Debated in Parliament on 11 May 2021.
Debate resumed.
Mr Speaker, this Bill introduces amendments that will make our land transport system more future-ready and resilient. I thank the Members for their queries, suggestions and support for the Bill and will address them in turn.
First, the Bill makes changes to the Road Traffic Act (RTA) to update our regulatory framework to facilitate trials of AVs. Specifically, clause 3 of the Bill extends the sandbox that permits the AV trials from 2022 to 2027. I am glad that many Members spoke up in support of this extension.
Singapore has been facilitating AV trials on public roads since 2015. Today, a growing eco-system of leading AV firms from China, Europe and the USA, such as Motional, Continental and Desay, have been conducting research and development (R&D) trials here. Local AV enterprises, such as ST Engineering Autonomous Solutions, have deployed on-demand commercial AV services. However, fully autonomous transport remains a long-term aspiration, requiring more R&D.
Therefore, extending the sandbox by five years until August 2027 will allow these companies to continue to develop and trial AV technology for local deployment. The sandbox will also support the large-scale pilot deployment of autonomous buses and shuttles that Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Melvin Yong asked about. As previously announced, this will take place in Punggol, Tengah and the Jurong Innovation District, under the Call-for-Collaboration launched by LTA. This large-scale deployment will help us better understand the requirements for mass deployment, such as whether infrastructure upgrades are needed. LTA will provide further updates in the lead up to deployment in the mid-2020s.
The AV sandbox is meant to cover the trial and use of vehicles equipped with autonomous systems that enable the operation of vehicles without active physical control or monitoring by a human on public roads.
Mr Melvin Yong asked about the use of the Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). ADAS technology requires active monitoring by human drivers and, therefore, does not fall within the realm of AV technology. Before approving any motor vehicle for registration and use on public roads, including those fitted with ADAS, LTA checks to ensure the vehicle model’s compliance with stringent safety standards, such as those set out by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Vehicle Construction and Use Rules under the RTA. As ADAS technology grows more advanced, we agree with Mr Melvin Yong’s observation that it may carry new risks. We are monitoring global developments closely and will consider further regulation if necessary.
Besides the sandbox, another move LTA made to support AV trials was to expand the AV testbed in 2019 to include 1,000 kilometres of public roads in western Singapore, covering a wide range of traffic scenarios and road conditions. This has served the needs of AV developers interested to deploy AVs in Singapore. However, there are developers who may be considering other environments for their trials beyond western Singapore, as suggested by Ms Poh Li San, and LTA is open to such considerations when assessing their trial applications on a case-by-case basis.
In trialling AVs, public safety is our top priority. This is why LTA has put in place stringent safety assessments. Mr Saktiandi Supaat will be pleased to know that there are milestone tests in place today, administered in a specially-designed facility – the Centre of Excellence for Testing and Research of AVs at NTU, or CETRAN. All AVs must undergo and pass these tests prior to on-road trials. All AVs must also have a qualified safety driver onboard who can take immediate control of the vehicle during trials, should the need arise. These safety drivers are subject to the same responsibility as drivers of manned vehicles in ensuring the safe driving of the vehicle. The requirement for safety drivers will remain in place until AVs are able to operate safely without a human driver.
We agree with Ms Poh Li San’s observation that the liability and insurance framework for AVs is just as important as the underlying technology. This is why all AV developers, as owners of the AVs, are legally required to purchase third-party liability insurance for all AV trials. In the event of an accident, the insurance will cover any losses or damages that the owner and any authorised safety driver may suffer, as a result of any injury, death and property damage caused to any third party. This is not much different from the motor insurance coverage for manned vehicles. All AVs must also carry data recorders to collect data to support investigations in case of incidents.
But as we move towards fully autonomous transport in the longer term, MOT and LTA will need to adapt and review the liability framework for motor vehicles. Among other things, we are working with legal experts and insurers to better understand how to ascertain and assign liability in the case of accidents involving autonomous driving systems, as suggested by Ms Poh Li San.
While there are potential benefits, Ms Poh Li San has also rightly pointed out that AV technology can be disruptive. We will pace the transition carefully so that livelihoods will not be severely disrupted.
In 2019, to demonstrate our commitment to upskill our public bus captains, LTA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with industry stakeholders, including the public transport operators and the National Transport Workers’ Union. This will ensure that public bus captains are equipped with the necessary skills for new job roles, to continue contributing to the public transport system even when autonomous buses are introduced into the public transport fleet.
For taxi and private hire car drivers, LTA will be updating the vocational licence training curriculum after engaging the industry. The new curriculum will keep drivers up to date on new technologies, such as AVs and digitalisation, in the future economy. LTA will be seeking feedback from the industry, as well as the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles’ Association, before finalising the new curriculum.
Second, the Bill will update and future-proof our vehicular tax system, which is a key part of our vehicular controls and management. All vehicles used or kept in Singapore are subject to taxes upon registration. But there are exceptions. For instance, ambulances and fire engines are exempted as they provide essential public services. However, when these vehicles are no longer on a tax-exempt scheme, it is only fair to all other vehicle owners and drivers that taxes are re-imposed on these vehicles. MOH has announced enhanced regulatory standards for private ambulances and medical transporters. When these new standards take effect from 1 September this year, some vehicles might no longer be able to function as ambulances and, hence, will no longer qualify for tax exemption.
We are amending the RTA today, as shown in clauses 6 to 8 of the Bill, to facilitate and clarify LTA’s existing practices and to streamline the existing legislative provisions related to tax re-imposition. At the same time, we will amend the RTA, via clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill, to facilitate the recovery of undercharged or under-declared taxes as fines, similar to the existing provision for the Government to recover road tax arrears.
Third, the Bill will make changes that help ensure our public transport system remains safe and secure. Clauses 24 and 31 of the Bill empower the Police and authorised officers to carry out security searches on persons on the public transport system. The terrorist threat to Singapore remains serious. Considering that the public transport system plays a critical role in Singapore, we need to remain vigilant and safeguard it against such threats.
Members asked for the authorised officers to be appropriately trained to ensure security searches are conducted professionally, as well as in a discreet and polite manner without entrenching stereotypes. These security searches are conducted similar to those carried out at major events, such as at the National Day Parade. I would like to assure Members that authorised officers carrying out security searches would have to undergo proper training and must complete the necessary Security Workforce Skills Qualifications or WSQ courses approved by the Singapore Police Force before their deployment. In their training, the authorised officers are taught how to spot anyone displaying suspicious behaviour without bias against any race or religion. Only upon completion of the training and certification can they be considered as "Senior Approved Persons" as defined in the Bill.
Members asked about the types of measures that would be applied during frisk searches to prevent passengers from being taken advantage of. I would like to assure Members that all authorised officers have to be in uniform when conducting frisk searches. In addition, security searches will be conducted within the video surveillance coverage to provide assurance to the public that any alleged abuses will be investigated accordingly. To safeguard the modesty of a female person and to ensure frisk searches are conducted professionally, only authorised female officers can conduct frisk searches on a female person. We also have the powers to enforce against imposters, as provided for under section 11B of the LTA Act.
Mr Saktiandi also asked how we will ensure the safety of the public and authorised officers, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Adequate safe management measures have been put in place. Authorised officers are required to strictly adhere to these measures as well as the MOH’s health advisory. The authorised officers are also reminded to practise good personal hygiene. All security equipment is regularly sanitised after each use. In addition, hand sanitisers will be provided for commuters to use.
I will now address the broader land transport issues raised by Members.
I would like to assure Mr Murali Pillai that under the Vehicle Construction and Use Rules, we already require vehicles to be roadworthy, such as having well-functioning brakes and headlamps.
With regard to illegal modifications, it is already an offence for any person to illegally modify a vehicle. They can be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed up to three months. Penalties are doubled for repeat offenders.
Like Mr Derrick Goh suggested, vehicular inspections are a key touchpoint during which illegal modifications can be detected. We introduced the Enhanced Inspection Regime where vehicle owners caught with illegally modified exhaust systems for a second or subsequent time will be subjected to more frequent mandatory vehicle inspections.
I shared with this House in March about the challenges of enforcing against errant motor workshops. That said, we have stepped up enforcements island-wide. Just last week, a motor vehicle workshop was charged in Court for illegally modifying two cars’ exhaust systems. This is a very serious offence, as modifying a vehicle's exhaust system may lead to public safety concerns when the vehicle is used for racing, or result in public nuisance due to excessive noise.
Vehicle safety is a key concern and we will do more to deter illegal modifications. To this effect, we will strengthen penalties for illegal exhaust modifications for greater deterrence. For first-time offenders, LTA currently issues a composition sum of $500. Going forward, LTA will double the composition sum to $1,000 for new offences committed from 1 July this year. We will also not hesitate to take offenders of more egregious cases to Court, even if they are first-time offenders. Furthermore, for repeat offenders, LTA will apply to the Court to detain the offending vehicle for up to three months.
I am glad that many Members have voiced their support for the theory test for e-scooters and power-assisted bicycle (PAB) riders. This is not a licensing regime which will be more onerous for riders. Instead, it is a one-time theory test which will ensure that riders are familiar with active mobility rules, regulations and code of conduct. The amendments to the RTA today will enable us to implement a single theory test for PAB riders on roads and cycling paths.
To answer Ms He Ting Ru's query, the minimum riding age for PAB and e-scooters is 16 and riders will be required to take and pass the test before being able to ride. E-scooter riders below the age of 16 can only ride under adult supervision and the supervising adult will need to have passed the test.
LTA just launched the English handbook for e-scooter and PAB riders and we will make available the Mandarin, Malay and Tamil translations shortly. The handbook is available free-of-charge and we will study suggestions raised by Members on more widely disseminating the information, including through schools.
To address Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question, the handbook includes information on what to do in an accident, on top of rules and code of conduct and a section on equipment check. On Mr Darryl David's question on including a practical component, the theory test is a useful start to address the lack of knowledge of rules and to tackle deliberate errant riding behaviour. We will continue to monitor the landscape and update the testing requirements, if necessary, while balancing against how onerous the regime will be on PAB riders.
Many Members asked about the theory test. LTA will release more details in June, but I will address some key points, such as the cost of the test and if it will be accessible to those who face difficulty taking an online test, including our seniors. We will keep test fees affordable to minimise the financial impact on riders, especially those who ride for their livelihoods. For the first three months, the test will be chargeable at $5 for two attempts. And just in case Members do not really understand what it means, let me just clarify. Five dollars for two attempts means if you try the first time, it will be $5. If you pass, we are happy for you. If you cannot pass, you can take the test again for free the second time; that is, $5 for two attempts.
This is a discounted rate to encourage greater test take-up. Subsequently, the test will be chargeable at $10 for each attempt. The test will be conducted online in the four official languages. Special provisions can be made on a case-by-case basis for those who are not digitally-savvy or illiterate. Upon passing, digital certificates will be issued to the rider. We will have the means to verify unlawful manipulation of the certificate. We will provide an adequate transition period for riders to prepare, take and complete the test before enforcement kicks in.
I would like to assure Ms Yeo Wan Ling that the process to register for and take the test, including retakes, will be kept simple with minimal turnaround time. We will work through the NTUC, food delivery companies and active mobility interest groups to raise awareness and ensure that all riders are certified before they ride.
I am glad to hear from Mr Abdul Samad that the NTUC is working on a training programme to prepare delivery riders for the test.
Mr Desmond Choo asked if the new section 47K also imposes liability on platform companies. Yes, it will be an offence for a company to allow an uncertified rider to ride on the road with the knowledge that the rider is uncertified or being negligent as to whether the rider is uncertified.
To Mr Gan Thiam Poh's and Mr Derrick Goh's queries on errant riders caught flouting traffic regulations, they are already required to undergo the Safe Riding Programme, which includes both theory and practical components today.
On enforcement, Mr Saktiandi Supaat's and Mr Gan Thiam Poh's suggestion of using technology is a good one. LTA's MyTransport.SG mobile application has a "snap and send" function that enables members of the public to report errant riders. LTA is also trialling using CCTV technology and video analytics to identify errant riders. This will complement on-going enforcement efforts.
Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Darryl David, Dr Shahira Abdullah, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Sharael Taha have also asked about the safe use of bicycles on our roads and paths. This has been an on-going effort and one which LTA has devoted much attention and resources to. Over the years, we have put in place a regulatory framework to provide clarity on rules, launched outreach and public education programmes and enhanced our enforcement efforts against errant riders. We are continuing with these efforts.
Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat spoke about this at length, including how we are expanding the active mobility infrastructure, which Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Raeesah Khan have suggested. We have recently asked Active Mobility Advisory Panel or AMAP to conduct a review to improve road safety for both cyclists and motorists. Among other issues, AMAP will study how to enhance public education and awareness of rules for all road users – both cyclists and motorists alike. AMAP will engage different stakeholders and submit their recommendations in due course. At the same time, we will press on with enforcement against errant riders and motorists.
That said, I would like to point out to Mr Dennis Tan that road safety has to be a collective effort from all road users to play their part by driving and riding safely, to be considerate to one another and to do their part to build up a safe riding culture.
Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Hazel Poa, Ms He Ting Ru and Dr Shahira Abdullah have asked about enhancing the safety of using lorries to ferry workers and provided many suggestions. This issue is not within the ambit of the Bill and has already been addressed extensively yesterday. I will not deal with this in detail again. Nonetheless, I will reiterate some key points. Let me first clarify that the exemption under section 126 of the RTA applies to all workers, regardless of nationality.
As I mentioned yesterday, we are deeply saddened by the recent accidents involving lorries ferrying workers and understand the concerns raised by Members. We share their concerns. However, we also cannot just ignore the fact that the injury and fatality rate involving persons onboard lorries has come down over the last decade, as various measures, such as side railings and canopies, enhanced test requirements for drivers, sustained engagement and enforcement, have been implemented.
Internationally, practices involving the use of lorries to ferry workers are varied and we have studied this widely. While some Members have identified countries that disallow the practice, there are also countries, such as Canada, Thailand and the USA, that allow workers to be ferried in the rear deck of lorries, albeit with safety precautions and some restrictions. This is an important point to note and it shows that this practice is not uncommon.
There are also very significant, practical and operational issues, as I have noted, on top of just cost considerations that need to be considered in any enhancements of existing measures. These are not vague statements, but concrete feedback given by many companies and SMEs, and reflect the realities on the ground. Regulatory changes now will cause even more acute pain to the industry, given that the industry is being severely affected by COVID-19.
Such moves will have wider ramifications, including on livelihoods for both local and migrant workers. If the Member who raised this, Ms He Ting Ru, speaks to SMEs on the ground, I am sure she would know this even without having to do a study. So, while it is clearly not just about cost, to argue as though cost does not matter at all, is not practical and does not gel with reality. What we have been striving to do is to preserve the safety of workers and, at the same time, ensure that they can continue to have their jobs. And for the migrant workers, this is the very reason why they are here.
We will continue to review the existing safety rules, engage stakeholders along the way, taking all feedback and suggestions, as I have said, and find a sensible and balanced way forward, taking into account all concerns for the benefit of all. In the meantime, we will continue engaging employers and drivers of lorries to remind them about our rules and encourage safe driving behaviours. We will also step up enforcement against any non-compliance with regulatory requirements.
Between January and April this year, LTA had issued 227 notices of offence. And we urge all employers to do their part in ensuring the safety and welfare of their drivers and workers.
In sum, MOT will continue with our efforts to make Singapore's land transport system more future-ready, resilient and safe. This Bill is part of that work and I thank Members for their support.
Ms Sylvia Lim.
Thank you, Speaker. I have got three clarifications for MOT. The first question is I wonder if the Senior Minister of State could explain to us regarding frisk searches whether commuters can expect these searches to be targeted, that is, based on suspicion, or would they also be conducted on a random basis, as a general deterrent to would-be offenders? So, that is the first question – whether it is targeted or does it also include random searches for no suspicion at all.
The second question is, she mentioned that the persons who would be empowered to do frisk searches and other searches would receive the relevant training in consultation with MHA and she highlighted that they would have to undergo WSQ courses. Would she be able to tell us which modules they would be required to undergo?
And, lastly, I heard what she said about the safeguards for searching of passengers, including searching of women to be done by only women personnel, as well as the searches to be done in a video recorded area. So, while these safeguards are recorded in the Hansard, would that also be enshrined in some subsidiary legislation or made public in an easy-to-understand form so that commuters as well as the officers empowered to search would know where the boundaries lie?
I thank the Member for her clarifications.
Firstly, with regard to whether it is targeted or random, I think I said in my speech earlier that they are trained to spot suspicious behaviour and then, they can decide that they will do frisk searches. But it is only authorised officers who have gone through the approved training, and this will be the Police officers, the auxiliary officers, the security officers, enforcement officers. So, they are actually in uniform. If the Police is not in uniform, then they will have to identify themselves.
And it also depends on the alert level, the threat level. Because there are different threat levels and, depending on the threat levels, they will be doing their checks at the public transport areas.
Secondly, regarding the approved course, it is approved by SPF, WSQ and it is an entire module that is related to this. I do not have the name with me, it is in a file back there, because I thought we are going to have the Minister of State's speech before we have clarifications, but I can give it to you. It is actually an approved course and there is an entire module specific to this.
The other thing I need to also highlight is that what we are doing in terms of security checks, as well as frisk searches, is not different, as I have said, from those that we have already been conducting for major public events, for instance, NDP. And they go through the same training.
Regarding informing the public, awareness by public, well, I am sure this is recorded, this will be publicised. We will also look at how we can ensure and reach out to the public further, in order to make sure that the public also know and have assurance that this is done. But having said that, it is really not just about the public knowing it because our authorised officers have a duty, responsibility and obligation to ensure that they do this in accordance with protocols and SOPs.
Mr Murali Pillai, you have got a quick clarification?
Mr Speaker, Sir, two short points of clarification. One, the hon Senior Minister of State mentioned that I had, in my speech, spoken about migrant workers being transported in lorries. I would just like to clarify that I did not do so in my speech.
Second one, again, a short point of clarification, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor mentioned about the point that I raised in my speech which refers to the fact that there is no offence linking an owner of a vehicle who was lackadaisical in maintaining his vehicle. The point I actually made was a bit different. I recognise that there are provisions in that regard, but my point was a bit more involved. I was talking about a case where an owner is lackadaisical in maintaining his vehicles which led to a fatal accident or injuries. That is the point I was making but I do not need any response from the learned Senior Minister of State.
Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor has addressed the questions relating to areas under MOT’s purview. This includes questions on PABs. I will now address those under MHA’s purview.
Members have raised questions in three areas. First, on MHA’s proposals to raise penalties for offences relating to illegal speed trials, helmets, individuals who obstruct, prevent or defeat the course of justice, and road rage. Second, on MHA’s proposals to enhance TP’s operational efficiency. And third, on enforcement and other matters.
First, let me address Members’ questions on the raising of penalties.
On the vehicle forfeiture regime for illegal speed trials, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the reason for making the vehicle forfeiture regime for illegal speed trials non-mandatory. I would like to share with the Member that the intent of moving towards a non-mandatory regime is to balance deterrence and fairness. While we want to deter persons from taking part in illegal speed trials through vehicle forfeiture, we also have to be fair to owners who did not consent to the offending driver using their vehicle and were not involved in the illegal speed trial.
A non-mandatory forfeiture regime does not mean that offenders get off easy. The Public Prosecutor still retains the power to apply for the forfeiture of a vehicle used in an illegal speed trial. The burden of proof is on the owner to prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, that the vehicle was used without his consent. In such situations, we can let the Court decide, by looking at all the facts of the case.
This also ensures parity with forfeiture for other offences in the RTA and in other Acts. This House would recall that in 2019, we amended the RTA to provide for non-mandatory forfeiture of vehicles involved in the offence of dangerous and careless driving. As another example, under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), if a person is convicted of any offence and if the Public Prosecutor makes an application to forfeit a vehicle, the Court shall order the vehicle to be forfeited unless the owner establishes that the vehicle was unlawfully in the possession of another person without the owner’s consent.
Mr Murali Pillai also asked about the situation where the owner was wilfully blind. In other words, the owner suspected that his car could be used in an illegal speed trial, but did not ask. As I have mentioned earlier, the burden is on the owner to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the vehicle had been used without his consent. In a case where the owner suspected that the offender used his vehicle and could have asked, but did not, it is up to the Court to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether there had been implied consent to the use of the vehicle. If the Court finds that there was implied consent, the vehicle will be forfeited.
Ms Joan Pereira asked how we would be able to discern genuine cases of owners claiming that they did not provide consent to the offending drivers to use their vehicles in illegal speed trials. As part of the investigative process, TP interviews all involved parties separately and procures other relevant evidence, such as video footage. This evidence will be submitted to the Court, for the Court to decide based on the facts of the case and the arguments from both sides. For non-genuine cases, TP will not hesitate to take action against the persons or anyone who falsely claimed that the offending driver had used the vehicle without the owner’s consent. They may be charged for the offence of providing false or misleading information and face a jail term, a fine, or both, if found guilty.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked if TP will step up enforcement to increase detection of illegal speed trials. As I have mentioned in my opening speech, TP has stepped up enforcement and expanded its enforcement camera network to improve detection. There are now close to 300 traffic enforcement cameras deployed to detect and deter speeding and red light running. TP will continue to monitor the road safety situation and assess if there is a need to install more enforcement cameras. TP will also continue to conduct regular enforcement operations at known hotspots and will mount additional enforcement operations where necessary.
Members also asked about helmet-related offences. Regarding the minimum age for child pillion riders, Mr Murali Pillai is correct that the minimum age for pillion riders on motorcycles is 10, while the minimum age for pillion riders on PABs is higher, at 16.
Motorcyclists, unlike PAB riders, go through more stringent training and testing before they are allowed to ride their vehicle. As part of the process to obtain a driving licence, motorcyclists will need to take two theory tests, go through a series of riding lessons, before taking their practical test. The training includes a module on how to ride safely with a pillion rider. On the other hand, PAB riders only need to go through a theory test and do not need to undergo any practical test. The motorcyclist has, therefore, undergone more training and is better able to handle a motorcycle with a pillion rider compared to the PAB rider.
We are conscious of the costs of getting helmets certified, a point raised by Mr Sharael Taha. The Singapore Motor Cycle Trade Association has also raised this concern. The current standards used to certify motorcycle helmets was formulated in 2014, in consultation with the industry and technical experts, including the Singapore Motor Cycle Trade Association. These are in line with the internationally recognised United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation Number 22, though we have additional requirements. For example, Singapore’s previous review concluded that it is important to include additional tests, such as the penetration test, which tests how easily the helmet’s shell is penetrated when it hits a sharp object, such as a fence or a motorcycle footrest.
That said, we hear the concerns about the costs of certification. We have to balance against the safety of road users. We will work with the relevant stakeholders to find the right balance.
Enforcement and penalties are not enough to ensure road safety. TP will also conduct more public education on the importance of wearing proper helmets. As Ms Joan Pereira pointed out, there are risks in wearing a helmet that does not meet regulatory requirements or is not of the right size.
Next, on individuals who obstruct, prevent or defeat the course of justice, Ms Sylvia Lim asked why we are increasing the penalties for the offence of furnishing false particulars to TP, especially since we had only done so recently. To clarify, our proposed amendments to section 81 are not just increasing the penalties for the existing offence of furnishing false information. We have broadened the offence to cover individuals who, alone or with others, deliberately mislead TP and prevent the identification of the correct offender driver. Thus, we have increased the fine by two times to reflect the greater seriousness.
Mr Sharael Taha asked what the penalties are for a cyclist exhibiting road rage to a motorist and whether we can ensure that there are equal consequences for cyclists and motorists.
The RTA provides that if a motorist commits an offence, such as voluntarily causing hurt while being a driver of a motor vehicle, he is liable for an additional offence of "road rage" and the Court may make an order to disqualify the offender from driving, or holding or obtaining a driving licence. This disqualification is on top of the penalties that the motorist may face for the underlying offence. The policy intent of this provision is to prevent motorists who have committed road rage from driving a motor vehicle again, as the behaviour might be repeated and cause harm to other motorists. The penalty of disqualification is, therefore, only applicable to motorists.
In the scenario painted by the Member, where the cyclist verbally abuses and punches a motorist, the Court may not disqualify the cyclist from driving. This is reasonable. The cyclist's behaviour may not represent his driving behaviour since he was not driving a motor vehicle at the time of the offence. It may not be possible for the Judge to assess whether it is undesirable for the cyclist to be allowed to drive a motor vehicle.
Nonetheless, the cyclist will still be liable for the relevant underlying penalty. For example, a cyclist who commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt in a road rage type of incident will, similar to a motorist, be liable for a penalty of up to imprisonment of two years and a fine of $5,000.
We propose to amend the RTA to require companies to designate a responsible officer to see to the timely reporting of information needed for TP's investigation of the traffic incident. Mr Murali Pillai asked about the logic of making the chairperson, managing director or company secretary of a company responsible for maintaining a proper record of the vehicle's usage. He suggested that we can instead require that the Board appoints an employee to be the responsible person. The responsibilities of the chairperson, managing director or company secretary would then be discharged once the appointment is made.
To clarify, this provision does not require the chairperson, managing director or company secretary to actually carry out the record keeping personally. Instead, they are to ensure the keeping of such records.
Ensuring that records are properly kept so that investigations into a traffic incident can be conducted promptly is very important. We want the company to take this seriously and actively take steps towards this end, by designating its chairman, managing director or company secretary, or any position analogous to these offices, to be responsible for ensuring that records are properly kept.
Mr Speaker, let me now turn to the questions on enforcement. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if we would be enhancing enforcement efforts to complement the new offences to deter irresponsible driving behaviour. Over the years, TP has enhanced its enforcement strategy by leveraging technology to improve detection of offences. TP has also become more transparent with motorists by alerting them before they reach enforcement camera zones, to encourage them to drive more safely. TP will also enforce against motorists who commit the new offences as part of their existing enforcement strategy.
Mr Murali Pillai shared his views that we should hold vehicle owners and operators of vehicles criminally liable for fatal and injury-causing accidents which are due to mechanical failure in the vehicle. I agree that it is important that vehicles are well maintained, to ensure the safety of not just the occupants but other road users. This is why for accidents involving mechanical failure, such as when the vehicle's brakes are faulty, TP can already take to task the person who holds the responsibility to maintain the vehicle. That said, we hear the Member's suggestion and we will work with MOT to review how we can strengthen this.
Mr Derrick Goh asked MHA to consider allowing individuals with financial difficulties to pay road traffic fines in instalments. As mentioned in MHA's Committee of Supply debate in 2021, MHA has been studying this. There are several considerations that MHA will have to think through. I will raise two key considerations.
First, whether instalment plans would dilute the deterrent effect of the fines. While we empathise with those facing financial difficulties, we also have a duty to ensure the safety of all other road users.
Second, resources that could otherwise have been used to directly enhance road safety, will have to be diverted to monitor instalment plans and manage appeals. These details would have to be worked through.
Nevertheless, currently, for genuine cases of financial difficulty, if the individual appeals to TP or the LTA and the appeal is assessed to be meritorious, TP or LTA already extend their deadline to pay the traffic fine, by up to several months. This is probably even more helpful to the offender than an instalment plan.
Mr Speaker, road safety is the shared responsibility of all road users. Beyond the amendments to legislation, a wider change on building a good road safety culture is essential.
If I may quote Mr Murali Pillai, he said, "It is clear that legislation must not be the only policy instrument to protect our most vulnerable on the roads. Instead, there must be greater awareness, education and behavioural change."
This is why our efforts have gone beyond enforcement, to encouraging a good road safety culture through engagement, education and infrastructural improvements. As Ms Joan Pereira highlighted, public engagement and education on our road traffic rules are important. In this regard, TP and LTA have been continuously working with various stakeholders to improve road safety. I would like to thank our stakeholders for their partnership, hard work and dedication. Sir, I beg to move.
Ms Joan Pereira.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister of State. I would like to know, apart from the enhanced regime for helmet-related offences, what other measures are MHA and TP planning to undertake to protect all our motorcyclists?
Sir, if I may, TP adopts a multi-pronged approach of education, engagement and enforcement. We work with our stakeholders, as I have shared earlier, to improve road safety for the motorcyclists. For education, for example, since December 2020, we have a new feature as part of the education process for learner motorcyclists, where we introduced simulation training. They have to go through a few modules, where they will be able to identify and go through the process of top 10 vulnerable accident-prone situations in the simulation. We also have a riding theory handbook available online for them to learn. So, we continuously engage motorcyclists because we know they are a vulnerable group.
We also have positive engagement with them. We award the rider. In the last few months when I was involved, I went around in a TP car to identify riders who practised safe habits, such as wearing the necessary gear well and so on. I think that actually spread among the motorcyclist community and it gave a very positive vibe and message to motorcyclists that it is good to be on the safe side, to practise good habits for road safety.
As I have mentioned earlier, we will continue to enforce where we work with community partners; we work with the feedback that we receive and look at the hotspots where there may be opportunities for us, not only to enforce, but also to educate, engage and bring out positive impact, not only to the motorcyclist community, but for all road users as well.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to seek a clarification from the Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor because I did not get a chance to raise the queries earlier.
First of all, I would like to thank her for highlighting that PAB users taking the test do not have to pay for the second round of test. But I would like to ask a question with regard to the audio version of the test. I found out that for some places in Australia, in New South Wales, the transport agency creates a hotline for those taking the road theory test and for those who have learning difficulties or special needs. So, is there a possibility that we can create an audio version of the test? And second, whether we can create a hotline for PAB users who have learning difficulties, for example, those who have trouble reading or understanding questions for them to make arrangements in that regard?
I thank the Member for his questions.
Just let me say that it is free only for the repeat test taken in first three months. But having said that, as I said, we are mindful to make sure it is affordable to PAB riders.
With regard to the Member's suggestion for an audio version of the test, first, let me say that, on a case-by-case basis, there is a need for special consideration, they can actually do an oral test. But I think his idea of an audio version, meaning an online audio version, is a good idea. We can look into this and study to see if it is feasible.
With regard to the hotline, they can contact LTA and let them know if there are special requests.
Ms Sylvia Lim.
Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification for Minister of State Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. Earlier he mentioned that nationwide, we have about 300 cameras to detect speeding offences. I do note that it is more than before. But from time to time, we also get requests from residents for us to convey to TP that they would like speed cameras installed at certain locations. The reply from TP, typically, is that they would consider the matter and any decision whether or not to install would depend on the accident rate as well as public feedback.
So, I would like him to confirm that TP does not need accidents to happen before they decide whether to install a camera at a certain location.
Sir, I thank the Member for the question. I am not sure whether the Member was in the House when I answered a similar question on this. TP does not wait for traffic accidents to happen. Essentially, we work with various stakeholders and when we have feedback that there is a certain hotspot, or even, not a hotspot, but feedback relating to speeding in certain areas, we will go down and take a look.
When we go down, it does not mean that we will install a camera in the area. But we will do our intelligence work and enforcement operations around the area, making sure that even before we install a camera, we know that there is a real problem there.
If there are other solutions, we will continue with other alternatives. I want to assure the Member that we do not wait for traffic accidents to happen. This is something that we all know very well. I have said this in this House. This is the operational procedure of what we do at TP.
Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a clarification question for the Minister of State. He earlier mentioned about statistics where over the last 10 years till 2019, traffic fatalities have dropped. However, in that lower number, about 80% of traffic fatalities relate to the elderly. So, the clarification question for the Minister of State is whether there are plans and initiatives that have been put in place to address this given that our population is ageing.
We want to encourage more and greater caution in areas which are frequented by elderly pedestrians. We will be doing something shortly, later this year, where motorists who commit offences in the Silver Zones will incur two additional demerit points, on top of the usual demerit points. They will also be liable for an additional $100 in composition fine.
In addition to that, we also engage the senior community by working with Senior Activity Centres and Lion Befrienders. Just in February this year, TP launched the Eye Care Kit to work with the seniors on how they are able to walk and travel safely.
Ms Joan Pereira, do you have another question to ask? No.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim].
Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.