessment that such a capability has been disabled so that the geofencing solutions will not be capable of preventing these intrusions.

As to the Member's second question of the capabilities of CAAS and CAG, MOT and CAAS are working with the various agencies to continue to tap on the security agencies' assets whenever possible or whenever necessary, without compromising their own operational needs. But in the medium term, CAAS and CAG will also be enhancing their own capability to detect and counter drones on an expedited basis. So, the answer in short is that CAG, together with CAAS, will have their own internal capabilities as soon as possible.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Earlier in January this year, a number of Members asked the same question as a result of what happened at Gatwick. The Senior Minister of State replied to say that we have counter measures to deal with safety and security threats posed by unmanned aerial vehicles. So, looking at what has happened, it seems that such countermeasures are inadequate. So, may I ask the Senior Minister of State, what other measures would MOT take to ensure that your measures are adequate to prevent a recurrence?

The second question I have for MOT is whether MOT has quantified the losses caused by the diversion of flights and the closure of the runway and, in light of the massive inconvenience caused to travellers, whether the current maximum fine imposed is adequate. I am trying to say that we should set a stiff punishment to the perpetrators of these offences to make sure that everyone gets the signal that if you disrupt flights, if you cause runways to be closed, the punishment is stiff enough to make sure that everyone reconsiders what they are doing.

I would like to thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for those supplementary questions. Indeed, when I gave the reply in January this year, we did have the capability to detect and disrupt errant drone users. We have also taken a very coordinated approach in managing the current incident. In fact, after the incidents in Gatwick Airport, we have worked out the standard operating procedure and conducted table-top exercises to run through the operational plans so that we would be able to cope with similar incidents within our own airspace.

I would want to thank all the agencies that had been working day in and day out 24/7 to manage the incidents that had happened at Changi Airport. As a result, we have been able to keep it under control. We have managed to keep disruption to the runway and airport operations to the minimum. I would also want to take this opportunity to remind all drone users that it is a very, very serious offence to operate unauthorised drones within five km of the airports or military bases, or at altitudes above 200 feet. Any errant operators of drones will not only pose a danger to aviation, but also to the personal safety of others. Anyone caught flouting this law will face a fine of up to $20,000 or a jail term of up to 12 months or both. We are currently looking at increasing the penalty framework for such offences.

What are the strategies that we have put in place to prevent similar occurrences? Well, I would say that our priority right now is to beef up our existing capabilities to detect these drone intrusions as quickly as possible, very promptly, and to ensure that our air traffic operations continue to function safely with minimal disruptions. At the same time, we will also put in place enhanced detection and disruption systems to be able to immobilise or prevent these drones from causing mayhem in the airspace as well as posing a danger to flights. At the same time, CAAS has also been judiciously managing the air traffic operations in Changi to ensure minimal disruptions to the flight operations. This can be done through risk-based approaches, in terms of planning for departures and arrivals.

These are some measures we are looking at. As I have replied to Mr Dennis Tan's questions, in addition to working with the other agencies, CAAS and CAG are also beefing up their own internal capabilities so that we will be able to manage these incidents more effectively.

12 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the current state of Singapore's economy and the growth risks ahead and where does the Government intend to pivot to, given this period of great external uncertainty.

13 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether he can provide an update on the likely impact that Singapore may face from the US-China trade war and the widening reach of US export controls on emerging and foundational technologies; and (b) what measures and policies can be introduced to ensure headwinds from the escalating US-China trade war, disruptions to the global supply chain and global slowdown will not affect our economy significantly.

14 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how will the ongoing trade war between China and the US impact Singapore; (b) whether the Ministry can name the top three things that the man in the street should be prepared for; and (c) how will the Government cushion the impact.

15 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the implications of the trade dispute between the US and China on Singapore's economy; and (b) what are the measures that the Government is prepared to implement should our economy slow down significantly.

16 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the Government's assessment of the impact of the US-China trade war on the Singapore economy and which sectors are envisaged to be worst-hit or particularly vulnerable; and (b) what measures will the Government institute to support Singaporean workers in these sectors.

17 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he can (i) give an assessment of the risk of a global trade war and (ii) elaborate on the strategies that Singapore is deploying to manage that risk.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 12 to 17 together?

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will group the answers into three parts: first, the state of Singapore's economy; second, our medium-term outlook; and third, our strategies to manage the challenges and seize new opportunities.

The global economic environment has weakened. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has lowered its forecast for global gross domestic product (GDP) growth this year by 0.2 percentage points, from 3.5% to 3.3%. Key uncertainties include (a) the United States (US)-China trade dispute, which has gone beyond retaliatory tariffs to other areas, including restrictions on technology access and sales; (b) the uncertainty and risk of a disorderly Brexit; and (c) the political uncertainties of some regional economies.

All these have dampened consumer and business confidence. Lower demand in our key export markets has, in turn, affected our outward-oriented sectors, such as electronics, precision engineering and wholesale trade, whose performance remains weak. Although the Economic Development Board (EDB) is on track to achieving its foreign investment targets for this year, we are watching businesses' investment decisions very closely.

However, there are pockets of strength in our economy. The information and communications sector is expected to grow, given firms’ robust demand for information technology and digital solutions. The education, health and social services sector is similarly expected to remain resilient. The construction sector has also turned around after three years of contraction. Our labour market remains resilient. Employment continued to increase in the first quarter of the year, while unemployment remains low at 2.2%.

In May, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) projected that our economy would grow between 1.5% and 2.5% this year. MTI will review our forecast in August, taking into account the full set of economic data for the second quarter, as well as the latest external economic conditions. Let me touch on the second part of my answer and the medium-term outlook for Singapore.

The medium-term outlook for the Singapore economy will be determined by the following factors.

First, how the US-China trade conflict develops. Further tariffs will impact more goods and bring about even greater reorganisation of global supply chains. The IMF had estimated that the US-China tariffs could cut global economic output by 0.5 percentage points in 2020. Both countries' agreement to resume trade negotiations is welcome news, but there are fundamental disagreements between them and those will take time to resolve. Prolonged US-China tensions will further undermine global business and consumer confidence.

Second, our medium-term outlook will depend on how our major export markets perform. Southeast Asia remains a bright spark, and the US economy appears to be holding up. However, China's economy could slow down more sharply than expected due to the trade conflict with the US and this could further dampen its import demand from the region. And Europe needs a decisive resolution on Brexit.

While we must weather these immediate challenges, we must, more importantly, navigate more fundamental shifts in the global economy that will shape our medium- to long-term prospects.

One is the future of the multilateral trading system. Over the past 40 years, Singapore has benefited from increased economic integration and free trade, underpinned by international rules that apply to countries big and small, and anchored by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Unfortunately, the multilateral trading system is currently under stress. The risks of economic balkanisation, where markets are bifurcated and trade, talent and data flows are disrupted, have grown. An increasingly protectionist global environment would reduce our access to markets. When we are all reduced to competing for a slice of a shrinking economic pie, no one wins.

The second is the emergence of global rules that may affect our status as a global trading hub. For instance, ongoing discussions to introduce minimum effective tax rates across countries will affect our competitiveness and carbon caps will constrain our growth potential. We must navigate this carefully to preserve our economic space.

The third is our ability to harness our new technologies and create opportunities, especially in the digital economy. I will elaborate on this shortly.

Let me now talk about our strategies to manage these challenges and to seize the new opportunities.

To overcome these challenges and seize the opportunities, we will focus our economic strategy on three prongs: first, strengthen our fundamentals to distinguish ourselves from the competition; second, create opportunities by constantly refreshing our offerings to business and investors; and third, promote a conducive global and regional business environment with like-minded countries and companies.

Let me elaborate on the first, strengthening our fundamentals to distinguish ourselves amidst the uncertainty.

Our fundamentals that have put us in good stead include the following:

First, a stable political environment with a competent and united leadership.

Second, a pro-business environment, including rule of law, a pro-innovation regulatory environment, and a safe harbour for talent and ideas.

Third, superior connectivity in supply chains and distribution networks, spanning the physical dimensions like air, land and sea, and including the non-physical dimensions of data, finance, talent, technology and rules.

Fourth, a skilled workforce that continues to upgrade itself through training and retraining.

Fifth, a progressive tripartite partnership that enables the Government, businesses and labour to overcome our challenges together.

Each of these attributes enhances our competitiveness. Collectively, they enable Singapore to be much more than the sum of its individual parts. That is why the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) recently ranked Singapore the world’s most competitive economy. We must, however, extend our lead, by continuing to build on these fundamentals and seizing new opportunities.

Let me now touch on the new opportunities, that is, the second prong of our economic strategy, and it is to constantly refresh our offerings to business and investors.

As a small, open economy, Singapore must always adapt to changing external circumstances, and harness the power of our people and technology.

We are making encouraging progress transforming our industries through the work of the Future Economy Council (FEC) and the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). For example, in Advanced Manufacturing, we are creating new niche areas, such as additive manufacturing and advanced materials. Our strong manufacturing sector will allow us to plug into global supply chains to meet demand from emerging adjacent industries, such as electric vehicles.

We will build the next-generation industrial and technological estates, such as the Jurong Innovation District (JID) and the Punggol Digital District. We will also redevelop entire tracts at Sungei Kadut and Kranji for new industries.

To enrich our tourism offerings, we are rejuvenating the two Integrated Resorts, transforming Orchard Road and exploring a tourism site at Jurong Lake District. We will also be developing Mandai and the Greater Southern Waterfront. These initiatives will enhance our position as a global city for business and leisure.

Beyond transforming existing sectors and industries, we are also developing brand new sectors.

For example, we are establishing a new Agri-Food Innovation Park in Sungei Kadut to realise our agritech ambitions. The Innovation Park will bring together high-tech precision farming and research and development (R&D) activities, including indoor plant factories, insect farms and animal feed production facilities. This will create a completely new range of jobs in agriculture and give a new generation of young technopreneur farmers the platform to commercialise their ideas.

Another new area that we are focusing on is Precision Medicine. This uses each patient's biological data to more precisely predict, diagnose and treat diseases. EDB is working hard to bring to Singapore various biotech firms, medical technology firms and digital health players. I have just opened Glaxo Smith Kline's (GSK's) two new manufacturing facilities last week. GSK is investing more than $100 million in Singapore to produce new medicines faster, with a lower carbon footprint. GSK's investment reflects their continued confidence in Singapore's future.

Besides transforming entire sectors, we will also support our companies to better harness the regional and global opportunities.

We already have a vibrant startup sector at Block 71, one-north. But we can do a better job helping our companies scale up and grow. Enterprise Singapore will, therefore, launch the "Scale-up SG" programme on Wednesday to provide customised assistance to high potential companies to grow and internationalise. We must also continue to work hard to translate our R&D capabilities into new business opportunities with our companies.

And there is no lack of opportunities and possibilities in Singapore. We can only be constrained by our imagination.

To realise all these plans, we will continue to do our part to promote a conducive global and regional business environment with like-minded countries and companies. This is the third prong of our economic strategy.

Digital trade is one such example. It is a key driver of our future economic growth. We will continue to advocate for an integrated, global digital economy. This includes our efforts to co-develop international trade rules for the digital economy. This is the reason why we are co-convenors of the Joint Statement Initiative on E-commerce (JSI) at the WTO which has since attracted participation from 78 countries. We are also pursuing a pathfinder Digital Economy Partnership Agreement with Chile and New Zealand, and we are working with Australia on digital economy initiatives, which will all help to provide greater opportunities for our businesses in an increasingly digitalised future.

We will also continue to strengthen and deepen and diversify our trade links. We will forge new partnerships through ongoing negotiations in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), as we call it, and the Pacific Alliance Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Once concluded, RCEP will be the world's largest free trade area, bringing together economies accounting for a third of the global GDP and almost half of the world's population. The potential for Singapore businesses will be enormous.

At the same time, we will also review and upgrade our current partnerships, including the China-Singapore FTA, and the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with India. These upgrades will increase the benefits that Singapore companies already gain from the existing FTAs. Today, more than 90% of Singapore's trade is covered by our various FTAs.

These efforts will ensure that our external linkages remain strong whatever happens elsewhere in the world. And collectively, they will give Team Singapore the best chance for success.

As Members can see, we are closely monitoring economic developments. While there are clouds looming, we believe we have the fundamentals to weather the storm. Our economic fundamentals are sound. We are in a strong fiscal position, and we are making good progress in restructuring our economy. The Government also stands ready to step up our support for companies and workers in sustaining our core capabilities, enhancing our competitiveness to seize new opportunities. So, let us work together, plant the seeds for tomorrow's growth, till the land, and we should have a good harvest.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Notwithstanding the Minister's very reassuring reply, I still have two further questions.

Firstly, as the Minister has just said, our global trade systems are under stress. Indeed, the way things are developing, the world may, indeed, be trading less with one another, or investing less with one another as well, and both are important. Trade and investments are always the key drivers for the Singapore economy. So, I want to ask the Minister: should we be concerned that more economies around the world are becoming more nationalistic, governments are increasingly looking at balance of trade, current account balances as a pure zero-sum game? How can tiny Singapore respond to this rising economic nationalism?

Secondly, beyond exporting goods and services to the consumers of the world, what are the other ways we can sustain growth within our economy? How can it create opportunities for Singapore? Can Singapore break out from this traditional C+I+G+X kind of model of growth?

Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed, Mr Liang Eng Hwa has raised a very serious concern for all of us, not just Singapore, but for all countries that are participating in the global trading system.

As countries become more nationalistic and undertake more unilateralist or protectionist measures, it is a concern to all. The concern will be that there will not just be a shift in the supply chains or the distribution networks or the production sites. The greater concern will be a general fall in investor and consumer confidence.

For Singapore to respond to this scenario, we must make sure that our companies have real capabilities that can allow them to interoperate across a more fragmented landscape. This is not easy. But this is something that we must do in the face of a potential fragmentation of the global economy.

On the Member's second question, as any economics student will know the GDP equation of C+I+G+X-M, that is, for GDP. How must Singapore grow our economy, going forward? What the Member is alluding to, if I read him correctly, is that we must not just look at what is happening domestically in Singapore. And indeed, that is true.

There are three things that we should be focused on. First, what happens domestically. How do we help our companies and workers to build real capabilities in order to contest in the new world environment? That is domestic. How do we help them access markets; how do we make sure that the rules allow our companies to overcome both the tariff and the non-tariff barriers? So, that is the first part of how we need to run our economy.

The second part of how we need to run our economy goes beyond the GDP equation that we just mentioned. And we talked about the gross national product (GNP). How do we have a sizeable base of companies that operate beyond Singapore but contributing back to the Singapore economy? And I will use the example of PSA.

Once upon a time, we believed that the port is critical to Singapore and we continue to believe so. But a port has two possible functions. One is to promote trade with a particular country. The other – most ports are like that – they serve the local domestic economy.

But there is a second way of looking at the port, which is the way the Singapore port has developed. We are an exchange platform so that people do not just trade with Singapore; people trade through Singapore. So, night, the vast majority of the containers that come to Singapore come through Singapore and we are a major exchange hub. But having done that, it is still not sufficient because trade routes might change, and the global supply chains and patterns will also change, which is why, over the years, PSA has built up a string of ports all around the world, allowing them not just to be a port operator, but allowing them to be global logistics players. So, even if the goods do not come to Singapore or come through Singapore, they will trade on the PSA platform or on the Singapore platform. This is a new way of looking at how we should do business.

That is why Enterprise Singapore (ESG), together with the rest of our economic agencies, is spending so much effort to help our companies to use the world as our hinterland and never be constrained by our geographical size or geographical location. And that will be the next lap of our economic development, and that will be one way where we break the conventional paradigm of the GDP equation which Mr Liang mentioned C+I+G+X-M.

The third prong which we must always bear in mind and, sometimes, not so obvious in the public consciousness in our economic strategy, will be how we manage our Reserves and where we put our investments. Today, we are in a fortunate position whereby for every $5 we spend in the Budget, slightly more than $1 this year comes from our returns from our investment. This has given the Singapore economy a significant boost and helped our budgetary constraints very much. And thus, we must continue to harness our Reserves judiciously to make sure that we create the biggest positive impact for Singaporeans.

So, going forward, our economic strategy is not just about looking at what we can do domestically, between local firms and foreign firms operating here. We must also look at how we grow the external wing, our GNP, and how we master our investment resources to make sure that we have the ammunition for us to weather the storm.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

I would like to thank the Minister for answering the question just now. I think the Minister highlighted the importance of strengthening the fundamentals in Singapore. I have two supplementary questions.

One is related to something more detailed, in particular, the recent US Department of Commerce's proposed export controls on 14 categories of technology. And I think it has some impact on Singapore, in particular, what the Minister mentioned, in terms of investments as well. So, whether the Minister can share with the House whether there would be a potential impact on Singapore, in terms of investments and potential tech-related restrictions that the US imposes on China, and how that affects Singapore companies as well. That is the first question.

The second is: the Minister highlighted about the trade and tech diversions and the supply chain changes. In the region, other countries are also putting in efforts to pull in some of these trade diversions into their countries. Can the Minister share EDB's strategies, in terms of reaping some of the benefits, or pulling some of these production networks into Singapore, if any?

Mr Speaker, let me deal with the first one. Indeed, the restrictions on export of what is deemed as a sensitive technology will have implications for the entire global technological ecosystem. In the short term, various companies and countries may be able to take measures to shift their production or supply chains elsewhere. This is what we call the substitution effect. But, in the longer term, what we are most worried about is that it will lead to a bifurcation, if not a fragmentation, of the entire technological space. If that happens, then we are all the worse for it because it means that the global production system cannot be optimised as a whole, but it will be sub-optimised in parts. This will lead to increased costs, a fragmented production chain and so forth. So, that will be the greatest concern.

Our Singapore strategy remains that we will thrive to be able to interoperate across the different jurisdictions and different systems. But we must also inspire confidence in people who put their investments here that, even in such a world, we are able to manage the different sensitivities across different countries properly.

On the Member's second part about the shifts in the global supply chain, indeed, to use a very specific example, some people have said that various productions and supply chains have shifted out from China in the global reorganisation of that product chain. Some of it will come to some parts of the region, around here. Some of it might come to Singapore.

But I must say that Singapore does not compete with the rest of the regional economies for the entire shift in the global production chain. There are some things that we do much better; there are some things that will not be re-allocated here. The simple example is this: for what we call the low-mix, high-volume production, most of them will not come to Singapore because they compete on the basis of scale, labour costs, land costs. But what will come to Singapore will be what we call the high-mix, low-volume. This is where trust, standards, quality, assurance, intellectual property (IP) protection will become very important. And we have seen more of such investments siting in Singapore.

So, just to give an example, last week, I went to GSK to open the new facilities. Today's precision medicine is no longer just producing high volume at low cost. Those kinds of medicine and drugs will probably shift to other countries where there is a cost-competitive advantage. But GSK will be very keen to work with EDB to site their high-mix, low-volume pharmaceutical products in Singapore. Why? Because for such high-mix, low-volume production, they require speed to market. Which means that your supply chain, your distribution networks must be robust. That, we do better than most other countries. For such industries, it will require a strong IP regime where people can enforce their IP. That, we also do well. For such productions to happen in small batches, high volume, you require a certain agility in your regulatory framework, which we also do well.

So, there are and there will be sectors that will play to Singapore's advantage. But it does not mean that everything that moves out of China or moves out of India will necessarily come to Singapore. That is not our strategy.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) "with respect to point-to-point passenger transport services, to make related amendments to the Public Transport Council Act (Chapter 259B of the 2012 Revised Edition) concerning passenger transport service fares, to repeal the Third-Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act 2015 (Act 17 of 2015) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) on behalf of the Minister for Transport; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to establish the Home Team Science and Technology Agency and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Fire Safety Act (Chapter 109A of the 2000 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Arbitration Act (Chapter 10 of the 2002 Revised Edition) and the International Arbitration Act (Chapter 143A of the 2002 Revised Edition) to clarify that intellectual property disputes may be arbitrated, and to make amendments to the Copyright Act (Chapter 63 of the 2006 Revised Edition), the Geographical Indications Act 2014 (Act 19 of 2014), the Patents Act (Chapter 221 of the 2005 Revised Edition), the Plant Varieties Protection Act (Chapter 232A of the 2006 Revised Edition), the Registered Designs Act (Chapter 266 of the 2005 Revised Edition), the State Courts Act (Chapter 321 of the 2007 Revised Edition) and the Trade Marks Act (Chapter 332 of the 2005 Revised Edition), relating to intellectual property disputes resolution and certain other related matters and the composition of offences", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Road Traffic Act (RTA) provides for the regulation of road traffic and vehicles.

The most recent amendments were by the Ministry of Transport (MOT). In 2017, MOT introduced changes to the autonomous vehicle testing regime. In 2018, the RTA was updated, along with the introduction of the Active Mobility Act. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) also amended the RTA in 2014 to make it an offence for motorists to hold any type of mobile communication device while driving.

While the RTA has been updated regularly, the last comprehensive review was conducted more than 20 years ago, in 1996. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2019 is, therefore, timely. To make our roads safer, we need stronger deterrence against irresponsible driving. We will do this by: (a) enhancing the criminal penalties for irresponsible driving; and (b) tightening the regulatory regime against irresponsible driving.

I will speak, first, on enhancing criminal penalties. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, who will be speaking in her Home Affairs capacity, will cover measures to tighten the regulatory regime, as well as other amendments for better road safety.

Let me start with some background. In recent years, the Traffic Police and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) have stepped up enforcement, education and engagement, to improve road safety. The Traffic Police have upgraded and expanded its enforcement camera network. Earlier this year, the Traffic Police raised the composition sums for road traffic violations to ensure they remain effective deterrents. LTA has installed new road safety infrastructure. In addition, the Traffic Police and LTA ramped up public education and engagement, working with partners, such as the Singapore Road Safety Council.

These efforts have shown encouraging results. Over the past five years, the number of fatal road traffic accidents has dropped more than 20%. There are also fewer road traffic accidents resulting in injuries.

However, irresponsible driving remains a big concern. The number of feedback letters received on irresponsible driving has increased by more than 70% in five years. We also see more video footage of such behaviour being shared online.

Why is this a problem? Because irresponsible driving can have deadly consequences. Even if victims survive the accident, they, or their families, may suffer long-term problems – sometimes, medical; sometimes, permanent disabilities.

In February 2016, a 62-year-old rag-and-bone lady was killed after a drink-driver rammed his vehicle into her. The lady was the main caregiver to her nine-year-old grandson, who was suffering from a rare auto-immune condition. The driver had been drinking for nine straight hours before the accident. Earlier this year, Staff Sgt Salinah, a Police Officer and young mother to three children, was knocked down at a pedestrian crossing. After she was declared brain dead, her husband had to make the difficult decision to take her off life support. Her husband said his children still miss their mother the most around bedtime. These are heart-wrenching tragedies that could have been avoided.

Enforcement, education and road safety infrastructure must certainly continue to be improved. But we also need stronger deterrence against irresponsible driving.

MHA reviewed the existing framework of criminal offences and penalties against irresponsible driving. In February this year, we announced our proposals and sought public feedback. In particular, there was broad support for the enhanced penalties. Many felt the move was timely.

We also received suggestions, some of which have been adopted, and others which we intend to address. I will highlight these suggestions and clarifications in due course.

Mr Speaker, all of the proposals announced in February have been translated into the Bill. There are three broad categories of changes: first, our overall approach in dealing with irresponsible driving offences, particularly those that result in accidents and hurt; second, enhancements to the criminal penalties for drink-driving and related offences; and third, the introduction of minimum mandatory sentences for the most egregious offences.

I will start with our enhanced approach towards irresponsible driving offences. Today, irresponsible driving offences are prosecuted in two ways. One way is under the Penal Code, for Rash Act and Negligent Act. Another way is under the RTA, for Reckless or Dangerous Driving, and Driving without Due Care or Reasonable Consideration. The penalties differ.

For better clarity and consistency, we propose to consolidate irresponsible driving offences under the RTA. We will also streamline the offences into two classes: the first category is Reckless or Dangerous Driving, which I will refer to as Dangerous Driving in the rest of the speech. The second category is Driving without Due Care or Reasonable Consideration, which I will refer to as Careless Driving.

The definitions of Dangerous Driving and Careless Driving are currently in the RTA. We will maintain the current definitions.

Dangerous Driving is more serious than Careless Driving. The two can be differentiated, on a case-by-case basis. The three main considerations, among others, are as follows.

First, whether the manner of driving predictably puts other road users at risk and cause other road users to be unable to react in time. Examples of driving that are considered as dangerous, as opposed to careless, include swerving across lanes suddenly and without warning, driving against the flow of traffic and speeding.

Second, whether the motorist had driven, even though he should have known he was not in a condition to drive safely. Examples of behaviour that are considered dangerous include using mobile devices while driving and failing to use visual aids, such as spectacles, even though he is seriously short-sighted.

Third, whether the road situation required the motorist to take extra care but he did not. Examples include when he is approaching a zebra crossing, or a junction where other road users have the right of way.

When determining the punishment, we will look at the circumstances under which the offence is committed. The threshold for Dangerous Driving is higher than Careless Driving; so, too, the penalties.

Besides looking at the circumstances of the offence, our enhanced approach will also consider the level of harm caused. If the motorist causes more harm, the level of punishment will be higher.

There will be four levels of harm: Death, Grievous Hurt, Hurt and Endangering Life. Such tiering of harm is not new in our laws. The Penal Code already has it.

To summarise, we will enhance our overall approach to penalise irresponsible driving depending on: (a) the circumstances of the offence, whether it constitutes Dangerous Driving or Careless Driving; and (b) the level of harm caused, whether they result in Death, Grievous Hurt, Hurt or Endangering Life.

Let me move on to the penalties themselves. Today, our penalties for irresponsible driving offences are generally less severe than in other jurisdictions. For example, for Dangerous Driving causing Death, the maximum jail term in Singapore is only five years. It is 14 years in the United Kingdom (UK), 10 years in New South Wales in Australia, Hong Kong as well as Malaysia. In most instances, the actual sentences meted out are lower than the maximum penalties. In recent times, there were at least two separate instances of a motorist beating the red light, colliding into and killing another person. In the April 2017 case, a pedestrian was killed. In the April 2018 case, the vehicle collided into another car, killing the rear passenger. Both motorists were charged for the offence of Dangerous Driving causing Death. Their sentences were five and seven months of imprisonment. These are manifestly inadequate. Therefore, we intend to raise the penalties. We also need to raise sentencing norms for egregious irresponsible driving offences, particularly those that result in death or some form of permanent disabilities.

Let me first deal with penalties in general. Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill amend sections 64 and 65 to introduce higher maximum jail terms and fines, where applicable, as compared to the existing penalties under the Penal Code and RTA. We will also introduce additional levers to take irresponsible motorists off the roads more quickly and for longer.

First, we will give Traffic Police the discretion to impose immediate suspension for all Dangerous Driving offences, as well as Careless Driving offences that cause Death or Grievous Hurt. Otherwise, these motorists can continue to drive until such time that they are convicted. Traffic Police already have the discretion to do so for offences that result in death, serious injury or serious damage to buildings. Clause 11 amends section 47C to cover all cases of Dangerous Driving as well.

Second, we will introduce minimum disqualification (DQ) periods for offences that cause Death and Grievous Hurt. In exceptional circumstances, such as where the motorist committed the offence while rushing for a medical emergency, the Courts will have the discretion not to apply the minimum DQ periods. Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill amend sections 64 and 65 for these purposes.

Third, the Public Prosecutor may apply for forfeiture of a vehicle used for an expanded group of offences, such as Dangerous Driving causing Death or Grievous Hurt. Clauses 3 and 15 bring this into effect. For these offences, the Courts will have the discretion not to forfeit the vehicle if the offender is not the vehicle owner and had driven the vehicle without the owner’s consent. In addition, for specified offences, the Courts will also have the discretion not to forfeit the vehicle, if there are good reasons. For instance, if the motorist has committed the offence while rushing to the hospital for a medical emergency.

With these changes, for Dangerous Driving causing Death, a first-time offender will be liable for up to eight years of imprisonment, up from five years at present. Repeat offenders will now be liable for up to 15 years of imprisonment. In addition, a first-time or repeat offender could also face a minimum DQ period of 10 years as well as immediate suspension and forfeiture of vehicle.

As we are consolidating irresponsible driving offences under RTA, we should make clear the understanding of "repeat offender". It will include a person who has a previous conviction for any Rash or Negligent Act offence in the Penal Code where irresponsible driving was involved. Likewise, any Dangerous Driving or Careless Driving convictions under RTA, or speeding-related convictions are included. Speeding-related convictions will include offences, such as Illegal Speed Trials, colloquially known as illegal street racing, which have been tried and convicted by the Courts. However, it will not include speeding-related offences which have been compounded, which is the way most minor speeding offences are settled today.

Mr Speaker, I will now turn to the amendments for driving under influence. Drivers who are drunk or drug-impaired show a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users. They are one of the biggest contributors to serious accidents on our roads. These are also accidents that clearly could have been avoided if the motorist had not come under influence or did not drive. Currently, such motorists typically face the same maximum penalties as other motorists who cause accidents. The judge may take into consideration that the offender was driving under influence during the sentencing itself. But it would be clearer to have our intentions codified in law. In fact, our intention is for offenders driving under influence to face stiffer penalties to signal the aggravated seriousness of their actions.

In August 2013, a motorist drove his car at high speeds, swaying between lanes along the Central Expressway (CTE). Eventually, he rammed into a group of five, killing four victims. He was sentenced to the maximum penalty of five years in jail for dangerous driving causing death, the maximum punishment available. The Court could not mete out higher penalties even though he had knowingly consumed drugs before driving and was a recalcitrant offender. We, therefore, propose to introduce additional penalties for a motorist who commit a Dangerous Driving or Careless Driving offence, and who is found guilty for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; or had refused to take a breathalyser or blood alcohol test when directed by Traffic Police. These will be in the form of additional maximum penalties and additional minimum DQ periods.

For example, a first-time offender who causes death by Dangerous Driving and had done so while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs will face an additional maximum jail term of two years, and an additional minimum DQ period of two years. This means that motorists who drink-and-drive and cause death by Dangerous Driving will now be liable for a maximum jail term of 10 years, and to a minimum DQ period of at least 12 years. Repeat offenders will likewise face higher penalties of up to 19 years in jail and lifetime disqualification from driving. An individual will be deemed a repeat offender for an offence of driving under influence if he has a previous conviction for driving under influence, for being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or for failure to produce a specimen for a drug or alcohol test.

Mr Speaker, during the public engagement process, respondents felt that even a standalone driving under influence offence where no accident is caused, should attract higher penalties to better reflect its gravity.

We agree with this view. The consumption of alcohol or drugs already makes a motorist a danger to other road users. Section 67 in clause 17 of the Bill will raise the penalties to about double the current levels. We will also raise the existing minimum DQ period to two years for first-time driving under influence offenders and five years for second-time driving under influence offenders. A lifelong disqualification will be imposed on third-time driving under influence offenders. In addition, we will amend section 47C through clause 11 to allow Traffic Police to impose immediate suspension for all driving under influence offences.

Mr Speaker, some Members may rightly point out that the penalties, particularly those for first-time offenders, are still lower than those in other jurisdictions. How exactly then does MHA intend to raise the sentencing norms for irresponsible driving offences? This is where the last category of changes come in.

We will set benchmarks based on egregious offences where manifestly inadequate jail sentences must be avoided. We will introduce mandatory minimum jail sentences (MMS) for Dangerous Driving causing Death or Grievous Hurt. With the changes, a first-time offender for Dangerous Driving causing Death will be jailed for at least two years. Repeat offenders will be jailed for at least four years. We will also have MMS for the offences of Dangerous Driving causing Death or Grievous Hurt, where driving under influence is involved. A first-time offender who causes death will be jailed for at least three years. Repeat offenders can face minimum sentences of up to six years in jail.

Take, for example, the case of the 62-year-old rag-and-bone lady whom I mentioned earlier. She was killed by a drink-driver. The offender had been drinking for nine straight hours and was charged for the offence of causing death by a rash act. During sentencing, also taken into consideration were one count of drink-driving and another count of causing grievous hurt to the dead victim’s husband by a rash act. In all, against a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, he received a term of 10 months and disqualification of eight years. Many people felt rightly that the motorist was let off too lightly. With the changes, the offender will be sentenced to at least three years in jail if he is convicted of both Dangerous Driving causing Death and driving under influence. The minimum disqualification will also be lengthened to 12 years.

Mr Speaker, after we had tabled the Bill for First Reading, we received additional feedback. Some respondents noted that while MMSes were justified for egregious offenders, there may be rare but valid cases where exceptional extenuating circumstances prevail and where imposing the minimum jail sentence may result in an unfair punishment. These concerns are valid. We need not prescribe the extenuating instances in law. Instead, we have introduced an amendment to the Bill to provide the Courts with discretion to deviate from and impose a sentence lower than the MMS terms should there be special reasons to do so. Special reasons must constitute exceptional mitigating factors or circumstances specific to the case. For example, the offender was rushing to send a passenger for emergency medical treatment in a life-and-death situation when the accident occurred.

Mr Speaker, motorists who have a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users should be severely punished. During our public engagement, some respondents asked if punishments for inconsiderate non-motorists should also be increased. The road situation today is more complex, compared to 20 years ago when the last major review was conducted. There are new groups of road users, such as active mobility device users or new types of vocational drivers and riders. Motorists alone cannot be held responsible for the road safety of all road users. These amendments, therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation.

MHA has been working with our counterparts at MOT and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to address other aspects of road safety, such as active mobility and vocational drivers. For example, the composition fines for traffic violations by pedestrians and cyclists were raised recently.

As I mentioned earlier, the Traffic Police and LTA have taken steps beyond enforcement. Engagement and education do help to rehabilitate errant road users. However, where an act is dangerous and causes harm to others, we should not let it go lightly punished. Doing so will only undermine our road safety regime.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is necessary to help make our roads safer by enhancing deterrence against irresponsible driving. I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.

Mr Speaker, Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mrs Josephine Teo, has outlined MHA's rationale behind enhancing criminal penalties for irresponsible driving. I will now be speaking in my capacity as Senior Parliamentary Secretary for MHA and explain the Ministry’s views on the remaining amendments.

First, I will cover the measures to tighten the regulatory regime against irresponsible driving; and second, other minor amendments to improve road safety.

The Traffic Police operate the Driver Improvement Points System (DIPS). Under this regime, a motorist clocks demerit points when he commits a traffic offence. The more severe the offence, the more demerit points it will attract. Motorists who exceed a stipulated threshold will have their licences suspended.

The DIPS regime is a deterrent against risk-taking behaviour that is dangerous to other road users, such as illegal U-turns, speeding and beating red-lights.

MHA intends to enhance the DIPS regime to further deter risk-taking behaviour by motorists. There are four key measures. First, to streamline the licence suspension and revocation process; second, to lengthen the licence suspension period for repeat offenders; third, to revoke all of an individual's probationary licences, as long as any one of them is revoked; and fourth, to allow the Courts to consider past compounded road traffic offences as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing a person convicted of a road traffic offence.

I will cover each of the measures in turn.

First, to streamline the suspension and revocation process. Currently, some errant motorists delay the suspension or revocation of their licences by misusing the appeals mechanism. They file multiple unmerited appeals at different junctures and through different channels. By doing so, they drag out the process so that they can continue to drive in the interim. But we need to remember, these are irresponsible drivers who have already been picked up for multiple offences leading to a suspension or revocation. To allow them to continue driving while they drag out the appeal process is to put other motorists at risk.

We will amend the RTA to make it clear that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) is allowed to effect licence suspension or revocation four weeks from the date of its notice to the affected motorist. Motorists can still appeal to DCP. The Police, where possible, will process and respond to an appeal within two weeks of receiving the appeal. However, DCP will have the power to suspend or revoke the licence four weeks after the date of its notice, even if the appeal is still being processed. For example, there are cases where the motorist only submits an appeal close to four weeks after receiving the notice. The DCP may still suspend or revoke the licence first and subsequently rescind the suspension or revocation if there are valid grounds to do so.

We need to bear in mind that to be facing a suspension or revocation, the errant motorist will already have committed several offences prior.

Mr Speaker, at this point, I would like to highlight that Traffic Police only suspend or revoke an individual's licence when there are good reasons to do so.

First, a suspension or revocation is imposed only when objective criteria are met. For suspension, this usually happens when the motorist has breached the demerit point threshold of either 24 or 12 points, depending on how many prior suspensions he has had. For revocation, this happens when he is on probation and has clocked more than 12 demerit points.

Second, for Traffic Police to mete out demerit points to a motorist, one of two conditions must apply. First, the Courts have convicted the motorist of the offence. Or two, the motorist has compounded the offence he is reasonably suspected to have committed. This means that the motorist would have already had a previous opportunity to appeal against these individual offences, by either contesting it in Court or appealing to Traffic Police during an offer of composition, before the demerit points were awarded to him.

Third, motorists who are caught committing a road traffic violation also typically have little reason to dispute against the violation. Traffic Police only take enforcement action when there are strong grounds that an offence has been made out. For the majority of offences, the evidence typically comes in the form of photographic or video evidence or by detection from Traffic Police’s enforcement unit.

I would also like to speak on appeals in general. A number of affected motorists appeal against suspension or revocation on the basis that they need to drive as part of their job. Actually, if an individual depends on driving to make a living, that is all the more reason for him to drive safely and for him to be off the roads if he is unable or unwilling to do so. Traffic Police, as part of the overall road safety strategy, offer motorists the opportunity to improve their driving behaviour through retraining courses.

Firstly, motorists who accumulate more than one-third of the maximum allowable demerit points are offered the opportunity to attend the Safe Driving Course, an early intervention measure for those who have exhibited unsafe driving behaviours. Upon completion of the course, motorists will have four demerit points expunged from their records.

Secondly, motorists who are liable for their first and second suspensions are offered the opportunity to attend the Driver Improvement Point System Retraining Course, also known as the DIPS Retraining Course, which is a rehabilitation course to help errant motorists relearn and practise safe driving habits. Upon successfully passing the course, motorists will have their suspension periods reduced significantly.

Mr Speaker, I would now like to address the second measure, that is, lengthening the licence suspension period for serial offenders. We propose to amend the RTA to allow Traffic Police to suspend an individual’s licence for up to five years, from up to three years currently. To put this in perspective, the upper scale of the suspension applies to very serious serial offenders. For instance, with the change, motorists who are facing their sixth suspension, which is equivalent to accumulating demerit points from at least seven red-light beating offences in a short span of time, will have their licence suspended for four years. Those who are facing their seventh or more suspension will have their licence suspended for five years. As Members can see, these are recalcitrant offenders who are a real danger on the roads to themselves, to other motorists and road users. Subsidiary legislation will be prescribed to stipulate the length of the suspension period based on the number of previous suspensions. That there are drivers who have been slapped with six or more suspensions may sound unbelievable, but I assure you, it is not unheard of. In 2018 alone, there were seven such motorists.

I now move to the third measure – revoking all of an individual's probationary licences, as long as any one of them is revoked. At present, under certain circumstances, a motorist may continue to hold probationary licences for other vehicle classes even though one of his probationary licences has been revoked.

This is a gap that should be addressed. Traffic Police expect a motorist to take extra care to drive safely when he is on probation, given his relative inexperience. If he breaches the demerit point threshold for any of his probationary licences, for the safety of other road users, he should no longer be allowed to drive any vehicle for which he holds a probationary licence.

The fourth measure is to allow the Courts to consider past compounded road traffic offences as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing a person convicted of a road traffic offence. A person’s record of compounded offences is a useful indicator of his driving behaviour.

Mr Speaker, MHA would also like to make three other amendments.

The first pertains to the definition of animals, and the obligations of motorists when accidents involving animals occur. The current definition of animals, which is restricted to an exhaustive list of farm animals, such as cattle, horses and dogs, is archaic and not relevant to our context. We will remove this definition, and instead will rely on the general definition of the word.

Motorists will be obliged to stop their vehicle, only if it is safe to do so, and render any necessary assistance in accidents involving animals in two scenarios.

First, if the body of the animal or carcass is a road safety hazard, motorists should take steps to alert other road users to the obstruction. For example, in road accidents involving wild boars, the carcass is likely to result in some obstruction to vehicles.

Second, if there is reasonable belief that the animal may have an owner, motorists should make attempts to inform the owner or the Police, for example, in road accidents involving dogs that are wearing a collar.

Mr Speaker, the second amendment pertains to physical driving licences. Today, Traffic Police no longer rely on physical licences to ascertain an individual's driving qualifications. Traffic Police can access this information backend, using an individual's National Registration Identity Card and date of birth.

Therefore, as part of the effort towards digitisation, TP plan to issue physical driving licences to motorists only upon request. Hence, we will amend RTA to remove existing requirements for individuals to surrender their physical licences, if they do not have one.

The third amendment pertains to the penalties for riding without a helmet. At present, section 74 of the RTA subjects motorcyclists and pillion riders who do not wear helmets to a fine of up to $200. This penalty is less severe than those of other similar offences in the RTA, such as failing to wear a proper seat belt or making an illegal U-turn, which attract a jail term of up to three months and a fine of up to $1,000. We will raise the penalties for riding without a helmet to the same level.

Mr Speaker, the amendments I have outlined will complement the enhanced criminal penalties against irresponsible driving, as well as our overall strategy towards road safety. This Bill will make our roads safer, by increasing deterrence against irresponsible driving.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Sir, when a person drives, he or she is in charge of something very heavy and very powerful and able to barrel down the street at great speed. But the road is shared among many users and road conditions are dynamic. Dangerous or careless driving puts the driver's own life at risk and pedestrians crossing the road or walking on the pavement at risk. Their actions leave a lasting impact on the victims' lives, their families and even sometimes their own lives.

In May 2018, a driver looked down briefly, veered towards the right, mounted a kerb, colliding into the centre median, a sign and a couple of railings. The accident left his passenger tetraplegic and bedbound, a condition likely to be permanent. In June 2018, while enroute home to Singapore from Malaysia, a family got into an accident. The parents passed away from the accident, leaving behind two young children. In June 2014, a five-year-old boy had to spend more than 100 days in hospital and was permanently paralysed on the right side of his body after a delivery driver failed to keep a proper lookout or a safe distance on the expressway.

These real-life stories drive home the importance of driving responsibly.

This Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill prevents and deters road traffic offences as well as calibrates the punishment to achieve a more accurate form of justice in the particular situation.

Allow me, Sir, before I move on to other aspects of the Bill, to also speak up on behalf of drivers and pedestrians. Personal mobility devices (PMDs) travelling fast and recklessly, sometimes dart out onto the road from pavements. Such a startling appearance on road crossings causes immense danger to the drivers of vehicles and other road users and can cause death or serious injury.

Pedestrians, too, suffer at the hands of reckless PMD users. So, while the focus of this Bill, which I support, is to make driving safer, I hope the authorities and the Courts can consider the serious role of reckless PMD users in causing accidents on our roads and on our pedestrian or road crossings. That should reduce the culpability of the driver of the vehicle.

The other concern I have, before going in particular into the details of this Bill, is about turning into a road where the traffic light is green, while at the same time a green man allows a pedestrian to cross the same road. The presence of a green light and a simultaneous green man can cause confusion and accidents can happen. To avoid such confusion, would the rules allow for a green arrow to be coupled with a red man, or a green man to be coupled with a red arrow? This will make the road safer for drivers and pedestrians. If needed, this is possible and the traffic flow allows for such permutations.

Sir, this Bill prevents further road traffic offences by providing for disqualification for longer periods and for more offences in clauses 13, 14 and 17. Such offences include certain instances of dangerous driving, driving without due care and drink-driving. There are also longer suspension periods under clause 8. In particular, the new section 46(2)(b) also allows a licence to be suspended after the person completes a prescribed course on safe driving. This prevents further road traffic offences not just by taking the driver off the road for a certain amount of time but also by correcting certain driving practices.

In relation to disqualification periods, is there supposed to be a difference between how the new section 65(6) and the new section 64(2D) operate? The words of both proposed sections are the same but the relevant paragraphs in the explanatory statements are different. The second paragraph on clause 13 in the Explanatory Statement states that the disqualification periods "serve as a guide to the Court as the Court retains discretion whether to order the disqualification or depart from what is in the section." On the other hand, the second paragraph on clause 14 says that "Under the amended section 65, a Court that convicted a person of an offence under subsection (1) must in certain cases order that the person be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period starting on the date of the person's conviction, or the date of the person's release from prison." Would the Minister or the Senior Parliamentary Secretary kindly clarify how these proposed sections would operate?

Disqualifications do not just prevent future traffic offences, they also deter potential traffic offences from happening. This second theme of the Bill can also be seen in enhanced punishments and the forfeiture of vehicles.

One of the crimes that has enhanced punishment is section 67 driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Every month for the first nine months of 2018, one person lost his or her life to an accident related to drink-driving. Although the number of persons arrested for drink-driving decreased by 3.7% in 2018 compared to 2017, if I am not mistaken, the number of drink-driving accidents increased by 17.3%, with the proportion of motorcyclists increasing by 51.3%. Under clause 17, the punishment for drink-driving is roughly doubled. Instead of a minimum period of 12 months disqualification, the amended section 67(2) provides for two years for a first offender and five years for repeat offenders. The new section 65AA under clause 15 also provides for forfeiture of the vehicle in certain circumstances, such as where the driver was drink-driving and whose reckless driving or driving without due care caused death or grievous hurt.

Besides ensuring that there is sufficient deterrence against drink-driving, we should also ensure that the victim of a drink-driving accident can obtain compensation. When I asked the Minister for Transport in October last year during a Parliamentary Question, the reply was "Insurance policies cannot be restricted from paying out for such liabilities incurred from drink-driving." However, at least some motor insurance policies have exemption clauses that say that the insurance company "shall not be liable in respect of: 1. Any accident, loss, damage or liability caused sustained or incurred:…(b) whilst any Insured Vehicle in respect of which indemnity is provided by this Policy is: …(iii) being driven by the Policyholder or by any person on the order of or with the permission of the Policyholder whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs."

The victim in drink-driving accidents is put in a hard position as the drink-driver may not have enough money on hand to pay the victim. This would be exacerbated if the drink-driver’s vehicle is forfeited under clause 15 of this Bill as the drink-driver would be less able to secure a loan. I am not saying that you should not forfeit the vehicle. I am in favour of forfeiting the vehicle. My concern is for the victim of a drink-driving accident being compensated.

Therefore, does the Ministry have any plans to ensure that there is support for victims of drink-driving accidents, whether it be ensuring that there be financial compensation or whether it be counselling to overcome any trauma from the incident?

Besides controlling the situation through the introduction of deterrent, preventive and calibrated punishment regimes, what is the demographic of the drivers for the bulk of accidents and apprehensions made due to traffic offences? According to the General Insurance Association's review in 2018, the 4% dip in accident reports was largely attributable to fewer private-hire cars and taxis on the road. How are road safety education and campaign efforts effectively targeting these more "at-risk" demographics? What are the common root reasons for accidents? When there is change in traffic lights or roads, what is being done to lower the risk of accidents happening? Also, what plans does the Ministry have to enhance road safety to keep up with changing challenges, such as a possible increase in delivery motorbicycles, cyclists and even users of e-scooters or other PMDs who choose to flout the rules against riding on the roads?

Another group of offences with enhanced penalties I would like to draw attention to is that of driving without a licence, or employing or permitting another to drive without a licence, under suspension, or under disqualification. The punishments have been raised significantly. For example, in the case of driving without a licence or permitting or employing someone to drive without a licence, the current section 43 of the Road Traffic Act does not specify a penalty. According to section 131, the penalty for offences without a specified penalty would be a fine not exceeding $1,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding three months for the first offence and a fine not exceeding $2,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding six months for subsequent offences. A lot of "not exceeding" in that sentence.

But clause 2 of the Bill raises the penalty for these offences to a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding three years for the first offence and a fine of up to $20,000 and/or imprisonment up to six years for subsequent offences. What is the rationale for raising the penalties? Will the proposed enhanced punishment be overly harsh on individuals who may have unknowingly driven a vehicle without a licence, for example, those above the age of 65 who were unaware that their licence had expired, or whatever the age cap for that is?

The third theme of the Bill I want to speak on is calibration. This Bill better calibrates the punishment meted out for the particular circumstance. This is most evident by the punishment regime in clauses 13 and 14 relating to dangerous driving and driving without due care in sections 64 and 65. The Bill calibrates it according to culpability, aggravating factor of drink-driving or some other serious offence, gravity of hurt caused, and whether or not the offender is recalcitrant.

Why is unauthorised speed trials and competition pegged to driving without due care or reasonable consideration under the new section 65(5)(a) and (b) and not reckless or dangerous driving under the new section 64(2C)(a) and (b)? There is a question mark after that.

Unauthorised competitions are deliberate and extremely dangerous, sometimes clocking speeds that more than triple the prescribed speed limit. Although clause 15 provides that a vehicle may be forfeited for certain driving dangerously or without due care, they focus on drink-driving and are ill-suited to address illegal racing as racers may not be drunk when driving. Is it the case that the prosecution has to choose between possible forfeiture of the car and a higher possible sentence of reckless driving when charging for a situation involving illegal racing?

Another way this Bill allows punishment to be better calibrated is by providing for compounded offences to be taken into consideration for sentencing in the new section 139AA, clause 21 of this Bill. This would give the Court a clearer picture of the driver's driving practices and habits so that the various principles of sentencing can be more accurately weighed out.

In closing, Sir, I hope that educative aspects of prevention will also supplement these changes in the law to enhance the consequences of certain offences for deterrence and prevention.

On the whole, this Bill prevents and deters road traffic offences and provides for a better calibrated punishment system and, therefore, I support it.

Prof Lim Sun Sun.

Mr Speaker, I had not originally intended to speak on the RTA Bill, but life clearly had other plans for me. Last month, I was knocked down by a bus, a big, lumbering double-decker to be exact. On the evening of 13 June, at about 8.15 pm, I was crossing the road at the junction of Upper Changi Road East and Somapah Road on my way to the Singapore University of Technology and Design to meet my students. They had developed a game to educate the public about fake news and were excited to demonstrate it to me. And by the way, the game is brilliant.

Coming back to me at the road junction, I had waited for the light to turn green in my favour and proceeded to walk once it did so. I assure the Members of the House that at no point was I using my phone and that I was single-mindedly focused on making my way across as briskly as possible. When I was about three quarters of the way to the other side, I suddenly felt something very large looming over me and I turned to my left to see a double-decker about this close to me. I was stunned and I even made eye contact with the driver and caught his horrified expression as he saw me. The next thing I knew, I had been thrown onto my back and I felt my head hitting the road very, very hard. At that point, I literally saw stars, those in my head and those in our beautiful night sky although I could not quite tell which was which. Thankfully, I did not lose consciousness and managed to scramble to the side of the road while the bus driver pulled over. He alighted to inquire as to my well-being and we exchanged information.

In spite of my shocked and injured state, I felt profound sympathy for the bus captain. He looked highly stressed, likely worried about the consequences of the accident. As an occasional driver myself, I certainly do not wish to be in that position. Luckily for the both of us, I walked away from the accident largely unscathed. I endured severe aching for the next few days but fortunately did not suffer from any fractures or concussions. Indeed, I am truly grateful that I can stand here today to deliver this speech.

My accident gave me much to think about, but especially in relation to road safety. What could have caused the bus captain to completely overlook my presence on a well-lit road when traffic was light, I clearly had right of way, and also had ample time to cross the junction. Was it a case of a driver whose shift was too long or who had had insufficient days of rest? Or was it an issue of the discretionary right turns, leading drivers to make a quick turn when there is no on-coming traffic, but forgetting that pedestrians, too, have the right of way?

What exactly are the safeguards we have in place to prevent an accident like mine from recurring? Indeed, my friends remarked that had I been a child or a senior citizen, that the impact of the accident would have been that much more severe.

I, therefore, reached out to the bus company to understand more about their safety procedures. The company was forthcoming. Two members of its senior management met with me and addressed all my queries. They were able to account for the bus captain's years of experience, driving schedule, daily working hours, break times and shift duration, all of which were well within mandated industry standards. They also shared with me their company's proprietary telematics system that monitors every bus captain for every journey, tracking data, such as their driving and turning speeds and instances of sudden braking. Such information helps the company determine how reckless or safety-conscious their drivers are. Using such data, bus captains are effectively graded for their driving performance and the information is conveyed to them via a mobile app so that they can regulate and modulate their own driving as necessary.

After my accident, the bus captain was immediately suspended when the investigation established that he was at fault and that there were no issues with the bus. Following the suspension, he underwent a day of retraining where his driving was assessed by a supervisor, before he was deemed roadworthy and returned to service. Incidentally, the telematics data revealed that he was consistently one of their safest drivers, which perhaps helps to explain why I am still here today!

As a regular public transport commuter, I am reassured that this much attention is paid to safety. Furthermore, it is encouraging that we have harnessed technology to better guide our bus captains, helping them to maintain good safety habits and driving standards.

And yet, accidents do and will happen, and we should strive to further reduce their number. I, therefore, wish to delve more deeply into the issue of discretionary right-turn lanes. I am heartened that LTA has concrete plans to discontinue most discretionary right-turn junctions within the next five years. Indeed, when I mentioned my accident to friends and acquaintances, they immediately raised the problem of discretionary right-turn junctions without my prompting. Colleagues and students who also use the junction where my accident occurred mentioned witnessing many near misses between cars and pedestrians, and cars and PMD riders.

Discretionary right-turn junctions are fundamentally problematic. Drivers wait anxiously in the right-turn box and make a dash for it when they note the absence of oncoming traffic, overlooking the fact that there could also be pedestrians crossing at the same time. In 2016, the hon Member Dr Chia Shi-Lu had inquired about accidents at right-turn lanes and, in his reply, Minister Khaw Boon Wan revealed that between 2011 and 2015, there were a total of 14 fatalities and 319 injuries involving pedestrians and cyclists being hit by right-turning vehicles at such junctions. I am not aware of the latest figures since that period, but my accident surely was not the only one. In fact, in February this year, policewoman Mdm Salimah Mohamad was killed by a car turning right at such a junction in Shenton Way when the driver failed to keep a proper lookout.

Clearly, such junctions that allow cars and people to cross simultaneously present distinct hazards. They require alertness and concentration on the part of everyone. But when we factor in that drivers, pedestrians and PMD riders may be increasingly distracted by their mobile devices, we have a veritable formula for disaster.

LTA has introduced various safety enhancements to such junctions, including traffic light timings that give pedestrians a head-start in crossing the road and Silver Zones where speed limits are lowered to cater to the large number of senior citizens in these areas. Such initiatives are, indeed, helpful. But I would like to urge LTA to shorten the timeline for discontinuing these discretionary right-turn junctions from the projected five years, so that more accidents and fatalities can be prevented.

My accident left me with several important takeaways. The first is that we have a public transport system that prioritises and invests in safety, of which we can be justifiably proud. The second is that we should consider whether public buses can be equipped with superior sensors to better alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians and other vehicles so as to avoid collisions as far as possible. The third takeaway is that in our Smart Nation efforts, urban analytics can be strategically marshalled to more accurately track vehicular and human traffic at all junctions, so that we can optimise traffic light timings to allow drivers and pedestrians to share the road efficiently, but also safely. With such analytics, we can better design junctions to allow for smooth flowing traffic, without increased cost to human lives.

A well-functioning transport network is critical not just to our economy but also to the well-being of our citizens, ensuring that people and places are connected seamlessly but also safely. The RTA Bill will notably introduce stiffer penalties for reckless driving that will encourage drivers to be more mindful and conscientious. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I strongly support this Bill and further measures that will help to boost safety on our roads.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.02 pm until 4.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Mr Speaker, allow me to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: I have read the news report on a survey conducted by the Traffic Police recently that involved 1,000 road users. The results of this survey revealed that most car users thought positively of themselves when asked to rate their level of safety and graciousness on the roads. However, they felt that the level of safety and graciousness of other drivers were not that good. This is quite worrying because it reflects the mentality and attitude of drivers in Singapore. If all drivers only think of themselves, this will result in more hazards and accidents on the roads. It is important for us to continue encouraging positive behaviour on the roads.

In addition, I have also read a report about the increase in feedback on irresponsible drivers. Although the number of accidents have declined between 2014 and 2018, the number of feedback received by the Traffic Police about irresponsible drivers have more than doubled, from 6,900 to 18,500. Between 2015 and 2018, the number of summonses issued has increased from 152,700 to 181,000.

Although the number of accidents may have gone down in general, every accident is one too many. Serious accidents can cause injuries and death and we must do our best to avoid them. One way is by strengthening legislation to stop bad behaviour on the roads. Therefore, I welcome today's Bill. I hope that apart from legislation, we can also double our efforts to enhance awareness and educate the public about the importance of safety and graciousness on the roads.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in English. I read with interest the news report on the outcome of the survey conducted by the Traffic Police recently. The nationwide study which involved 1,000 respondents from various groups, including car drivers, taxi drivers and the elderly, revealed that most car users thought positively of themselves when asked to rate their level of safety and graciousness. However, when it came to rating the behaviour of others, most thought negatively of other drivers.

I find this both slightly amusing and worrying. Amusing as it is not unfamiliar. I drive and when I am on the road, there would be instances when I felt that the drivers are so inconsiderate, especially when they do not give way to me. However, I am sure, there may be moments when others would have thought the same of me, too. On a more serious and at a deeper level though, this finding reflects the mentality of Singaporean drivers and I feel that it is important to continue to nudge behaviours and develop a culture of safe and gracious driving.

I also note an earlier news report sharing that the penalties for irresponsible driving in Singapore is less severe than in some other jurisdictions. Further, it was mentioned that although the number of traffic accidents has dropped, the feedback on irresponsible driving has gone up. The annual statistics from the Traffic Police showed that while there were fewer traffic accidents last year, the number of drink-driving accidents and motorists who ran red lights went up. The number of drink-driving accidents increased by 17.3% to 176 cases last year, from 150 in 2017. Motorcyclists who were drink-driving and got involved in accidents increased by 51.3% to 59 cases in 2018, from 39 cases in 2017.

However, the number of people arrested for drink-driving decreased despite an increase in the number of drink-driving enforcement operations conducted in 2018. The number of red-light running violations spiked by 15.7% to 53,910 cases. This is 7,311 cases more than 2017's 46,599 violations. Accidents caused by red light running increased slightly by 2.6% to 120 accidents, from 117 accidents in 2017.

Statistics aside, traffic accidents can have severe consequences. In the more serious accidents, lives are lost and one life lost is one too many. It is, therefore, important to continue to encourage safe driving and shape the behaviours of road users.

Our traffic laws and rules are, indeed, one way to shape behaviours on the road and it may be time to further strengthen the penalties to target the egregious offences. I welcome the enhancements introduced in this Bill. I would like, however, to make some comments on the amendments.

Firstly, in respect of the amendment to section 35B of the Bill, I note that before revoking a person’s driving licence, the DCP must give a notice to the driver, and the notice period must be at least four weeks before the revocation date. The proposed amendment also sets out a framework for the submission of any representations or objections. I note from the proposed sections 35B (2) and (3) that the DCP could proceed to revoke the licence on the proposed revocation date if the appeal is rejected.

I would like to seek a clarification on whether the DCP is at liberty to give any further notice or time to the driver before the revocation. I ask because there may be some people who depend on driving for their livelihood. They may still remain hopeful after submitting representations and may need further time before the final implementation for the revocation. I note that there needs to be a balance between the need to quickly take errant drivers off the roads and to ensure fairness in the process. I would just like to seek clarification on whether the DCP has the discretion to extend the notice period before revocation.

My second point also relates to those who drive for a living. I suspect that because of the length of time they spend on the roads, because they may be subjected to the vagaries of passenger demands and road conditions or because they may have become over-confident as they are quite familiar with driving, they may statistically be more likely to commit more traffic offences. I wonder if we have done any analysis on the circumstances of the traffic offenders so that there could be a more targeted approach to address the issue. Because I believe that aside from creating deterrence and penalties, we really should look into shaping the behaviour of drivers and understanding perhaps some of the challenges drivers face and address them. Perhaps there could also be efforts in rehabilitating bad behaviour very early on. I believe that DIPS was one good way to encourage good behaviour. Could there perhaps be some enhancements to this programme to provide more specific support and motivation to these drivers?

My third point is a general point related to the above. As noted earlier, alongside the enhancements of penalties, I believe there is a necessity to strengthen awareness and encourage safe driving. I am happy to hear that the Singapore Road Safety Council will be ramping up its efforts to raise awareness on safe and gracious behaviour on the roads. I think perhaps we could look at generating strong awareness of driving etiquette in specific situations. For example, I am not sure if many Singaporean drivers follow the "zipper rule". According to the rule, when traffic merges, drivers merging from the left and right should alternately give way to one another so that traffic flows smoothly. I am sure a lot of things are taught before one gets a licence. However, the lived experience on the roads may be different. So, I hope that all parties and agencies will continue in the effort to create awareness and build better habits and culture on the roads in Singapore. Notwithstanding the above, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what must we do to make our roads safer? This Bill seeks to do so through covering more road offences and issuing harsher punishments. I feel emphasis should also be placed on three other areas. One, educating road users; two, improving road engineering; and three, having safer features in vehicles.

On the first point on education. As mentioned by the hon Member before me, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, we should do more to push out the message on the importance of being responsible road users. To this end, I hope the regulators can strengthen the role played by and properly resource the Singapore Road Safety Council. This will allow it to mount publicity programmes to educate the public and road users and do so sustainably.

Over the weekend, I attended a road safety event by the Council in the Orchard Road area. That is a good initiative and more can be done, perhaps more so in the neighbourhoods and in schools. Perhaps also consider participating in the National Day post-parade event whereby we can get all the different road users to do a safety march with regard to sending the message about road safety.

But going upstream then, what can we do? We should review the current driving course content to ensure new learners and drivers who are taking refresher courses appreciate the need for safer driving habits. I read that, in some cities, it was even reported that serious road offenders are made to visit the hospital morgue to realise the severity of their actions. We can probably drive home the same point on the importance of safe driving through either video replays or re-enactments in our training courses on how careless driving can result in serious accidents.

My residents and workers driving for a living also shared that it will be a useful reminder if the current Notice of Offence letters can also state the number of demerit points generated by the individual driver as well as the remaining threshold before suspension or revocation of licence kicks in.

Commuters travelling in a taxi or private hire car can also do their part. I recently had an accident whereby a private hire driver collided into the rear end of my vehicle. He mentioned that he was distracted by his passenger who suddenly, at the last minute, asked him to change direction. As he was listening to the passenger, he did not pay attention to the road and the vehicle in front of him.

Mr Speaker, a lot of risks on the road can be avoided if the drivers and commuters show more understanding to one another.

On engineering, the design of roads can also affect the safety of road users. LTA conducts regular reviews, for which we are grateful for, to ensure our roads are safe for motorists and pedestrians. For example, under the Black Spot Programme, accident-prone locations are identified and safety measures, such as special signs and clearer road markings, are implemented.

We have seen examples, such as Silver Zones for the elderly and School Zone programmes for school students. We should continue to identify and add such features in more of our estates.

More recently, LTA has started to roll out more Red Amber Green (RAG) arrows at major traffic junctions. Recently, we recalled an accident at Clementi Road whereby one of the undergraduates had a tragic accident. Motorists have to wait for the arrow to turn green before making a right turn. I am glad to know that LTA has been conscientiously installing road safety features, including turning pockets, lighted road studs and "Give Way to Pedestrian" signs, to ensure safety and smooth traffic flow.

Mr Speaker, I think we can also consider using data analytics whereby the regulators can work towards identifying vulnerable zones or roads with higher frequency of accidents. Today, accidents that do not involve injuries are sometimes not reported to the Traffic Police. So, I wonder how such data of vulnerable roads or roads with more accidents are being collated to understand whether or not such interventions, such as road designs or re-engineering, can slow down vehicles and minimise accident rates.

The third suggestion I have is equipment. That entails having more safety features in our vehicles. Some new vehicles today are fitted with safety devices, such as auto-brake functions that automatically slow down the vehicle if they sense a pedestrian or car in the path of travel; or adaptive cruise control which automatically adjusts the vehicle speed to maintain a safe distance from vehicles ahead. Some owners install radar sensors or cameras to help them gauge and monitor the safety distance between vehicles. Others rely on reverse sensors which alert the driver when the car is about to hit an object. Such devices serve as safety features that help drivers to navigate in a safer manner.

We should also leverage telematics to reinforce good driving habits. I recently spoke to the third-party private hire app called Grab. They send day-to-day weekly driving reports to their drivers to nudge them towards safer driving. To increase the level of road safety and adoption, can the Traffic Police or LTA work together with vehicle fleet owners to consider perhaps things like rebates when a vehicle owner installs safety-enabling technologies in their vehicles?

Today, we have such a scheme called the early turnover whereby we encourage early replacement of polluting vehicles. Surely, safety vehicles should be the next in line.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

Beyond the law, I believe we can channel our efforts to cultivate responsible road users and for everybody to have a safer commute. Cost considerations can be overcome if appropriate rebates and nudges can be put in place to speed up the adoption of safer vehicles.

I found a recent example whereby an insurance company has offered lower premiums to motorists if they respond accurately to a series of questions on safer driving. That is a wonderful nudge for many who may not be able to be prompted to understand the importance of safer driving. Such ground-up efforts are, indeed, welcomed. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill will amend the RTA to further improve safety by enhancing criminal penalties to deter irresponsible driving.

Singapore is one of the safest countries for road travel. In the 2018 Global Status Report on Road Safety, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the average global road traffic fatality rate per 100,000 people was 18.2 in 2016. Singapore’s fatality rate was 2.51 in 2016 and has since improved to 2.2 in 2018. We do have some gaps, such as our policies allowing carriage of passengers in the cargo space in goods vehicles, and our new vehicle standards, which do not require the latest electronic safety advances, such as electronic stability control.

Many of these advances are mandated in the United States (US) and European Union (EU). But overall, we compare well in road safety even when compared to highly developed countries. A key part of maintaining road traffic safety is how we manage routine traffic offences.

Sir, in 2018, the Singapore Police Force reported 156,157 cases of speeding violations and 53,910 cases of red-light violations. The vast majority of these offences will have been dealt with by composition offer or fine penalty. Fines are an important part of our road traffic safety system. As part of the same review that led to this Bill's amendments to the RTA, traffic offence fines were recently revised in April 2019. This was the first review in nearly 20 years. Unsurprisingly, because incomes have gone up since then, fines were raised across the board, with the steepest increases for the most severe offences.

I wish to discuss two issues. First, can we design an optimal traffic fine schedule, based on evidence and economic principles? Second, can we improve equity and efficiency by implementing fines that step up, linked to the income or wealth of the offender?

The economic principle for fine setting, as laid out in 1974 by the Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker, is that the expected fine, the penalty adjusted by the probability of being caught, should equal the social costs caused by the offence. The reason is that many crimes are actions which have private benefits, but which produce external social costs.

Consider speeding on the roads. We speed because we enjoy a private benefit from getting to the destination faster, or because we enjoy driving faster. But because we are speeding, we impose an external social cost on others from the increased accident risk. There is also the risk of injury to the speeding driver, but that is a private cost. The optimal fine makes the potential speeder realise that if they speed, they must pay the external social costs of doing so, which then deters them from speeding.

Applying this principle of aligning fines to the marginal social costs is quite difficult in practice. We know that speeding is dangerous, but I do not think any country has attempted to seriously quantify the cost of speeding and link these costs to fines. One complication is that the relationship between speed and the risk of injury and death is non-linear and it increases sharply with speed. In the report I referenced earlier, the WHO states that, in principle, a 1% increase in mean speed produces a 4% increase in the fatal crash risk, and a 3% increase in a serious crash risk. This means that optimal fines should increase significantly as the rate of excess speed increases.

Do we reflect this principle in our fine schedule for speeding? Exceeding the road speed limit by 31 kilometres per hour (km/h) to 40 km/h carries double the fine and demerit points at $300 and eight demerit points than exceeding the speed limit by one km/h to 20 km/h does, at $150 and four demerit points. An evidence-based optimal fine setting policy would examine whether the harm caused by speeding 31 km/h to 40 km/h above the limit is, in fact, larger than double that of speeding only one km/h to 20 km/h. The fines and demerit points should be revised upwards according to the actual risks. It would be useful if the Ministry could publish the results of any studies conducted that would show the evidence basis for our recent revisions to the fine schedule.

A second issue with setting optimal fines is that motorists differ greatly in their income and wealth. However, fines are generally equal when different motorists commit the same offence, which creates a problem. A fine that is large enough to be meaningful and appropriate to punish the average motorist may be too large for lower-income motorists and too small for the richest motorists. This is an obvious limitation to optimal fines in practice. Fines do not work if they are so large that people cannot pay and fines also do not work if they are not meaningful deterrents.

Elected Members know that many appeals at Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) are for traffic and parking offences. In most cases, the resident admits to committing the offence, but they appeal for leniency because the fines will cause them financial hardship. This creates a challenge when we want to increase fines to appropriately deter unsafe driving. Sir, our vocational drivers – our taxi drivers, private hire drivers, delivery drivers and so on – they are generally low- to middle-income earners. While all motorists should drive safely, we must be mindful that a significant penalty for the average private car driver is actually an immense sum for the vocational driver.

There is evidence that fines do deter unsafe driving and that fines have price effects, that is, higher fines are more effective at deterring unsafe driving, as long as the driver feels the pinch from paying the fine.

In a study by Bar-Ilan and Sacerdote published in the Journal of Law and Economics in 2004, the authors studied what happened after Israel raised the fine for red-light violations by 150% in 1996. The authors had demographic data of drivers, which allowed them to understand which groups of motorists changed behaviour more.

Overall, red-light violations in Israel fell by 30% after the fine was increased. But what is interesting is who was affected more. Young drivers, those aged under 30, were more than twice as likely as older drivers to reduce offending, although young drivers offend more to begin with. And drivers with newer cars were both more likely to run red lights and they were less responsive to the fine increase. I interpret these results as supportive of the theory that fines do deter unsafe driving, and moreover, the deterrent effect of fines depends on the income or wealth of the offender. Richer offenders simply feel the pinch of a fine less.

One way of ensuring that fines have the appropriate deterrent effect, while keeping the financial impact on vocational drivers in mind, is to calibrate fines based on the income or wealth of the offending motorist. In 2015, the New York Times reported that a businessman in Finland received a fine of €54,024 for exceeding the speed limit by traveling 64 miles/h in a 50 mile/h zone. Not all speeders in Finland pay so much. A more typical motorist would have paid only €345 for the same offence. The reason why the unfortunate businessman paid so much is that he was one of Finland's highest income earners.

Speeding is an offence which is punishable by day-fines in Finland. A similar day-fine system is in use in a number of countries, mostly Scandinavian. The legal history is that a fine represents a payment in lieu of jail, and being locked up is more costly for a high-income offender, because the lost income is larger. So, the fine paid "per day" of jail should be scaled to income. The Finnish businessman's speeding offence was rated at eight days' worth of fines and, given his high income, this worked out to €54,024.

In case anyone is thinking I am suggesting we charge S$50,000 speeding fines, let me state for the record that I think this is probably too high, even for our "fine city". But we could revise our traffic fine penalty system to ensure that fines appropriately deter high-income motorists, while being fair and reasonable for lower-income motorists.

One practical way of doing so might be to scale the traffic fine based on the offending vehicle's Open Market Value, for privately-owned passenger cars. These form most vehicles on the road, and differences in the income of drivers of private cars can be very large in Singapore. I think it is reasonable to presume that the driver of a large luxury car is able to pay more than one driving a cheaper vehicle, and they would likely regard the demerit points and other consequences of an offence as far more serious than the fine itself. In fact, insofar as many luxury cars are marketed as safer than less well-equipped cars, there is even more reason to increase the optimal fine as a deterrent, since the perceived risk of injury to the driver themselves will be lower and luxury car drivers may be more inclined to speed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore's road traffic safety standards will be improved by this Bill. But there is room for improvement in how we design our fine penalty system, which is a major component of road safety. We should examine the evidence basis behind the social cost of unsafe driving and design fines, particularly for higher speeds, to reflect the actual risks more appropriately. We can also improve equity and efficiency by calibrating fines according to the income or wealth of the offending motorist. As road traffic safety is an evolving problem, I hope the Government will study these issues when planning the next revision of the RTA. I support the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, the key amendments proposed by this Bill make our roads safer by deterring dangerous and risky behaviour on the road through heavier and broader criminal and administrative penalties.

I stand in support of the general rationale behind the amendments but would like to seek clarifications on two areas relating to the obligations of drivers in accidents involving animals and the legal effect of compounded offences under the RTA.

Sir, for more than six years, I have been campaigning to amend the definition of "animals" in the RTA. The campaign started before I was elected as a Member of Parliament and continued when I became a Member.

I have raised this issue in this House in 2016 and the then Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee replied that the definition of "animals" in the RTA will be reviewed. I am delighted that we are now proposing amendments to this.

The current definition no longer makes sense. "Animal" means any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog. Under the RTA, motorists are required to stop and help these animals if they are knocked down. I understand that "The original intent of that legislation was to ensure restitution to their owners should an accident occur".

But the days of having horses, cattles, asses, mules, sheep, pigs and goats on our roads are long gone. As such, our legislation needs to be updated to keep up with the times. The unfortunate reality is that we now have other animals on our roads, a lot of them. It is a long list of animals, including cats, civets, pangolins, wild boars, monkeys and snakes. The other unfortunate reality is that these animals are often knocked down. At times, they are not killed, and could recover if help is provided.

As the Minister had previously stated, "The question is whether we should now mandatorily require all motorists to stop, should they hit an animal. The primary requirement must be safety. They should stop, if it is safe to do so. If the motorist requires assistance in relation to attending to the animal, he can contact the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)." They can also call Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES).

The Bill proposes to remove the definition of "animal" under section 84(6). This creates a catch-all provision in relation to a driver's obligation to stop in the event of an accident involving an animal. This is in line with what the animal welfare groups have called for, but I have some concerns about this amendment and would like to seek some clarification.

The effect of the current amendment is that a driver who runs into any animal may have an obligation to stop, regardless of the species of the animal. An animal could be anything from a dog to a lizard. Taken to the extreme, this provision could have ridiculous implications. I agreed that we need to expand the definition of "animal" beyond the current definition. But I also appreciate the difficulty of coming up with a definition to limit the scope of this provision.

However, removing the definition altogether seems to be a blunt measure. It simply shifts the burden of making this difficult judgement to the driver. We are asking a driver, driving a fast-moving vehicle, to make an instantaneous judgement on whether the animal is likely to have an owner, or whether the injured or dead animal would pose a safety hazard to other road users. Is it really safer to require a driver to divert attention away from the road to make this judgement call?

Would there be a loophole in that a driver can just say that it was not safe to stop, so he or she did not stop?

To provide some guidance for drivers, can the Minister or the Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide more clarification on how a driver can determine if an animal is likely to pose a safety hazard and how it intends to enforce this provision? How will the Traffic Police determine if it was safe for a driver to stop and render assistance?

Would it be better to amend the definition of "animal" to include more animals rather than remove the definition altogether?

Next, the new section 139AA comes in the wake of the High Court decision in Public Prosecutor vs Koh Thiam Huat. In that case, the Court decided that it may take into account compounded offences under the RTA for the purpose of sentencing as they form part of the offender's bad driving record. The new section 139AA affirms and gives statutory force to this High Court decision.

This may raise some concerns because of the prevailing legal principle that compounding an offence amounts to an acquittal in law.

This is expressly stated in sections 241 and 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) for Penal Code offences. This rule equally applies to non-Penal Code offences as held in the High Court decision of Rajamanikam Ramachandran vs Chan Teck Yuen.

In May 2015, during the Second Reading speech for the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, explained that the legal effect of composition is that "the alleged offender is taken not to have been convicted of the offence."

Can the Minister confirm that the new section 139AA will not have the effect of changing the existing legal position that compounding an offence, whether under RTA, the Penal Code or other statutes, amounts to an acquittal?

Allowing a compounded offence to be taken into consideration for sentencing removes another distinction between an acquittal and a conviction that may be perceived as an erosion of the presumption of innocence.

Minister K Shanmugam said in an oral answer to a Parliamentary Question in August 2008, “the presumption of innocence is an important and fundamental principle and is one of the foundations of our Criminal Justice System. The Government is absolutely committed to upholding the presumption of innocence as a core principle in our commitment to the Rule of Law.”

Can the Minister clarify what the remaining practical differences are between a composition and a conviction under the RTA?

Further, can the Minister clarify if the new section 139AA is intended to be a statement of the general legal principles of composition beyond the RTA? In other words, is it the case that compoundable offences, whether under the RTA or other statutes, can be taken into account for the purpose of sentencing?

Finally, when making an offer of composition in the Notice of Traffic Offence, will the Traffic Police inform the individual that compounded offences may nonetheless be taken into consideration for sentencing in future offences?

The Judge in the case of re Lim Chor Pee noted that, “There are multiple reasons why a person may wish to compound an offence, whether it be an income tax offence or an offence compoundable under the Penal Code, without any admission of guilt.”

Hypothetically, an individual who has been charged but had not, in fact, committed the offence may agree to pay the composition fee and dispose of the matter out of expediency. They may do so believing that there would be no adverse impact if composition amounts to acquittal. Their decision may change if they are now told that the compounded offence remains on the record and may affect sentencing for future offences.

Sir, these clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill. I would also like to thank MHA for responding positively to the concerns raised by the animal welfare groups.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice dealing with, on occasions, traffic matters.

I support the aim behind the Bill which is to deter irresponsible driving that may lead to harming of innocent lives and damage to property. I applaud the Ministry for obtaining feedback from the public before presenting this Bill for consideration in Parliament. In particular, in this Bill, I support the calibration of punishment depending on the harm caused by the motorist in driving his vehicle dangerously or carelessly. Indeed, I note that the Supreme Court, in several recent decisions dealing with sentencing of motorists who are convicted for offences, such as drink-driving, dangerous driving and careless driving, already apply an analytical framework which requires a consideration of the harm caused by the motorist as well as his culpability.

I have a query on the proposal to provide for enhanced punishment for a "serious offender" who commits the offence of dangerous driving or careless driving. "Serious Offender" is defined in the amendment Bill as a person convicted for drink-driving or, alternatively convicted for refusing to give his breath sample. Under the proposed sections 64 and 65, if the same person is convicted for dangerous driving or careless driving, he is subject to an extra punishment which is in addition to the punishment for dangerous driving. So, for example, under the proposed section 64(2)(b), if hurt is caused, where an offender is a serious offender, he is to be punished with a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 12 months or to both, in addition to the punishment for dangerous driving charge.

On the face of it, there is a possibility that the serious offender may be punished twice. This is because, as mentioned before, in the current sentencing framework, the harm and culpability of a drink-driver would be taken into consideration in relation to a sentence imposed on a drink-driver under section 67. Sir, I do appreciate that this scenario would only be triggered if a person faces two charges: that of drink-driving as well as that of dangerous driving. But we cannot have one analytical framework for sentencing in relation to drink-driving if a person is charged singly, as opposed to another situation if he is charged for drink-driving as well as dangerous driving. So, I would welcome a clarification from the hon Minister as to what is the Ministry's expectation in relation to sentencing under the proposed sections 64 and 65.

The next query I have is in relation to the applicability of community sentencing options. I have previously spoken about the desirability to widen sentencing options during an Adjournment Motion in this House on 11 September 2017. I pointed out that then, for drink-driving cases, the person on conviction would not be liable for community sentencing but a motorist who was convicted for causing death by a negligent act under the Penal Code was imposed a community sentence of a short detention order. This was because the sentence for drink-driving offence under the RTA was fixed in law with a minimum mandatory sentence of a fine.

In my respectful view, for traffic cases involving people behaving negligently or not realising that they exceeded the alcohol limit but who have caused low to medium levels of harm to life and property, community sentences may be a good option for them in terms of addressing the sentencing principles of deterrence as well as just deserts. Subsequently, in March 2018, this House passed amendments to the CPC to expand the list of offences for which community sentences may be imposed.

Under the amended section 337(3) of the CPC, a Court may impose a community work order even if the offender is convicted of an offence for which a mandatory minimum sentence of a fine is prescribed by law. One example is the offence of drink-driving. I would welcome the hon Minister’s confirmation that this comports with the policy intent behind this amendment Bill.

I may be wrong, but one community sentencing option which does not appear to be open for offenders under the RTA in relation to offences under the proposed sections 64 and 65 is the short detention order. If a person is imposed with a short detention order, unlike an imprisonment, his conviction would not constitute as a registrable crime under the Registration of Criminals Act. I would have thought that, particularly for lower-level culpability acts leading to medium-level harm, a short detention order should be considered as a suitable punishment so that the accused would not be delivered with a disproportionate crushing blow vis-a-vis his prospects in the future. I wonder why this option is not provided for in this Bill.

The next point I wish to make relates to the fact that the sentencing provision in section 69 of the RTA, which deals with administration of preliminary breath tests, is being retained in its current form even though the sentencing provisions for section 67 are proposed to be enhanced. Currently, there is a parity of sentence under section 67(1), which deals with drink-driving, and under section 69(4) of the RTA, which deals with refusing to give a breath specimen for a preliminary breath test. In both situations, a first-timer would be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. A repeat offender would similarly be liable for a fine of not less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months.

In the Bill, the sentencing provisions for section 67(1) are proposed to be enhanced. However, the same is not proposed for section 69(4) of the RTA.

I do appreciate that if a person does not provide a breath sample for a preliminary breath test, he may be arrested nonetheless and be required to submit a breath sample for the prescribed breathalyser test at the Police station. If he again refuses to provide the breath sample, he will be presumed to have committed the offence of drink-driving and charged separately for that offence. However, given that there is currently an existing parity between the sentences provided for both provisions and the aim of this Bill is to deter motorists from irresponsible behaviour, I wonder what is the policy reason for not similarly proposing to amend the punishment for section 69(4) of the RTA.

I also would like to ask if we have sufficiently leveraged advances made in technology.

The prescribed breathalyser test was introduced in 1996. It was contemplated then that the test has to be administered in the Police station. The motorist has to be transported to the Police station for this. Now, there are Police-grade mobile prescribed breathalyser machines readily available which provide very accurate readings and can be administered at the roadside. There is also a potential for removing the need to administer preliminary breath test. What we will then get is a reading of the alcohol level of the motorist at an earlier time, which probably will be a better gauge of what his alcohol level was at the time he was driving or was in charge of his vehicle. I also note that in France, drink-drivers, especially repeat offenders, would be required to fit their cars with vehicle ignition breathalysers or ignition interlock which require them to take a test before they can start their car. They will also be required to blow on a second occasion at a random time to limit the chances of others blowing into the breathalyser for them. I would be grateful for an update from the hon Minister on this front.

The final point I wish to make relates to making owners and operators of vehicles who cause death or injuries as a result of mechanical failure arising from negligent maintenance of their vehicles, especially heavy vehicles. I have spoken on this topic in this House recently. I appreciate that these amendments are being introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs and the focus is, therefore, on driver conduct. I would respectfully suggest that MOT take a look at the RTA with a view to tighten the framework so that such owners are held responsible for death and injuries arising from their neglect.

I also suggest that the Ministry consider making some safety measures mandatory to protect other road users and this is a call that was made by the hon Member Mr Ang Hin Kee as well as the hon Member Assoc Prof Walter Theseira. It could consider measures taken overseas. For example, in the US, it is compulsory to install rear view cameras. There are also discussions in several countries about making the installation of dash cams compulsory, too. Dash cams can be a deterrent against irresponsible driving, too. The hon Minister mentioned about video footage being referred to the Police for investigation. They are also a good source of evidence for investigation into RTA offences. Some dash cams have anti-collision sensors and could have made a difference, for example, in relation to the accident that the hon Nominated Member of Parliament Prof Lim Sun Sun was involved in. I am so glad that she is none the worse for it. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, road traffic casualties often have severe implications on victims and their families. If the victim is injured, it means that he has to take time off work, which could result in loss of income or employment. In more serious cases when the victim sustains a disability, or even death, entire lives and families are damaged irreversibly.

I had a bubbly young resident in her mid-30s. She rode a motorbike to work. She was a restaurant manager in the country club in the Jurong area. One night, her parents waited and waited. She never made it home. On her way home to Yishun, at the traffic junction of Lentor Avenue and Yio Chu Kang Road, when the traffic light turned green in her favour, she went straight towards Khatib but a car turned right hastily and knocked her down. She was killed. The whole family was so distraught. Her mother fell ill soon after that and passed away. This is how a reckless driver ruined a family.

Meanwhile, perpetrators might get off with a fine. In this case, the driver was fined $8,000 and suspended for five years and that happened in 2013, which means he got to drive again since last year. The penalties for dangerous driving are simply disproportionate to the impact of their actions. That is why I agree with the proposed amendments for new mandatory minimum jail sentences to penalise dangerous and careless driving that cause death and grievous hurt. I hope they will deter people from driving dangerously.

I also commend the change of law to immediately revoke the licences of people charged with dangerous driving, those with previous offences and those doing illegal racing. Indeed, such people are a menace on the roads and should have their licence revoked immediately.

Very often, my residents told me that their sleep was interrupted by the noise from the racing vehicles along Yishun Avenue 1, Yishun Street 51 and Yishun Ring Road. This happens, especially on Friday night and Saturday night. They need not sleep, but my residents need to sleep. Certainly, I hope to see more enforcement.

Besides the obvious examples of dangerous driving, there have been previous grievous accidents which occurred because the driver did not have sufficient rest or was driving while on medication that would impair driving ability or if the vehicle was not maintained in good condition. In a recent high-profile accident, a veteran rugby coach was fatally hit by a runaway tyre while riding a motorcycle. Would such cases be classified as dangerous driving? I note that there are no specific regulations or benchmarks when it comes to determining such conditions. Will the Ministry look into this?

At the same time, we need to have a public conversation about dangerous and careless driving. The number of summonses issued to motorists increased from 152,700 in 2015 to 181,000 in 2018. Even as we move towards a car-lite society, it is concerning that there are more incidents of dangerous and careless driving. What are the reasons for this increase in road accidents? What can be done about it? Given that the top cause of accidents in Singapore is failing to keep a proper lookout or distracted driving, how can we better enforce the ban on using smartphones while driving?

A survey last year revealed that nearly one in two Singapore drivers feel that the roads have become less safe than they were three years ago and the reasons for these include more aggressive drivers, more non-motorists on the roads, including cyclists and PMDs, and more private hire vehicles. Is it time to examine the need to strike a healthier balance among the types of users on the roads? We should also look into addressing the increase in aggressive driving, whether it is due to frustration at the road conditions or due to stress and other personal reasons.

Although PMDs, aside from bicycles and e-bikes, are not explicitly covered under this Bill, I would like to remind the Ministry that some PMDs do go onto the roads, whether legally or not. The survey I cited just now showed that drivers feel unsafe because of them. So, they do impact road safety. Many drivers have seen them zig-zagging in many parts of Singapore. How many such drivers have been caught by the Traffic Police?

I would like to once again call for measures to manage PMDs. Countries like Germany and Peru have banned PMDs on footpaths, and France has just announced that they will ban PMDs on footpaths from September. Many cities have built dedicated cycling and PMD lanes on the roads. That would help both drivers and pedestrians feel safer. I would like to urge MOT to seriously consider these measures for the safety of our pedestrians. How can a three-year-old kid be hit by an e-scooter in a shopping mall? How can our commuters feel so unsafe while waiting for public transport at bus stops?

Also, motorised PMDs should be licensed and have their licence revoked if they hurt someone, just like in this act of zig-zagging on the road or at the bus stop. I hope the Active Mobility Act will take some lessons from the Road Safety Act and implement stricter deterrent measures.

Next, I would like to talk about jaywalkers. Jaywalking also causes road accidents. There seems to be not much enforcement. Is this no-man's land? Who is supposed to enforce? A resident shared with me that he was involved in a road accident because of a jaywalker. If I may use his language, he said:

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: "(The jaywalker) didn't cross the road earlier or later; he happened to cross the road right in front of my car!" So, an accident happened. According to what my resident had told me, the Traffic Police only warned the jaywalker, but my resident was prosecuted in Court. Is this fair? I would like to ask the Minister, under the amended law, if a jaywalker is hit by a car and dies afterwards, would the driver be jailed immediately?

This amendment will allow us to deal with reckless driving more quickly and severely. I fully support it. I hope the Government can also explore the following areas.

The first is relating to driving without sufficient sleep, under drug influence or when the vehicle condition is bad. If we can specify the rules and clearly forbid these behaviours, a deterrent effect can be achieved.

The second is about PMDs. According to surveys, motorists have expressed that PMDs on roads make them feel unsafe. Therefore, we should check more frequently whether there are PMDs riding on roads illegally. When we build new towns, we should have designated bicycle and PMD lanes. I think that PMDs should be licensed. If there is an accident, the licence can be revoked. This can have a deterrent effect.

In Singapore, there are more and more traffic offences. Compared to 2015, there are 30,000 more summonses in 2018. Half of the motorists said that they feel the roads are getting more unsafe. People waiting at the bus stops also feel that it is no longer safe to wait at a bus stop. This is really worrying. I hope the Government can do something to reverse this trend.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a timely Bill and I fully support the efforts of the Traffic Police to make our roads safer for all. Despite recent measures, such as more intense enforcement, the installation of more red-light and speed cameras, new and ongoing public education and engagement initiatives, the number of summonses issued for motorist offences has gone up, from over 150,000 in 2015 to more than 180,000 in 2018. Last year, the number of drink-driving accidents went up by 17%, and red-light running offences also increased by 16%. Hence, the heavier penalties, including longer imprisonment and disqualification from driving, should have a stronger deterrent effect. However, it would be better if we could put in place preventive measures to minimise the possibility of drivers committing offences in the first place.

One problem, which has persistently bothered me and many of my present and former Parliamentary colleagues, is the hazardous practice of having Green Man and lights for both pedestrians and turning vehicles at junctions. While I am heartened by LTA’s announcement last April to introduce Red-Amber-Green (RAG) arrows at most junctions by 2023, where drivers have to wait for the arrow to turn green before making a turn, I think it is important that all, not most, but all junctions should have RAG signalling and, when pedestrians may cross, no vehicles should be permitted to turn. These signals should be consistent to reduce confusion among motorists who now encounter different signalling at different junctions. I also appeal to LTA to expedite the installation of RAG.

The Traffic Police had noted in their 2018 Traffic Accident Situation news release that accidents involving elderly pedestrians who jaywalk remain a concern, as 25% of all accidents involving pedestrians involve our elderly pedestrians. I would like to ask the Minister if the Traffic Police could have greater involvement in the earlier stages of new town and estate planning so that they can provide their input on the upcoming infrastructure. Greater consultation with the Traffic Police, who understand how the increasing population of elderly pedestrians behave on roads, would be most helpful. Their input would inform planners, for example, on placement of pedestrian crossings, and where to build overhead bridges with ramps or elevators, since the elderly would have difficulty with steps. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: The Traffic Police had noted in their 2018 Traffic Accident Situation news release that accidents involving elderly pedestrians who jaywalk remain a concern, as 25% of all accidents involving pedestrians involve elderly pedestrians. I would like to ask the Minister if the Traffic Police could have greater involvement in the earlier stages of new town and estate planning so that they can provide their input on the upcoming infrastructure. Greater consultation with the Traffic Police, who understand how the increasing population of elderly pedestrians behave on roads, would be helpful. Their input would inform planners, for example, on placement of pedestrian crossings, and where to build overhead bridges with ramps or elevators, since the elderly would have difficulty with steps.

(In English): Finally, I would like to raise my concerns over speeding heavy vehicles. I have observed and received feedback from my residents that many of these vehicles are regularly driving at above our speed limits. I seek clarifications on what is done when they are caught speeding. What is the time lag between a speeding vehicle captured on our road cameras and the update to the Traffic Police database, so that timely enforcement can take place? Does the Ministry have statistics on such drivers and their vehicles for the past five years? Sir, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. According to the annual road traffic accident situation report issued by the Singapore Police Force, while there were fewer road traffic accidents in 2018, the number of fatal road accidents had increased when compared with 2017. The Police also noted an increase in the number of drink-driving accidents, as well as red-light running violations and related accidents. These are serious traffic offences and are often a result of irresponsible driver behaviour. The proposed amendments to the RTA are, therefore, timely as the harsher punishments would help deter irresponsible driving. However, I would like to provide additional suggestions to help make commuting on our roads safer.

I support MHA's proposal to enhance criminal penalties to deter irresponsible driving, such as those who drink and drive. Drink-driving incidents are preventable 100%. We just simply do not drink and drive. And I believe that we can do more to deter people from driving under the influence of alcohol. Currently, the proposed measures in the Bill only target the driver. I propose that those who knowingly assist incidents of drink-driving, such as handing a drunk person the keys to the car, should also be made culpable of aiding and abetting drink-driving under the law. This would serve as both a legal deterrent as well as shape societal dynamics by making it a joint responsibility for others to stop someone from drink-driving.

Technology can also be a key enabler in preventing drink-driving. Countries, such as Australia, the Netherlands and the US, have passed laws to mandate the installation of ignition-interlock devices in vehicles of convicted drink-driving offenders. Such drivers are required to take a breathalyser test installed into the vehicle, prior to being allowed to start their vehicles. Such devices would help lower incidents of drink-driving, especially by repeat offenders. I would, therefore, like to suggest that we emulate this by mandating the installation of such ignition-interlock devices for vehicles owned or driven by past drink-driving offenders.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while I recognise that the intent of this Bill is to tighten our regulatory regime to deter irresponsible driving, the truth of the matter is that raising penalties can only accomplish so much to prevent road accidents from happening. We need to go beyond our usual business-as-usual practices of raising penalties and conducting enforcement operations. I propose that we look at how to improve the safety of our roads through enhancing road infrastructure.

An infrastructure enhancement that we can make is in the area of our traffic junctions. First, let us simply do away with discretionary right turns. Two high profile accidents in 2018, one along Clementi Road and another at the junction of Jalan Anak Bukit and Jalan Jurong Kechil, which saw two separate fatalities, bring to mind the dangers of discretionary right turns. In both cases, the drivers appeared to have had an error of judgement in making the right turn. Earlier, we have also heard similar cases by Members Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Prof Lim Sun Sun. So, while I am encouraged that there are plans to install more non-discretionary right-turn arrows, I would like for us to go one step further and convert all right-turn arrows into non-discretionary. This would certainly go a long way in making our roads a safer place.

Second, we should include countdown timers at all traffic junctions. This is not my first time raising this and I note that LTA, in their reply, said that they had conducted a small-scale pilot at the junction of North Bridge Road and Rochor Road over a period of six months in 2003. In that pilot, LTA found that there were no significant improvements to road safety. But many countries have since implemented such countdown timers as they view that it improves road safety. In 2017, a study published by the Oregon State University had also found that such countdown timers lead to safer responses from drivers as it reduces mistakes made in what is called the "dilemma zone", which is the area in which a driver is not sure whether to stop or keep going when the light turns yellow. We need to revisit the conclusion of the pilot trial that LTA had conducted over 15 years ago. I believe that the experiences of other countries are sound and there is potential for such countdown timers to further reduce traffic accidents, given the increase in red-light running violations. I hope that the Traffic Police and LTA can conduct a new trial of traffic countdown timers. Perhaps, the agencies can consider Orchard Road, which is within my constituency, which has many traffic junctions – at least eight – and which has significantly heavy traffic flow, for this new trial.

Mr Deputy Speaker, statistics have also shown that cyclists, motorcyclists and their pillion riders are most at risk of injury and fatality in the event of a traffic accident. We need to do more education to teach both cyclists and motorcyclists on the importance of defensive riding, as they are our most vulnerable group of road-users. It is not unusual to see motorcyclists riding in between lanes, especially during peak-hour traffic. Some would even manoeuvre at a fast speed zig-zagging across lanes and in between vehicles. This puts them at risk of being side-swept by vehicles if they are in a blind spot. More needs to be done to educate our motorcyclists on the dangers of riding between lanes. Correspondingly, we need to educate other drivers on the importance of checking their blind spots constantly before making a turn or making a lane change.

Next, I would like to make another pitch again to disallow cyclists from plying our bus lanes during operating hours. Many cyclists do not cycle in a single file and, even if some do, the bus lanes are simply not wide enough to provide a safety distance between the bus and the cyclist. Many bus drivers that I have spoken to, tell me that it is very difficult to manoeuvre the big bus past a cyclist, more so if it is a group of cyclists. It is obvious that it is practically not possible to keep the bus within the bus lane and get past the cyclists. Let us, therefore, separate the big bus from the small bicycle before we end up with another tragic accident.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the need to enhance our regulatory regime against errant drivers and to deter irresponsible driving. However, we can only accomplish so much just by raising penalties. We need to go beyond our business-as-usual mentality and relook at some of our previously held assumptions and conclusions regarding road safety. I hope the agencies would consider my suggestions which I believe would serve to further make our roads safer. With that, I support the Bill.

Ms Anthea Ong.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the proposed amendments as they are in line with protecting the rights and safety of road users. Yet, protecting the rights of all road users while continuing to enhance accessibility has increasingly come into tension. This is not unique to Singapore but certainly more challenging for us, given our high-density urban environment of 7,804 people per square (sq) km. These challenges will only exacerbate, with one in four Singaporeans to be aged 65 and above by 2030. Including persons with disabilities, this figure reaches a third of our residential population.

As the amendments proposed in this Bill seek to adjust penalties and improve regulatory regimes to manage this tension, I take this opportunity to speak up for the elderly and disability population to engage in the conversation of road rights and how Singapore can best enjoy limited shared spaces in a way that protects all, especially vulnerable members of our population with greater accessibility needs. Penalties and regulations are important in ensuring the safety of all road users, but they must also be complemented by understanding and acceptance by the public, which will only be possible if we have these conversations that cultivate cultural acceptance.

I acknowledge that our various public agencies recognise these needs, as reflected in the latest Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) 2040 and URA Draft Master Plan 2019. Yet, we can, and must, do more to build an inclusive, accessible Singapore while navigating the tension between safety and accessibility. We cannot have a conversation on the tension of accessibility and safety without bringing up the PMDs.

At the risk of going off-road here, pun intended, I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I offer another – but important – consideration, on behalf of our elderly and persons with disabilities regarding PMDs. PMDs have grown in usage and already play an important role in the lives of people who depend on them for various forms of participation in society, especially by the elderly and differently-abled. As 76-year-old retiree Madam Angie Ng shared, the most life-changing decision was getting a motorised scooter which allows her to go out marketing, visit friends and have a meal, tasks previously virtually impossible because of her osteoporosis which made it extremely painful for her to walk. Other examples include Ms Juni Syafiqa Binte Jumat who landed a job with GrabFood with her electric wheelchair.

It is clear the rapid proliferation of specific PMDs amplifies the need to develop a culture of safely sharing limited spaces among users going at different speeds. Previously, unregulated PMDs led to persistently high accident rates, with 2,500 active mobility offences recorded between May and December 2018 alone. On 28 May, a news article noted that Housing and Development Board (HDB) void deck areas were exempted from the Active Mobility Act and Town Councils can impose their own rules. Fifteen Town Councils then said that they would not rule out banning PMDs from void decks. This is despite recent regulatory reductions of the speed limit of PMDs on footpaths from 15 km/h to 10 km/h.

While the Government works towards having every household within 300 metres of a Mass Rapid Transit station, the elderly and differently-abled still rely on their PMDs to enjoy the same privilege of access to public spaces and transport. The physical and psychological benefits which PMDs bring cannot be underestimated. An outright ban on PMDs on footpaths or void decks may be a convenient but also a blunt solution. A more effective and calibrated approach would be to institute a different extent of regulation for different PMD user-groups as well as, perhaps more importantly, cultivating a path-sharing and safe riding culture.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we also cannot have a conversation on road rights and sharing limited spaces without talking about autonomous vehicles (AVs). AVs have opened up new possibilities to meet mobility needs. And to the vulnerable segments of our population, especially the elderly, AV deployment can both be a cause for celebration and a concern. With one in four of our population being 65 and above by 2030, many who have always enjoyed the freedom of mobility are now and will be less able to. AVs can cover the short distances to visit grandchildren who live close-by without having to navigate stairs, walkways without handrails, or traffic junctions. AVs feature in our near-term future mobility plans as dynamically routed services to be piloted in Punggol, Tengah and the Jurong Innovation District by 2022, a mere three years away. LTA's vision for a car-lite Singapore includes low-speed self-driving pods for neighbourhoods. Both these initiatives can really benefit our seniors with more point-to-point, short-route services.

Nevertheless, AVs are moving vehicles which pose a risk to road users and pedestrians. We must, therefore, ensure that we balance the design and deployment of AVs with safety and mobility. Whether or not AVs bring about higher accessibility for the elderly will clearly depend on whether we have designed the vehicles, network and system to their needs and challenges. Reviewing the current use cases and testing compiled by Smart Nation SG, I have to humbly suggest that we may have to do more for our growing numbers of seniors.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me highlight the road rights and accessibility considerations relating to the elderly and AVs in two aspects: the elderly as pedestrians and the elderly as passengers.

First, as pedestrians, the elderly are more likely to be at risk with AVs. Pedestrian safety studies emphasise the driver-pedestrian interaction and provisions of cues for decision-making. In the absence of a driver, the elderly pedestrian can only rely on cues from the vehicles. The elderly have slower reaction times and could require both enhanced visual and audio cues to be aware of oncoming traffic. Given our rapidly ageing population, AVs should be designed and tested with consideration to these safety needs. This could include braking reaction time, as well as exterior vehicle design and vehicle sound levels.

As passengers, the elderly can benefit from the convenience and safety provided by AVs. However, familiarity with the technology, awareness of benefits and user-centric design are all critical aspects to acceptance of this technology. Testing has so far been at one-north, university campuses as well as Gardens-by-the-Bay. These are not areas where the elderly population frequent, limiting their awareness of this technology and its benefits. As always, it is better to "show them, not tell them". Providing opportunities for the elderly to experience the technology is important. Entities involved in testing could be required to explore locations and methods to ensure the elderly are part of the testing population in future trials.

While supportive of AV deployment, I cannot help but come back to the complexity around road rights. For example, should a slower-moving AV providing point-to-point service be afforded preferential road rights to other motorised vehicles? Should there be dedicated road space? Do we carve out more space from sidewalks or from motorised roadways for new pickup points? How should we make these choices? These are difficult but important questions for our society and policymakers to grapple with. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pre-empting the new Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill that has just been tabled for First Reading today. But I think it is safe to say that we must learn from what we have experienced with PMDs by involving the elderly and vulnerable populations early on with AVs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with only 700 sq km of land that is our home, truly, our challenge will always be about space. How do we share space amongst competing users, humans or otherwise, in that perennial creative tension of road rights as well as ensuring the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists?

Recognising the diverse needs for accessibility across all user groups, new modes of transportation should be harnessed to enable all Singaporeans to lead healthier, happier lives while protecting vulnerable road users. As much as my heart aches for the lives affected and lost through misuse and accidents from the new devices, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater either. Diverse mobility options are clearly the future that we need to embrace. But this future can only be realised if and when we rigorously test and design for the diversity of user experiences and needs.

We cannot neglect the discussion of fair allocation, safety and well-being. The elderly and the differently-abled must be invited and included to participate in and negotiate on their rights as users of our shared spaces, roads and pathways. Active participation at the community level will encourage grassroots and ground-up actions, including locale-specific solutions, that help to cultivate the gracious culture of space sharing that we aspire towards.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our biggest challenge is not in adopting the latest mobility technologies for improved accessibility nor crafting and updating laws to protect the safety of road users like this Bill seeks to do. Our biggest challenge will be in achieving true inclusivity in urban and transport planning as well as fostering a healthy culture of sharing our limited spaces in a way that keeps one another safe as new mobility technologies emerge. This must, therefore, be our priority in our quest towards being a sustainable smart nation for all Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, road safety is as much about user behaviour as it is about good infrastructure and design. We have conducted decades of public education and made continuous investments in road networks and technology to enhance safety of all users. However, the most important component of road safety is still the behaviour of our motorists.

Unfortunately, many motorists still have some way to go in terms of safety awareness and etiquette. In recent years, the number of summonses issued for traffic offences and feedback letters sent to the Traffic Police have been increasing. More worryingly, we are seeing a jump in the number of drink-driving accidents. With lives and limbs at stake, heavier penalties, as proposed in this Bill, are necessary to serve as stronger deterrents to motorists who drive irresponsibly and dangerously.

Longer jail terms and disqualification periods (DQ) from driving will certainly help to keep such hazardous drivers off the roads. My concern is that quite a number of disqualified drivers are not compliant. The Traffic Police have been catching more motorists driving without valid licences in the last few years, from 921 in 2014, to 1,435 in 2018, and there are probably quite a number who got away, considering the difficulty of detection. As a result, the effectiveness of DQ, as a deterrent and punishment, could be undermined.

Hence, I would like to propose that the Ministry also consider restricting offenders' access to vehicles. This can be partly achieved by prohibiting vehicle ownership for various durations, depending on the severity of their offences. This would mean that offenders might even have to transfer or sell their vehicles, resulting in potential inconveniences and, perhaps, financial losses. They should not be allowed to transfer to anyone without a driving licence, of course. And while this is an unpalatable measure, such a punishment may be a more effective deterrent and much easier to enforce.

I note that, already in this Bill, there is a range of offences which can result in the forfeiture of vehicles, for example, dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt. However, I am not sure if these offenders would be prevented from acquiring another vehicle and I would like to seek some clarifications on this.

In addition, anyone, such as family members and friends, who willingly or unwittingly provide access to vehicles should also be made to bear varying loads of penalties, so that they will be more vigilant in keeping these offenders out of the driver's seat.

The Ministry should also provide car leasing companies with greater support and tools to ensure that they lease vehicles to only motorists with valid licences. And I do applaud the move to make the licences virtual. These companies should be able to perform cross-checking in real time and be provided updated data.

Next, I would like to request that the Ministry consider following the measures by the EU to install speed limiters in all new cars. These devices automatically prevent drivers from exceeding the speed limit. It might be even better if we could take it one step further and require all vehicles to be fitted or retrofitted with such devices.

The EU will also be introducing other safety measures which will be mandatory by 2022. These include automated emergency braking, electronic data recorders and features to be built into bigger and heavier vehicles like lorries to improve visibility of cyclists and pedestrians around them. We should consider incorporating these ideas as well. In addition, we should make it mandatory for motorists to install and maintain approved models of car cameras. And these cameras can help to moderate driving behavior and detect other irresponsible motorists.

Finally, we should be paying attention to the growing segment of elderly drivers as our population is ageing rapidly. Adjustments to infrastructure and additional training will help keep our senior drivers safe on our roads. We should take heed of the experiences of other countries with significant elderly populations.

In June, the Lianhe Zaobao reported on an NHK article about the severe problems caused by elderly Japanese motorists. The traffic accidents they are involved in have the highest death rates. The main cause for the group aged 75 and above who are involved in fatal accidents was "inappropriate vehicle operation". Therefore, I urge the Ministry to consider implementing perhaps more stringent and frequent cognitive tests and health checks for all elderly motorists. These assessments should be annual or perhaps bi-annual for those aged 75 and above, as functional health can potentially decline steeply from this age. Efforts would have to be made to persuade older drivers of the benefits of these assessments as they will enhance their own and other road users' safety. I would like to conclude by voicing my support for this Bill.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. While Members recognised the importance of enforcement measures to deter irresponsible driving, many also highlighted the need to go beyond enforcement and take a wider approach to ensuring road safety, to make use of other levers, such as education and engagement. Mr Deputy Speaker, we fully agree with these views.

I will respond to questions on our regulatory regime, as well as our general approach to road safety. Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mrs Josephine Teo, will then address questions on criminal offences and touch on emerging road traffic issues.

First, on our amendments to tighten the regulatory regime against irresponsible driving. On the streamlined licence suspension and revocation process, Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked whether the DCP may have the discretion to extend the notice period before suspension and revocation. The DCP can extend the notice period for suspension, but only for the suspended motorist to attend the DIPS Retraining Course. This is because, in this case, the motorist is taking steps to address his errant behaviour. Thus, where a licensee has indicated to Traffic Police that he intends to take the DIPS Retraining course and the course date is later than the date when the suspension is supposed to take effect, he will have the effective date of the suspension pushed back. This is so that the licensee may complete the course and have the suspension period reduced. It bears remembering that for a motorist to be facing suspension and revocation, he would have committed several offences before, and he would have had opportunities previously to appeal against those offences. We have to ensure that our processes are implemented fairly and consistently, a point that the hon Member Ms Rahayu Mahzam also mentioned in her speech.

There were also questions on obligations for motorists in accidents involving animals. We will have to balance between animal welfare and the safety of road users. That is why the Bill obligates the motorist to stop only when it is safe to do so. We do not want to be too prescriptive in the law by stating when it is safe or unsafe, as it is not possible to cover all situations and accurately describe when it is safe or unsafe. Similarly, it is not possible to be exhaustive in listing out all the types of animals that motorists should stop for in accidents involving animals. The Police will take a practical approach and the Courts will decide, depending on the facts of the case.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would now like to speak on our wider approach towards road safety. Members spoke on the progress of existing road safety measures and made new suggestions to improve road safety. I will address these issues in turn.

First, on existing road safety measures. Members spoke on the need to calibrate our approach to different road user groups. We fully agree. Allow me to explain how we have done so.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the measures that have been taken to target "at-risk" road user groups. Mr Melvin Yong also pointed out the need to educate and engage with motorcyclists as an "at-risk" group. We agree. In recent years, the Traffic Police have identified vulnerable road user groups, such as elderly pedestrians and motorcyclists, and taken an increasingly calibrated approach to working with these different road user groups. For example, the Traffic Police regularly engage these groups through targeted regular road safety dialogues as well as outreach events, such as the annual Singapore Ride Safe. The Traffic Police also developed the Road Master Test Kit to help elderly road users assess their eyesight, hearing and reaction times and to share safe road use habits with them.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the need to engage and shape the behaviours of vocational drivers. We agree. And the Traffic Police work closely with agencies, such as MOM, MOT and LTA, to introduce measures for vocational drivers. For example, the Traffic Police work with the Workplace Safety and Health Council to remind heavy vehicle drivers and their employers regularly on the importance of adopting safe driving practices. Under the Workplace Safety and Health Council's Drive Safe, Work Safe campaign, more than 200 heavy vehicle fleet owners have pledged to implement measures to encourage safe driving by their employees.

The Traffic Police also engage taxi and private hire car drivers, their companies, as well as the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association on safe driving practices. To remind taxi drivers to stay alert and drive safely when they approach high-risk areas, the Traffic Police worked with taxi companies to incorporate the locations of high-risk areas in the Mobile Data Terminals of taxis.

Members also spoke about the need to continually update our measures. The Traffic Police and LTA have stepped up enforcement, education and engagement to improve road safety. We conduct periodic reviews to ensure our measures are effective.

Mr Ang Hin Kee asked to conduct periodic reviews of driving course content and to increase engagement initiatives to raise awareness among different road user groups. We agree. The Traffic Police regularly update the driving course curriculum. It is through these reviews that we have decided to introduce simulator training for all new learner motorists towards the end of the year. This is to allow them to practise safe driving habits in a controlled environment. On engagement, we agree that this is important and MHA and the Traffic Police are working on extending our outreach to as many road users as possible.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu spoke about the need to cater to an ageing motorist population. He suggested to make adjustments to our regime, such as customised training and health assessments. We agree. At present, we already have calibrated health checks for motorists. Motorists above the age of 65 are required to undergo and pass a medical examination every three years. Heavy vehicle drivers have added responsibilities and are required to do so every year. We will study Dr Chia Shi-Lu's suggestion.

Second, Members recognised the need to explore new solutions and have raised new suggestions to improve road safety.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira suggested to scale road traffic fines according to income, to improve deterrence and allow equity in the administration of justice. We note that some other jurisdictions, such as Finland, have implemented such an income-based system. Other jurisdictions, such as the UK, have piloted trials that were, unfortunately, eventually discontinued. MHA will study the suitability and impact of implementing a similar system.

Ms Joan Pereira suggested for the Traffic Police to be involved in the earlier stages of infrastructural road planning. Indeed, this is being done. Traffic Police work with HDB and LTA in the early stages of planning for new estates. Traffic Police assess the likely traffic and pedestrian flow in the new HDB estates and provide advice on the specific locations where enforcement cameras ought to be installed. One recent example is Bidadari New Town where the Traffic Police assessed and decided to install two red-light cameras. Likewise, the Traffic Police provide inputs, where required, to LTA's road safety infrastructure plans. Most recently, the Traffic Police worked with LTA to reduce the speed limits at two Silver Zones from 40 km/h to 30 km/h.

Members also made various other suggestions, such as Mr Ang Hin Kee’s suggestion to issue rebates to car dealers who install safety-enabling technologies in their vehicles and provide training for vocational drivers. Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Prof Lim Sun Sun, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Murali Pillai suggested to leverage new technologies, such as urban analytics, ignition-interlock devices and speed limiters. Mr Christopher de Souza suggested providing support for victims of drink-driving accidents. Prof Lim Sun Sun and Ms Joan Pereira also suggested to expedite the installation of Red-Amber-Green arrows at all right-turning junctions. Dr Chia Shi-Lu suggested to restrict offenders’ access to vehicles. Mr Melvin Yong suggested for LTA to consider the installation of countdown timers and to disallow cyclists from bus lanes. Mr Murali Pillai suggested for MOT to tighten the framework such that owners are held responsible for death and injuries arising from their neglect to maintain their vehicles.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their suggestions. We agree with the Members that a wider approach to ensuring road safety is important. MHA will consider these suggestions with the relevant agencies for future reviews.

Minister Josephine Teo.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. Prof Lim Sun Sun had an unfortunate accident. She did not tell me when I met her yesterday. We are all relieved that she has recovered and joined Members to make an important contribution to this debate.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has addressed some of the Members' questions and suggestions. I will deal with those regarding the enhanced criminal penalties and then the emerging road traffic issues.

First, the definition of Dangerous and Careless Driving. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah raised two examples: accidents caused by drivers who had insufficient rest, and accidents caused when there is a mechanical failure of a vehicle, which Mr Murali Pillai also asked about. How will we deal with them?

On driving while sleep-deprived, the Courts have ruled that doing so can be considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing. In general, driving when one is not in a condition to do so is more likely to be considered as dangerous rather than careless. Having said that, other factors, such as the manner of driving, will also be taken into account. The Attorney-General's Chambers will consider the facts of each case when determining the appropriate offence.

On Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's second example of mechanical failure of a vehicle, this will not be classified as a dangerous nor careless driving offence, as the mechanical fault is not linked to the manner of driving. However, failure to maintain one's vehicle is already an offence under the RTA. In addition, under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, employers have a duty to ensure the safety and health of their employees at work. This includes proper maintenance of vehicles. Failure to do so will also be an offence.

Second, the penalties for specific offences. Mr Christopher de Souza shared his concerns that the increased penalties for Driving without Licence and Permitting or Employing Another Person to Drive without Licence may be too harsh on individuals who may have unknowingly driven a vehicle without a licence. For example, a person may not be aware of the need to certify his fitness to drive and renew his licence when he turns 65. We understand the concern. The Police and the Public Prosecutor will look into the specifics of each case to decide the appropriate charge.

Another question Mr Christopher de Souza raised had to do with the treatment for motorists when the victim also violated traffic rules and contributed to the accident. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about accidents caused by jaywalkers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, when assessing whether a motorist should bear liability for an accident, the Traffic Police's key consideration is whether the motorist was driving safely. If the motorist had abided by the traffic rules, for example, keeping within speed limits and checking clear before making turns or changing lanes and yet still knock into the victim, for example, a PMD rider or jaywalker, because the latter had appeared suddenly on the road and left him with insufficient time to react, the motorist will not be liable for an irresponsible driving offence. That part is clear.

Conversely, if the motorist was not driving safely, for instance, he spotted a pedestrian jaywalking but decided to speed up in a bid to drive past the pedestrian before the pedestrian can reach the lane his vehicle was on and hit the victim as a result, he will be prosecuted. But, of course, the jaywalker may also be taken to task. So, I hope this part is clear.

Mr Murali Pillai asked about Driving Under Influence offences. He asked about the additional penalties for Dangerous and Careless Driving offences, for motorists who had done so while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and whether this would mean that a person is punished twice for the same act. There is no double penalty. Consider two actions. The first, a motorist was driving under influence. The second, a motorist was driving dangerously or carelessly. A motorist committing the first action, driving under influence, will be liable for penalties even if he was not driving dangerously or carelessly. If he was also committing the second action, that is, driving dangerously or carelessly, he would be liable for penalties under Dangerous or Careless Driving instead of Driving Under Influence per se. However, the offence of driving dangerously or carelessly while under influence carries higher penalties.

Mr Murali Pillai asked if the penalties for failing to provide a specimen for a preliminary breath test should be increased. As the proposed penalties are lower than that for the offence of Driving Under Influence, he worries that this may create an incentive for a motorist not to provide the specimen. There is no such incentive. At present, the Traffic Police subject motorists to two tests for suspected Driving Under Influence offences: first, a preliminary breath test to check if the breath alcohol content is beyond the legal limit; and, second, a test to measure the exact alcohol content of the motorist. A motorist who refuses to take the preliminary breath test will be arrested by the Traffic Police and required to take the second test. If the motorist also refuses to take the second test, he will be liable for the offences of: failure to provide specimen for the preliminary breath test; and failure to provide a specimen for the second test, which has an equivalent penalty to the offence of Driving Under Influence. I would also like to assure Mr Murali Pillai that the Traffic Police are now able to conduct the second test on the spot with the mobile Breath Evidential Analyser.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked if there would be a difference in the way disqualification periods operate for the offences of Dangerous and Careless Driving. The answer is no. There will be no difference in the way disqualification periods operate. The Court will have the discretion to depart from the minimum stipulated periods, if there are special reasons to do so.

Mr Christopher de Souza also asked about the illegal speed trials and the alignment with the penalties for Dangerous and Careless Driving offences. Given the lower penalties for illegal speed trials, he asked if it will be the case that the prosecution will have to choose between forfeiting the vehicle for an illegal speed trial offence as opposed to the higher penalties for a Dangerous Driving offence.

The offences mentioned are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a motorist to be charged for both the offence of Dangerous or Careless Driving and the offence of Illegal Speed Trial. Motorists who drive in a dangerous or careless manner will be liable for the offence of Dangerous or Careless Driving whether or not they are involved in an illegal speed trial. Motorists who partake in illegal street racing will be liable for the offence of Illegal Speed Trial, even if they were not driving dangerously or carelessly.

Mr Murali Pillai asked if community sentencing options, such as Community Work Orders, apply to the RTA. Community Work Orders are meant for reparation and restoration and are only limited to a prescribed list of offences. RTA offences are not in the list. However, we do have rehabilitative measures, before an accident even occurs, to help encourage safe driving behaviours by motorists. For example, motorists who have clocked a number of demerit points may choose to attend the Safe Driving Course, which helps them learn and practise safe driving habits.

Mr Murali Pillai had also asked if short detention orders can apply to RTA offences. The answer is yes, if the offence and offender meet the requirements set out under the CPC, such as not having a specified or mandatory minimum imprisonment. One example is the offence of Careless Driving as well as first-time Driving Under Influence offenders.

Third, let me address the questions on compounded offences.

Mr Louis Ng highlighted that some individuals could have compounded an offence without intending to admit guilt. He asked if composition offences in the RTA amount to an acquittal. A person who is charged in Court and appeals may be offered composition. In such instances, once the charge is withdrawn via a discharge amounting to an acquittal, the composition amounts to an acquittal.

However, the current case law states that past composition can be treated as an aggravating factor. The new section 139AA makes it clear that the Courts may take the composition of an offence as a possible aggravating factor when a Court sentences for a later RTA offence. It does not matter how the composition came about. The Courts should be able to consider an individual’s history of past compounded offences, for example, whether he had one or many past compositions. In any case, this will only apply within the RTA. As Mr Louis Ng mentioned in his speech, this is in line with the decisions made by the High Court that compounded offences in RTA may be taken into account for sentencing.

Moving forward, people who choose to accept composition should do so with the awareness that the composition could be treated as an aggravating factor in a future conviction. To be fair to them, due warning will be given at the point the composition is offered.

Mr Louis Ng also asked about the practical differences between a composition and conviction under RTA. Apart from the typically lower penalties for compositions, compositions will also not be considered as part of an individual’s criminal records.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me deal briefly with emerging road traffic issues, such as the use of active mobility devices and AVs. These emerging issues are increasingly complex. To chart the way forward, several Ministries and stakeholders must work together to tackle the issues from different angles.

Mr Christopher de Souza, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Anthea Ong spoke on the need to ensure riders behave responsibly. We fully agree. MHA and the Traffic Police work closely with MOT and LTA to dovetail our road safety and active mobility policies. We already regulate the use of active mobility devices through a comprehensive set of measures. At this stage of development, the measures cannot be static. However, as Ms Anthea Ong reminds us, an outright ban may be too blunt an act to take because the elderly and the differently-abled have benefited from the use of active mobility devices and so, therefore, it is probably better that the measures be continually updated and improved upon.

This Bill does not focus on active mobility devices and, in any case, MOT oversees this area. I will, therefore, speak more on the approach taken on the road safety front.

On the roads, there have been rules on the use of active mobility devices, such as bicycles. In February this year, the Government introduced new rules, including the mandatory use of helmets by cyclists on roads. Now, active mobility users at pedestrian crossings must also "stop and look" before crossing. In April 2019, MHA and the Traffic Police increased the composition sums for cyclist offences on the roads. We have also ramped up public education to raise awareness among active mobility users. Examples of such measures include the Traffic Police's "Use Your RoadSense" campaign and LTA’s "Safer Together" campaign. These efforts will have to continue.

Ms Anthea Ong spoke on the need to ensure that AVs are deployed safely. Indeed, self-driving technology has the potential to radically transform our transport system and improve our living environment. But we must ensure technology implementation does not endanger human lives. MHA and the Traffic Police are working closely with MOT to ensure that the AV testing regime is rigorous and the deployment of AVs is done in a cautious and safe manner, taking into account the impact on other road users, including the elderly and differently-abled. Likewise, we will continue to evaluate different technologies as they are made available. In fact, like AVs, these different technologies are probably on trial already one way or another. So, let me reassure Members if the technologies improve road safety and are feasible to implement, we will find ways to promote their adoption.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to successfully tackle all our road safety challenges, a good road safety culture is essential. If I may quote Mr Ang Hin Kee, he says: "Beyond the law, I believe we can channel our efforts to cultivate responsible road users and for everybody to have a safer commute."

Indeed, we all have a shared responsibility for road safety. Yet, this may also be where we most fall short. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had asked about the underlying causes of unsafe and discourteous road behaviours. We, too, want to know. So, the Traffic Police recently conducted a nationwide study involving different road user groups. Three findings stood out.

First, road users tend to prioritise their own needs to get to their destinations at the fastest speed and the shortest time possible.

Second, as highlighted by Ms Rahayu Mahzam, most road users rate their personal safety and graciousness positively, but rate the personal safety and graciousness of other road users negatively.

The third finding, unsurprisingly, is that the road users tend to feel that it is the responsibility of others to make the road safer.

So, this is the situation that we have to deal with.

The findings tell us that we have some way to go before the culture of responsible and gracious road use takes root among Singaporeans. Dr Chia Shi-Lu felt this way, too, and this is why the Traffic Police's effort has always gone beyond enforcement measures to encouraging a safe road use cultural change through engagement, education and, of course, also infrastructural improvements. This is also advocated by Members like Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Joan Pereira.

As I mentioned in my earlier speech, the Traffic Police and LTA’s recent road safety efforts have shown encouraging results. The road safety situation remains stable and the number of road traffic accidents has decreased. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira had also, of course, cited some very useful statistics to compare how we fare relative to other jurisdictions. However, there is still a need for continual review and improvement, and this Bill is another step in this direction. Sir, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clause 13 – (proc text)]

Clause 13. Minister Josephine Teo.

Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment in clause 13 is to allow for the Courts to have discretion to deviate from and impose a sentence lower than the minimum mandatory sentence if there are special reasons to do so.

[(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)]

[(proc text) In page 16, after line 19: to insert — (proc text)]

[(proc text) "(7) Where subsections (2) and (2A) prescribe a minimum term of imprisonment on conviction of an offence under subsection (1), the Court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment that is equal to or greater than that prescribed minimum term of imprisonment unless the Court, for special reasons, thinks fit to order a shorter term of imprisonment."(proc text)]

[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]