Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill

Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I shall focus my speech on the old section 65B dealing with the use of mobile communication devices.

There has been much debate around the world on how best to regulate the use of mobile and other electronic devices while driving. Different countries have different solutions. Some jurisdictions, like the UK, have banned the use of all hand-held mobile devices. Others, like Ontario, Canada, have extended their legislation to include not just wireless communication devices, but electronic entertainment devices as well. Yet others, like the US state of California, have different rules, depending on the experience of the driver.

Here, in Singapore, there is a need to step up our game against irresponsible and unsafe driving habits. A review of section 65 is certainly timely because a recent survey commissioned by Samsung showed that a whopping 83% of Singaporeans surveyed admitted to using their mobile phones while driving. I think I can safely venture that most of us in this House, if not all, have all seen people using their phones while driving.

Page: 50

Everyone knows that using phones while driving is not safe. So, we comfort ourselves by saying that we can use hands-free devices. But there are many studies which claim that using hands-free devices is equally dangerous as using hand-held devices. This is because the real distraction is the phone conversation and it matters less that you have both hands on the wheel. Therefore, the real message we should send is that people should not use their mobile devices at all while driving.

But such a blanket restriction is not feasible, and it will be a rule more honoured in breach. The Bill, therefore, reflects a compromise. While we cannot make driving while using mobile devices 100% safe, we can and should impose laws to make our roads safer for everyone.

Let me now move on to the specifics of the Bill. The proposed section 65B expands the scope of the offence of using a mobile device while driving. The offence can be broken down into three elements. First, use of the device. Second, the device must be a "mobile communication device", and third, this use must take place while the motor vehicle is in motion. I will comment on each of these elements in turn.

First, section 65B(3) states that the "use" in relation to a mobile communication device means "to hold it in at least one hand while operating any of its functions". It appears that the intention behind this definition is to get drivers to either place their devices in holders or to use hands-free tools. If this is the case, why not just say so in the provision? The offence can easily be drafted as a ban against the use of mobile communication devices, subject to the two aforementioned exceptions. The present drafting is problematic, I think, as it potentially allows drivers to place the device on their laps or on the dashboard. A further problem that arises is that the definition permits the use of devices placed in holders. A literal reading of the provision allows drivers to watch videos and read text messages and emails if such device is placed in a holder. It even allows drivers to play a game, text or surf the Internet by tapping on the screen of a device placed in a holder. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether such cases are meant to fall outside the scope of the offence?

Second element – a mobile communication device refers to a mobile telephone and any other hand-held device with a "communicative function", which is defined in section 65B(3). My concern is that the range of devices contemplated by the provision is too narrow. What about iPods or MP3s or DVD players? Or hand-held game consoles like the Nintendo 3DS? Using these devices while driving is clearly dangerous, but they appear to fall outside the scope of the offence. One solution could be to adopt the position taken in Ontario, Canada, where the restriction includes both hand-held wireless communication devices as well as hand-held electronic entertainment devices. However, this still leaves open the problem I mentioned earlier, of drivers being distracted by the mounted screens of these devices, such as watching a video or reading an email. Ontario's legislators have dealt with this problem

Page: 51

by banning display screens of televisions, computers or other devices visible to the driver that are unrelated to the driving task. And I think we should consider adopting a similar approach.

The third element involves using the device when the car is "in motion". On this, I seek a clarification. The express wording of section 65B implies that it is not an offence for a driver to use a mobile communication device when the motor vehicle has stopped at a traffic light or where he is in a traffic jam. May I ask if this is the intended effect of the provision? If so, then it is not a satisfactory situation, in my view. The restriction should apply to the entire driving process. Drivers should remain alert to road conditions and any other road users until the car is safely parked. This is a better approach that many other jurisdictions, such as the UK, have adopted.

I would like to raise another general clarification. There appears to be no exceptions to section 65B in the Bill. So, what happens when a driver's violation of section 65B is arguably reasonable or defensible? Let us say the driver needs to make an emergency call to the police, fire department or an ambulance, but it might not be practicable or safe for him to pull over or stop the vehicle. How will such cases be dealt with? Will it be entirely a matter of prosecutorial discretion?

Mdm Speaker, as this Bill deals with responsible driving, I have a personal appeal to the TP. Driving while distracted by mobile communication devices is the mischief one provision of this Bill addresses. But there are other irresponsible habits that we need to crack down on. One of my bugbears is seeing children without seatbelts on or not in their safety seats. This contravenes the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules, but it happens all the time. The sight of parents cradling their babies while seated in the front passenger seat or of children jumping around in the back is far too common. I am sure many of us have seen that as well. People forget that children who are not strapped in, become projectiles in a sudden stop. And we really need to do more to educate the public about this.

While the road traffic situation may have improved in Singapore in recent years with fewer fatal accidents, there is still much more I think that the Ministry can do to deter errant drivers and cultivate safer and more responsible road use. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, road safety involves everyone using the road, regardless whether one is a motorist, cyclist or pedestrian.

Page: 52

TP's Safer Roads Singapore tagline is – "every life matters". And, indeed, every life is precious, too. Hence, it is incumbent on everyone using the roads to ensure that they obey the traffic rules. One careless act by any user of the road may have tragic consequences to others and can cause loss of life or injuries to body or limbs.

The TP website says that there has been an increase in the number of traffic violations from 316,214 violations in 2011. This has increased to 367,496 violations in 2013. This means that over the past two years, the number of traffic violations has gone up by more than 51,000 violations. This should be an area of grave concern as it suggests that motorists are disregarding safety whilst on the roads.

One constant feedback which I receive from residents is the lack of TP presence on the roads. Many of my residents frequently complain about drivers of sports cars driving at reckless speeds along two-lane roads in residential areas like Tanjong Rhu Road and Meyer Road. They say that, despite many complaints to the Traffic Police about cars speeding along the roads on weekends, the speeding and the resultant noise continues unabated as if there is no enforcement.

Thus, whenever Police presence is not felt, drivers tend to speed or drive recklessly, thinking that they can get away with it. My experience as a driver is that if one drives along roads with speed cameras or where there is a TP patrol car, you tend to see more road discipline amongst the drivers. Take, for example, the traffic along Nicoll Highway. If there is no TP on patrol, then you will see cyclists riding dangerously in the middle of the road, or you have motorists who try to cut across double white lines or motorists who refuse to observe lane discipline and then they try to cut into other driver's lane dangerously.

To deter such flagrant violations of traffic rules, I would suggest the following.

First, rely on more technology to deter drivers who speed. Install more traffic speed cameras; in that way, traffic officers stationed along pedestrian overhead bridges can then be re-deployed.

Next, enlarge the TP department and deploy more TP officers on the roads to promote safe driving.

Third, have stricter enforcement of traffic rules at school zones.

Fourth, bring road safety campaigns to the heartlands and the community and do more educational outreach to the elderly who are vulnerable pedestrians.

Page: 53

Fifth, conduct more road safety programmes for youngsters and students. Educate them that they have a shared responsibility for safety on the roads. Warn them of the danger of being distracted on the roads if they are pedestrians and they are talking on the phone, listening to music or watching videos and with earphones plugged into the ears. They may have the right of way but may still face the danger of being hit by careless drivers.

Lastly, make it compulsory for drivers who have accumulated 12 demerit points to attend a road safety course. In other words, do not wait until the driver is due to be suspended before asking the driver to attend a safety course. Catch hold of the driver and counsel him early before he commits more traffic violations. We should do more to educate all road users on the importance of being socially responsible for road safety.

Turning to the proposed Bill, I support the provisions contained in the Bill. I do have some queries for the Senior Minister of State.

Firstly, let me thank the Senior Minister of State for elaborating on the intent of clause 4(a), which is the Safe Driving Course (SDC). But may I ask the Senior Minister of State what is the intended signal for TP? Would it not be better to make it legally compulsory to attend safety classes without offering any incentives? What if the offender had accumulated demerit points after an accident involving injuries to pedestrians? Would the TP still be minded to give a discount of the demerit points despite the injury even though the traffic violator had attended the SDC?

Next, may I ask the Minister to clarify clause 8 – whether a holder of a foreign driving licence who is in Singapore but not working as a driver; is he allowed to occasionally drive a pick-up ferrying workers if he does not do so for hire or reward? Under this clause, it seems that such a driver with a foreign driving licence is allowed to ferry passengers or goods if he does not do so for hire or reward. If so, would it not circumvent the intent of the law to ensure that drivers who take on the task of ferrying passengers or goods are properly licensed to drive safely on Singapore roads?

Clause 14 – I support the intent to make it an offence for drivers not to concentrate on the roads whilst driving. Drivers have no business trying to speak on the phone or sending SMS or emails whilst they are driving. These acts are inconsiderate and put other road users at risk. However, I would like to ask why the Ministry wishes to restrict the offence to using communication device with communicative functions. What if a reckless driver feels that he can play games on his tablet whilst driving, or he decides to read a book on his Kindle which he had downloaded earlier and which is not a communicative device?

Page: 54

What about a driver who decides to send an SMS or email whilst the phone is not in his hand but fixed to a phone stand? He is not using the mobile communication device because he is not holding it in one hand. Nevertheless, he will be distracted from his primary task of concentrating on the roads. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify?

Finally, on clause 20, I have received feedback that, sometimes, TP takes several weeks to issue a Notice of offence to owners of vehicles and this has made it difficult for the owners to recall who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of violation, especially if the vehicle is shared by several users.

Could the Minister indicate what would be a reasonable time for TP to issue such notices of traffic violation? Otherwise, if such deadlines are passed, how would the owners of vehicles be expected to recall the driver at that time of the traffic violation? I hope the Senior Minister of State can clarify the concerns. With this, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill, which I support. Nonetheless, I seek clarifications from the Senior Minister of State on clause 14, in particular.

Clause 14 of the Bill re-enacts section 65B to cover all handheld devices which are designed or capable of being used for a communicative function. This extends an offence to the use of a device's non-communicative functions, such as surfing on the Internet, visiting social media platforms and downloading videos. The new laws are envisaged to apply to devices, such as tablets, computers and any communicative device, not only mobile phones. The proposed law does not explicitly ban the use of such devices if they are mounted on the dashboard or windscreens of vehicles or if they are used at traffic junctions. Some motorists have remarked this would mean it would not be illegal to type out an email on a device which has been mounted on the vehicle's dashboard while driving along a busy road.

As far as the Bill stands, a driver could conceivably type out an email while driving as long as the device is mounted and he would not fall foul of section 65B. I am not sure whether this is necessarily a better way to reduce the number of distractions a driver can fall victim to, especially if Members consider the fast pace of life in Singapore and our increasingly crowded roads. To this end, a part-time taxi driver was quoted in The Straits Times, musing, "What is the difference between holding the phone and mounting it in a holder? I have a holder and when I touch the phone on the holder, I am not concentrating. It is not an offence but it is still a distraction."

Page: 55

While the taxi driver's concerns are valid, a motorist could nonetheless fall foul of another section, namely, section 65 of the Act which metes out an offence of driving without due care and attention and without reasonable consideration. However, for an enforcement officer, in view of the broad "catch-all" ambit of section 65 of the Road Traffic Act, it would appear that it would take an egregious violator to result in a successful prosecution.

To this end, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: how many motorists have been summoned under the "catch-all" section 65 last year and the in first half of this year, with specific reference to being distracted by mobile devices, including tablets, for example?

Secondly, according to the National Safety Council in the United States (US), 23% of all crashes each year involve handphone use. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if the Ministry keeps similar statistics on the local situation and if he could share them with the House.

Mdm Speaker, while I welcome the clarity and updating of section 65B, this clause could have been more emphatic about the dangers of being distracted by communicative devices of any nature while driving a vehicle. Numerous local media reports since the Bill was first read in the House have noted that Singaporeans regularly use mobile phones and devices while driving, especially when waiting for the lights to change at traffic junctions. The President of the Automobile Association of Singapore, citing a 2013 American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety and the University of Utah report, was quoted in The Straits Times noting that the use of mobile devices could distract drivers in two ways. Firstly, through inattention blindness, where drivers fail to visually process or remember what their eyes see; and, secondly, through tunnel vision where drivers gaze centrally ahead instead of scanning their surroundings.

Foreign jurisdictions, in view of the danger surrounding the use of mobile devices while driving, host clearer laws with less ambiguity. It makes enforcement less subjective and more straightforward as well. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK), it is illegal to drive using a handheld phone or similar device even if one has stopped at the traffic lights or is queuing in traffic. A driver can, nonetheless, use a hands-free kit, two-way radio or a satellite navigation device, but is nonetheless liable to be stopped and penalised if the Police think the driver is distracted and not in control of the vehicle. The laws are broadly similar in Australia. More fundamentally, under the re-enacted section 65B, an offence is only meted out if the motor vehicle is in motion, akin to current legislation under the same section.

It would appear that this section's re-enactment could have afforded the Ministry a better opportunity to send a stronger signal to the public on the dangers with regard to the

Page: 56

use of communicative devices on the road per se.

To this end, I would like to enquire from the Senior Minister of State what deliberations took place in the Ministry when determining the amendments to section 65B on this point, especially when compared to the laws in foreign jurisdictions. What differences are present in foreign jurisdictions, as compared to the local situation, which merit our laws allowing the use of mobile devices and communicative devices now at traffic stops and junctions? Does this not encourage the continued use of the device should the signal change, perhaps just to type out the final line of an SMS or an email on a tablet mounted on the dashboard or, worse, send out an email while driving? If so, how effective is the law really in changing the behaviour of motorists on the road?

In conclusion, I certainly hope the amended section 65B arrests the prospect of errant drivers and, as a consequence, reduces the number of summons Singaporeans receive under section 65B. However, an approach targeted at behavioural change may well be more useful in getting motorists to improve their driving habits with the view towards better road safety and, separately, more straightforward enforcement as well. I hope the Ministry considers this going forward.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

Since 2002, our national mobile phone penetration rate had doubled from about 77.8% to 156% in 2013. This implies that about one out of two persons in Singapore possesses two or more mobile phones. With the rapid advancement in technology, mobile phones have evolved from the once nostalgic simple device with a monochromatic display into a highly advanced multi-functional pocket computer that allows its user to check emails, update social media, take a selfie perhaps, and make online purchases on the move. As a result, the use of mobile phones has been deeply integrated into our daily living and activities. I believe that many of us would have at least once felt "withdrawal symptoms" when we forgot to bring or lost our mobile phones. So, in tandem with the exponential growth in mobile device ownership, the use of mobile devices by motorists has also become increasingly rampant.

In 1999, this House passed the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, introducing the prohibition of the usage of mobile phone while driving. However, we still observe motorists egregiously using their mobile devices while driving at the same time. In a recent poll conducted by The Straits Times, about seven in 10 Singapore motorists admitted to using their mobile phones without a hands-free kit while driving, even though they are aware of it

Page: 57

being against the law and that enforcement officers can confiscate their devices.

One top reason for this behaviour is because they feel complacent about their driving abilities. It has been reported that, for the whole of last year, TP issued a total of 3,572 summonses for the offence, compared to 2,938 the year before.

Although I have not, and I do not want to, come across a fatal accident occurring in Singapore due to mobile phone usage, we should not treat this lightly. Reacting after an accident will be too late. Recently, in the UK, two toddlers were killed at a pedestrian crossing, because the driver was talking on her mobile phone while driving. Similarly, in Sydney, a young woman died when she lost control of her car that crashed into a tree. The reason for the loss of control was that she was distracted as she was trying to answer a call on her mobile phone. The two examples highlighted the potential danger that brief moments of inattention or distraction could bring while driving.

Hence, this Bill provides a timely update in keeping pace with our society's proliferative use of mobile devices. The broadening of the existing scope makes it an offence to operate any function of a mobile communication device while holding onto the device and driving. I support the amendments in the Bill, and I would also like to suggest enhancing the penalties of using mobile phones while driving, potentially matching the penalties for drink-driving, especially in near-accident instances. Driving while being engrossed or distracted by his/her mobile devices is as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. In a 2009 study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, it showed that five seconds is the minimal time period for the motorist's attention to be diverted from the road to result in a traffic accident. Text messaging, for example, makes a crash up to 23 times more likely to happen.

At this point, I would like to add one more point on bus fleet operators, especially for the private bus fleet operators. I hope that the Ministry would work closely with the operators and the Association to look at the compensation framework that is being used by the operators today. I think any compensation that is linked to, say, the number of trips that a bus driver can make within a certain time period, can drive very dangerous behaviours.

A bus, given its larger mass, would mean that it has higher inertia. Given its mass, any impact that it makes on a pedestrian or anyone on the road can cause very serious damages and injuries to the person involved. And given its capacity, any accident that it is involved in, the passengers that it is ferrying, the number of them would definitely increase and, therefore, potentially multiplying the tragedies that can happen on the road.

On this note, I would like to urge the Ministry to work closely with the bus operators. It is not something that is unfamiliar to us; we hear about bus drivers feeling pressured on the

Page: 58

road because they are trying to make more money and therefore, trying to pack more bus trips within a short time span. And because of this pressure, it can definitely drive dangerous driving behaviours on the road.

I believe that each life is precious and we all know that we only live life once. One can always try again after losing the driving licence, one can always try again or try something else after losing a driving job, even if that can be really, really tough. There is no doubt about that. But one can never recover a life lost once it is lost. A life lost is lost forever. No amount of fines or remorse can console the anguish of the family who survived the victim. We need to deter errant driving behaviours in a proactive manner and not wait for a tragedy to happen before we react to it.

Hence, legislation and enforcement are necessary. Apart from enhancing penalties, I believe proactive education is also critical to cultivating safe driving behaviours. On this, I wish to commend the introduction of the voluntary SDC. This is a useful and critical complement to the enhancement of penalties, enabling repentant motorists to reflect, refresh and relearn safe driving behaviours. Besides the voluntary SDC, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to also share with the House what other preventive measures are being put in place to educate motorists and our population at large about road safety. Notwithstanding that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, there were 6,426 fatal and injury accidents on our roads last year. While this is down from a high of 8,625 in 2010, every serious accident is one too many, because they each impact the lives of not just the victims, but also their families. Statistically speaking, our daily commute on the roads is often our most dangerous activity each day.

Because of this, road safety is a matter that warrants serious attention by both policy-makers and citizens, drivers and pedestrians. I, therefore, support any measures to enhance safety on our roads.

This Bill enhances regulations on several road safety and licensing issues, but there are some which I feel could be tightened further. I will focus on two aspects of this Bill today: the use of mobile communication devices while driving, and the recognition of foreign driving licences and driving permits.

First, on mobile communication devices. I was recently rear-ended by another car while I was stuck in traffic. While the driver claimed that she was not texting while driving, there

Page: 59

must have been something that distracted her to cause her to crash into my stationary vehicle.

According to a study published in the British Medical Journal, a driver is 4.9 times more likely to get into an accident when holding and using a mobile phone while driving. Even using a hands-free accessory is not much safer. It has been found to increase the risk by about 3.8 times. The UK's Department of Transport said that reaction times for drivers using a phone are about 50% slower. Even careful drivers can be distracted by a call or text, and a split-second lapse in concentration could result in a crash.

While there are many studies with varying conclusions, one thing is clear: driving a car requires high levels of attention and concentration, and the use of mobile devices is a distraction which could result in serious accidents and even deaths. Ideally, no one should be allowed to use their mobile devices while driving. However, we do not all live in Road Safety Park. Our people lead busy lives, and multi-tasking is the order of the day, sometimes even when driving.

At a minimum, we should have a regulatory regime where the most risky and distracting activities are clearly banned, while, at the same time, the authorities constantly remind drivers through public education of the dangers of using their mobile phones while on the roads.

Our message to the drivers should be clear: realise that all use of mobile devices will distract you from driving safely. If you choose to use your mobile device while driving, be aware that certain particularly risky activities will attract heavy penalties.

Clause 14 of the Bill replaces section 65B and attempts to clarify the law by changing "mobile telephone" to "mobile communication device", so as to encompass not just phones, but also tablet computers. It prohibits using any of the device's functions while the vehicle is in motion.

However, there are some situations in which it appears that this Bill does not cover. For example, if the device is mounted on a holder, the driver could be checking emails, watching videos or playing games, while the vehicle is in motion.

Introducing a definition of "communicative function" in the Bill could unintentionally limit the scope of prohibited devices. With a very fast-changing technology landscape, the scope of "communicative functions" of mobile devices could render this definition obsolete soon. There is a new breed of emerging technologies called "wearables", like smart-watches, which, essentially, function like portable computers, but do not need to be held in the hand.

Page: 60

Were these considered when drafting this legislation?

Members may know about Google Glass, which is a wearable computer with an optical head-mounted display developed by the Internet giant Google. It is worn like a pair of spectacles with a small LCD screen attached, which can display maps, text or videos within a user's field of vision. It can also snap pictures and record videos. The device is voice activated, so there is no need to "hold" the device to operate it.

Some regulators and lawmakers around the world have raised safety concerns about Google Glass, which was introduced last year. The UK's Department of Transport has indicated that it is "not acceptable" under existing regulations for motorists in the UK to wear it. In West Virginia in the US, a state legislator introduced an amendment to ban the use of Google Glass while driving.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State two questions. One, what is the Government's position on the use of the communicative functions of a mobile phone while the vehicle is in motion if the device is mounted and not held in the hand? This includes using normal phone functions or GPS navigation software, whether installed on the phone or on a third-party device. Second, could the Senior Minister of Sate clarify whether using "wearables", including Google Glass or smart-watches, are prohibited while the vehicle is in motion?

I would now like to raise some concerns about the recognition of foreign driving licences and driving permits. Clause 8 seeks to tighten section 38 to require that Work Pass holders, who need to drive as part of their job, must now obtain a local driving licence within a "prescribed period" from the date of issuance of their Work Passes. From MHA's press release on 4 August 2014, I understand this prescribed period is six months.

This is shorter than the 12 months that are currently allowed for all holders of valid foreign driving licences who are not citizens or permanent residents of Singapore. However, I believe that the regulations may not be tight enough.

Six months are a long time for someone who does not have a valid Singapore driving licence to be driving around on our streets. In fact, it only takes a few minutes for a serious accident to happen – and, indeed, such accidents are more likely to happen within the first few days for a driver who is new to our roads, than several months later when he is more familiar with driving in Singapore.

A foreign driver who is new to Singapore will tend to be unfamiliar with our roads – our street signs, our road markings and our driving culture. In many cases, they may be used to

Page: 61

driving on the opposite side of the road that we drive on.

In addition, there is a risk that even "valid" foreign driving licences may not mean that the person is sufficiently trained and competent to drive. In some countries, corruption plays a big part in the issuance of driving licences.

A research study which appeared in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, which is published by Harvard and MIT, found that 71% of people who obtained a driving licence in New Delhi did not even take the licensing examination. Equally worrying is that 62% were deemed not competent enough to drive after taking an independent test organised by the researchers just after they obtained their licences.

The study found that the average licence applicant paid about 2.5 times the official fee to obtain a licence. Most of these extra-legal payments are not outright bribes to officials but fees to "agents" who "assist" individuals in the process of obtaining their driving licences without taking a test. This is corroborated by a report in Bloomberg Businessweek, which gave an account of how dozens of men stand outside the front gate of the Road Transport Office of a certain Indian city, swarming around prospective licence applicants, offering "shortcuts through the red tape for just 3,000 rupees", or US$65.

Madam, it is not my intention to single out any country, as many other countries have similar corruption problems in their bureaucracies. But I am very concerned that many of these unqualified drivers may be on our roads right now as we debate this Bill. They could be driving through our school zones or housing estates, posing a danger to pedestrians, other drivers, their passengers and even themselves.

Can I ask the Senior Minister of State how does the Police satisfy itself that a foreign driving licence is legitimately obtained when allowing a foreigner to use it to drive in Singapore without a valid Singapore driving licence? Why is there a need to give a six- to 12-month window for foreigners to drive in Singapore without a valid Singapore driving licence?

I note that the Senior Minister of State said in his speech earlier that this is based on the practices of other jurisdictions and the views of industry stakeholders. Can I ask who these stakeholders are and do they include drivers and pedestrians who do not employ foreign drivers? Would it not be more prudent, and in the interest of public safety, for all foreigners to take and pass the theory and practical driving tests in Singapore before being allowed to drive?

I understand there are other categories of foreigners besides Work Pass holders who may need to drive. These include visiting forces and tourists. But can we be more selective

Page: 62

about the countries from which we recognise foreign driving licences, just like we do for foreign university degrees in certain professions? Many countries do operate clean bureaucracies that ensure that only drivers who have legitimately passed driving tests are issued licences.

Mdm Speaker, with thousands of fatal and injury accidents on our roads each year, closing every gap in our legislation that allows less-than-competent drivers to ply our roads could save lives and limbs. I urge the Government to consider these suggestions to further enhance road safety and I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's responses.

Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support this amendment to the RTA which, among others, aims to make our roads even safer from drivers who use mobile communication devices while driving. However, there are some issues regarding the use of mobile communication devices on which I would like to seek clarification.

Firstly, can this Bill allow special exemptions to use mobile phones to make emergency calls when the vehicle is in motion? Secondly, I also feel that this Bill needs to be enhanced to ban the usage of mobile communication devices by driving instructors who are teaching students in a moving vehicle because they can also be considered as co-drivers.

Finally, I also note that this law bans the usage of mobile communication devices in a moving vehicle. I think that this Bill may need to be further enhanced to disallow the usage

Page: 63

of mobile communication devices even when the vehicle is not moving, for instance, at traffic stops or during traffic jams, in order to avoid delays in moving the vehicles again.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, apprehending a driver who is using a mobile phone while driving is not easy. In Victoria, Australia, the Police have even implemented a camera system to nab motorists who refuse to put on the seat belt or use mobile phones while driving. In Canada, the police even go undercover as homeless people to be able to get close to and catch motorists using phones while driving. I would like to know how the Ministry would ensure effective enforcement of this new Bill.

With the increased traffic on Singapore roads, we cannot afford to condone irresponsibility on the road which may cost lives and break families. There is not much difference between a driver who decides to drink and drive and a driver who chooses to distract himself with a mobile device – they are both showing disregard for the safety of other road users. I hope this Bill can reduce drivers' distraction behind the wheel and instil responsible driving habits to make the roads safer for everyone.

Mdm Speaker, at the end of the day I think it is important that we reiterate the message told time and again by the TP, "The best gift you can give to your loved ones is to return home safely". I support the Road Traffic Amendment Bill.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I shall start with the repeal and re-enactment of section 65B as this is the amendment which has attracted the most feedback from the public and my constituents. Under this new section, any motorist who holds and operates any function of a mobile communication device while the vehicle is in motion is liable, on conviction, to a fine of up to $1,000 or to imprisonment of up to six months, or to both. For a repeat offender, the penalties are doubled.

I strongly support this amendment, though I feel it has not gone far enough. The lines between phones, tablets and laptops have blurred and merged. Hence, we must close the loophole in our current Act which only targets calls and texts on handphones, and send a strong, clear message to all motorists that inattentive driving will not be tolerated. This is not because we want to be overly restrictive but because we value lives and limbs. Fatalities and casualties due to such careless behaviour are unnecessary and unacceptable. To do any less would be utterly irresponsible and show a heartless disregard for the safety and lives of other road users.

Page: 64

The number of drivers caught using their mobile phones had increased from about 2,800 in 2011 to over 3,500 in 2013, last year. These figures support our observation that many motorists are ignorant or choose to ignore the danger of constantly attending to every Tweet, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, email and SMS while operating a machine weighing a few tonnes, moving between 40 to 90 kilometres or more per hour. Researchers around the world have found that drivers tend to be overconfident in their driving skills and under-estimate the risks of inattentive driving, particularly while using mobile devices, whether the devices are being held or mounted in holders.

Even worse, we all know that these figures form only the tip of the iceberg and are part of the bigger problem of distracted driving. Distracted driving includes attending to mobile devices, setting or changing GPS systems, watching videos, eating or drinking, smoking, reading maps, speaking on the phone or to passengers, looking after unsecured children or pets, personal grooming, adjusting a radio, CD player, or MP3 player and so on and so forth. For example, setting or changing a GPS system or touching the screen of a mobile device mounted in a holder requires the motorist to take his eyes off the road for a few seconds and we all know that in those few seconds, we are, in effect, driving blindly, which, needless to say, is extremely dangerous and potentially fatal. Distracted driving is deemed to be such a serious problem that the US government has a dedicated website to raise awareness and campaign against it.

Hence, I would like to urge the Ministry to amend the Act to include a more comprehensive framework to penalise distracted driving as well. I would be the first to admit that enforcement is a challenge but we must do this to protect our motorists, passengers and other road users. Additional legislative support will provide our law enforcement officers with the tools to ensure that our drivers pay attention to the most important task at hand – arriving at their destinations safely. Some of us may feel that this is unnecessary and onerous. How are our taxi drivers, for example, going to check on taxi bookings? What about mounted navigation systems? Can I not just pick up a call on my hands-free set from my mum and tell her I will be home in 10 minutes' time? Why are drivers held solely responsible? Should we not also penalise pedestrians whose eyes are on their mobile devices as they cross the roads?

Let us all examine these problems as people become increasingly tied to their mobiles. Let us have robust discussions and debates, within the Ministry, through public forums and dialogue sessions, and formulate a new consensus on how to tackle distracted driving holistically. The new framework should include long-term public education and, very importantly, legislative teeth. Our law enforcement staff should be able to assess evidence easily and quickly, with minimum red tape, to penalise dangerous drivers and keep them off our roads. For example, the TP should be able to obtain information from a driver's telecoms provider to verify his activity online at the time of the offence in order to prove beyond doubt

Page: 65

that the driver has used the mobile device while driving.

Besides distracted driving, tailgating, speeding, sudden change of lanes and failure to signal appear to be increasingly common. So, let us start with attacking the bane of distracted driving. Once we have taken these inconsiderate drivers off our roads, I am sure the rest will also fall into place.

I believe that behaviours and mindsets, both positive and negative, are consistent and contagious. There are psychology research materials to prove this as well. Focused drivers are less likely to engage in irresponsible driving habits. I believe that once we have established a safety-conscious culture among our motorists, our roads will be among the safest in the world. This is one area where I would dearly like to see Singapore take the lead. Incidentally, Minister, may I take this opportunity to ask how is Singapore's ranking for road safety in recent global findings?

Lastly, I would like to voice support for the amendments to sections 84(1) and (2) which impose a duty on a driver whose motor vehicle was involved in an accident to take reasonable steps to inform and provide his particulars to the owner of the damaged vehicle or structure or injured animal, even if the owner was not present at the scene of the accident, and to make a police report within 24 hours unless he was contacted by the owner. This change clearly imposes a legal obligation upon drivers to act responsibly towards the absent victim.

I would like to suggest that the Minister consider including further amendments to provide greater clarity regarding emergency treatment for an injured animal which is narrowly defined as a horse, sheep, pig, goat or dog, and so on. If the owner can be contacted, arrangements for treatment would naturally be made. But what if the owner could not be reached? Should there be a legal obligation for the driver, after failed attempts to contact the owner or establish the identity of the owner, if any, to contact a relevant agency to treat the injured animal, most probably a dog? And which agency should it be? I am aware that quite a number of drivers had sent injured animals to private vet clinics and hospitals or engaged vet ambulances. However, should this be a legal obligation? It should be, as it is the humane thing to do and is also a moral and ethical obligation. With that, I support the Bill.

Madam, I would like to thank Members who have expressed support for the Bill and their recognition of TP's efforts in keeping our roads safe. At the same time, Members have raised good and pertinent points, which can be grouped into four main themes: first, our overall strategy for road safety; second, the enforcement of traffic offences, in particular, the handphone driving offence; third, public education and driver competency; and, finally, responsible road use. Let me address each of these four main issues before I speak on other specific issues Members have raised.

Madam, allow me to begin by reiterating some of the key tenets of our strategy on enhancing road safety. At its core, all road users must exercise individual responsibility to cultivate and practise safe and courteous road use. Laws alone are not enough. Other stakeholders, including the Government and employers, also have a part to play. The SRS

Page: 70

initiative, which I mentioned, was launched in 2013 with its three-pronged approach of enforcement, education and engagement so as to engender a culture of safe and courteous road use.

Our proposed amendments to the RTA take reference from the SRS roadmap and give some of these initiatives that were previously announced. The implementation of SRS has been progressing well. We have stepped up our tempo of enforcement.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Zainal Sapari spoke about the importance of effective enforcement. TP has deployed an additional 70 TP officers as well as Auxiliary Police Officers on our roads since 2013. Indeed, Mr Lim's pointing out of the increase in violation is, in no small part, a result of violations alone but also the result of increased enforcement.

Anecdotally, I have been told that motorists have felt this increased presence on the roads and feel safer and more reassured because of this. Mr Lim also mentioned certain hotspots. TP does take into account feedback from the community in the deployment of its enforcement resources. I will also inform TP about the specific areas of concern that the Member has mentioned. Apart from more officers on the roads, TP has also been installing digital red-light and speed cameras – 60 digital red-light cameras have been installed since March 2014. These initiatives will augment TP's enforcement capabilities and allow them to effectively enforce the amendments being discussed today.

On education, TP has implemented several initiatives, such as requiring all learner motorcycle riders to take the Expressway Familiarisation Ride course, as well as revising the retraining course for motorists facing their first or second suspensions, to have a more comprehensive curriculum and more stringent passing standards. On the engagement fronts, TP has worked with the Singapore Road Safety Council to launch the Singapore Road Safety Award to recognise fleet owners that are committed to improving road safety.

I also chair the Safer Roads Industry Taskforce (SRIT), together with Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. SRIT is a platform for us to engage key stakeholders, including the private bus operators that Ms Tin Pei Ling spoke about, on road safety initiatives for vocational drivers.

Our overall strategy for road safety has served us well. Between 2003 and 2013, our road traffic fatality rate fell by over 40% to 2.9 fatalities per 100,000 persons. In response to Mr Gan Thiam Poh's query on how we fare in global rankings on road safety, it is, unfortunately, not meaningful to rely on international rankings for road safety as various jurisdictions adopt different definitions in measuring accident statistics. Instead, it is more important that we keep a close watch over our own accident trends over time and

Page: 71

continually review them – review our policies, enforcement and education measures so that we can continue to improve road safety.

Madam, I will now move on to address specific questions and comments from Members on enforcement. In particular, many Members have spoken on the expansion of the handphone driving offence and I would like to thank Members for their support. Indeed, many Members have said that we have not gone far enough. But let me clarify that the expanded offence will cover the use of any function of a mobile communicative device. The examples raised by Mr Lim and Mr Gerald Giam – of playing games, reading e-books on a mobile communication device, or reading downloaded emails and documents – will indeed be captured under the new offence if the driver holds the device in one hand while the vehicle is in motion.

Several Members, such as Mr Zainal, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Gan, Mr Giam, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Lim, have asked whether we should have broadened the scope of the handphone driving offence beyond what has been proposed.

As a principle, drivers should be focused on driving and not be distracted at any time. Like Mr Gan, we are just as concerned about distracted driving. Madam, the proliferation in the use of mobile devices, such as handphones, and their expanded range of functions – trends which Ms Tin Pei Ling had also highlighted – explains why we proposed broadening the scope of the handphone driving offence.

However, we also recognise that it is neither possible nor practical for the law to specify all the actions and even devices that could potentially distract the driver. Our proposed approach for the handphone driving offence is consistent with that taken in other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, which do not permit the use of mobile communication devices while the vehicle is in motion but generally allow the use of hands-free sets and operation of mounted or in-built devices.

As Mr Zainal and Mr Kumar have pointed out, other jurisdictions, such as the UK and some Australian states, go a step further to prohibit the use of handphones in stationary vehicles. Mr Zainal had also asked whether we should prohibit driving instructors from using their mobile devices while conducting classes for learner drivers. The driving schools have been advised by TP that their instructors should refrain from doing so when conducting driving classes. This has, indeed, been a longstanding practice.

To sum up, with respect to defining the scope of the handphone driving offence, we have deliberately decided to take a measured approach in tightening the rules on handphone driving. But we will continue to monitor this situation after the new changes

Page: 72

come into effect and study the practices of other jurisdictions as they evolve to deal with other types of smart devices that are being developed.

Nonetheless, I would like to emphasise that, regardless of the scope of this offence, it is the individual responsibility of every motorist to display a duty of care on our roads. Mr Zainal and Mr Kumar have asked whether exemptions could be granted, for instance, to allow the use of handphones in emergency situations. As far as possible, motorists, even in emergency situations, should find a place to stop before making the call. Within the Home Team, Police officers who drive or ride alone are required to pull over to the side of the road if they need to use a handphone, even in emergency situations. That said, each case is assessed based on its individual circumstances, no different from how other traffic offences are enforced.

Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Gan have suggested raising the penalties for the offence, especially for handphone driving. Our assessment is that the current penalties provided within the RTA are sufficient. A motorist who commits this offence will be fined $200 and given 12 demerit points. If he is charged in court, he can face a maximum penalty of $1,000 fine and up to six months' imprisonment as a first-time offender. The maximum penalties for repeat offenders are double that for first-time offenders. These penalties should be seen within the context of the overall increase in TP enforcement which, taken together, serve to deter such behaviour.

On the broader issue of distracted driving, TP may take action against motorists for the offence of inconsiderate driving under section 65 of the RTA, as mentioned by Mr Pritam Singh, if they display irresponsible road use behaviour. The offence carries a penalty of up to $1,000 fine and up to six months' imprisonment for first-time offenders convicted in court, who may also face disqualification. In response to Mr Pritam Singh's question, there were 6,527 and 3,220 cases of inconsiderate driving in 2013 and the first half of 2014 respectively. However, TP does not track which cases can be specifically attributed to distracted driving as there may be several factors that can contribute to inconsiderate driving.

Madam, a third theme running across several Members' speeches relates to public education and driver competency. Allow me to address these points in turn.

Mr Ang and Ms Tin said that education and enforcement need to work in tandem. I agree. They are parts of the mutually reinforcing thrusts under the SRS roadmap. Mr Ang also asked the Government to provide greater support to the Singapore Road Safety Council on its education initiatives. In practice, TP works very closely with the Council and supports many of its outreach efforts, such as annual road safety campaigns. In addition to funding provided by MHA, the Singapore Road Safety Council has also been very active in raising funds from the community and its key stakeholders in support of its efforts. This is

Page: 73

encouraging and also reflects the principle of shared responsibility for road safety.

Mr Lim asked if we could emphasise road safety education for the vulnerable road users, including students and the elderly. In fact, TP already conducts targeted outreach to educate these vulnerable groups about road safety. In 2013, TP had conducted talks for over 90,000 young and elderly persons and also organised 70 exhibitions for these groups. We will do more. I would also like to inform Mr Kumar that during the engagements with young children, TP also emphasises the importance of wearing seatbelts for child seats. This forms part of TP's overall preventive education efforts that Ms Tin and Mr Kumar asked about.

Specifically on public education on the dangers of handphone driving, I think it is important to put this in context. There are many other types of behaviour that contribute to distracted driving, which several Members have alluded to. Mr Ang and Mr Gan will be happy to know that the dangers of handphone driving are already an essential part of TP's general road safety education efforts on distracted driving. Learner motorists are also taught, from the onset, the dangers of distracted driving as part of their basic theory education.

Madam, education also plays a key part in ensuring driver competency. I am glad that Mr Ang and Ms Tin support the introduction of the SDC. Mr Ang has suggested that the SDC curriculum should incorporate inputs from behavioural experts and also show videos of road accidents. The SDC was developed by TP's testers, in close collaboration with the driving schools, to focus on correcting bad driving habits. Students will undergo lessons on basic driving theory, including defensive driving, as well as practical driving, before taking the theory and practical tests. They will also view videos on traffic accidents to discuss common mistakes made by motorists and to identify learning points.

Mr Lim has asked about the intents of the amendment to section 35A. The amendments to sections 35A and 45 will allow the Minister to prescribe situations where TP will be allowed to cancel demerit points. The intent is to allow TP to recognise good behaviour. The application of these amendments will be confined to situations, such as passing of the SDC, that the Ministry specifically prescribes. It will not apply to appeals for individual cases. The SDC allows for early intervention and retraining of motorists and will equip motorists with the relevant defensive driving skills. We have made the SDC voluntary rather than mandatory as it is the individual responsibility of each motorist to be proactive in improving his own driving habits.

Mr Giam and Mr Lim raised some questions about the licensing requirements for foreign drivers. Singapore is a signatory to international treaties on the recognition of driving licences, which allow Singaporeans holding Singapore-issued licences to drive in other countries. In return, we accord the same privileges to foreigners who are temporarily in Singapore holding driving licences issued by signatory countries. We have also studied the

Page: 74

practices of other jurisdictions. Many allow non-tourist foreigners to drive with their foreign licences for a designated period. This can range from a month to 12 months. We have decided on six months, which is consistent with countries like Germany. In enforcing this provision, TP may require an extract of the driving licence records from the overseas licensing authority, for instance, when TP has reason to believe that the licence had been forged or tampered with.

Mr Lim commented on the tightened licensing requirements for foreign vocational drivers. Vocational drivers spend long hours on the road and owe a greater duty of care as they may ferry passengers or goods. The policy intent behind our requirement for foreign vocational drivers to obtain a local driving licence is to ensure that they are competent and understand our traffic laws when they drive on our roads. This is also why, in response to Mr Lim's comments, the law will apply to all work pass holders, whether they drive full-time or are asked to ferry passengers or goods on an ad hoc basis as part of their work. For example, a warehouse assistant who may have to deliver goods at times as part of his job would still be required to obtain a local licence.

Madam, I will now move on to the fourth theme. This pertains to responsible road use.

We will introduce the rebuttable presumption regime, which allows TP to presume that a vehicle owner was responsible for the commission of a traffic offence if he does not provide the driver's particulars. I would like to assure Mr Lim that TP endeavours to inform vehicle owners promptly after a traffic offence is detected. TP is also on track in installing almost 260 additional digital red light and speed cameras by the first half of 2015. This will further speed up TP's processing time for these traffic offences. I must emphasise, however, that it is still ultimately the duty of vehicle owners to ensure responsible use of their vehicles, keep track of those who use their vehicles and assist with the administration of justice. They, too, have a part to play in road safety.

I would like to thank Mr Gan for supporting the amendment to clarify the expected behaviour of drivers involved in accidents when there is no one else around. He asked particularly if there should be a legal obligation for a driver to contact a relevant agency to treat an animal injured in an accident. The objective of this provision in the RTA is to ensure restitution for victims of accidents – in this case, the owner of the animal. Drivers should also first ensure that it is safe to stop before contacting any other party for assistance or when they want to assist the animals. Nevertheless, we thank Mr Gan for his question and would encourage drivers who hit animals to contact the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Before I conclude, let me address some of the other issues that Mr Ang has raised. I agree with him about the importance of road design in keeping our roads safe. LTA regularly

Page: 75

reviews and audits the design of Singapore's roads. For example, LTA's Black Spot Programme tracks locations with a high incidence of traffic accidents and introduces customised road engineering treatments to reduce the number and severity of accidents.

Mr Ang has also cited examples of fleet owners that have proactively installed road safety vehicular technologies. These are, indeed, worthy efforts. Such technologies not only improve road safety, but also raise productivity by reducing accidents, downtime, as well as repair, maintenance and insurance costs. The Government has helped to encourage companies adopt such devices. For example, the Singapore Transport Association and SPRING Singapore recently collaborated to launch the Mobileye advanced driver awareness system to about 100 transportation and logistics companies. SPRING provided funding through its Capability Development Grant to help SMEs defray the costs of adopting Mobileye. I hope that more companies will recognise the broader benefits of adopting such vehicular technology.

To conclude, Mdm Speaker, I have spoken on the importance of individual and shared responsibility in ensuring that our roads remain safe for all. We have also consulted the Singapore Road Safety Council and Automobile Association of Singapore. Every road user has a part to play. I have also highlighted the importance of education and enforcement under the broader SRS roadmap. I am thus heartened that Members support the proposed amendments. These amendments will ensure that TP has the necessary legislative levers to continue to keep our roads safe for all road users. With that, Madam, I beg to move.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*