Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as I work in SBS Transit which operates train and public buses.

I am glad that the new section 127B of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill empowers public transport officials to inspect and search any baggage or other things carried by a person on any omnibus or within any bus interchange for the purpose of ensuring the security and safety of the commuters. This section mirrors section 23A of the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Act.

The purpose of checking the bags of the commuters, I suppose, is to prevent the commuters from bringing dangerous goods into the transport system. Under the RTS Act, particularly section 9 of the RTS regulations, it states that no person, unless authorised, shall bring any dangerous goods into the railway premises. When an authorised officer of a train operator searches the bag of a passenger in the train system and finds a dangerous item, the holder of the dangerous item shall be guilty of an offence punishable under section 52 of the RTS regulations. He could be liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000.

However, there is no similar provision under the Road Traffic Act or the Road Traffic Rules. When I combed through the various Road Traffic Rules carefully, the closest I could find are section 21(i) and section 30(1) of the Road Traffic Public Service Vehicle Rules which state that a driver of the omnibus shall not permit any person to bring into the omnibus any article which is likely to:

(a) cause any inconvenience, obstruction, discomfort or injury to any passenger in the omnibus;

(b) cause any damage to the omnibus or any property in the omnibus; or

(c) soil the omnibus or any passenger or property in the omnibus.

If the omnibus driver fails to block such an article, he shall be punished under section 131 of the Road Traffic Act. In the case of a first offence, the bus driver shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to an imprisonment term not exceeding three months.

That is, when a person brings a dangerous good into the train system and is discovered by the staff of the train operator, the holder of the dangerous good will be punished. On the contrary, when a person brings a dangerous good into a bus, it is the duty of the bus driver to prevent the dangerous good from being brought into a bus. Otherwise, the bus driver will be punished and not the person who carries the dangerous good into the bus.

Page: 1492

In view of the above, I would like to ask the Minister of State if she observes any disparity. If so, does the Minister of State agree that there is a need to review the rules for security reasons?

If the Minister of State agrees that there is a need to revise the Road Traffic Rules, perhaps she could also look at other areas of disparity, including the rules to deal with littering, eating, begging on the bus or at the bus interchange vis-a-vis in the train system which is governed by the RTS Act and RTS Regulations.

In addition, the Minister of State could consider enhancing the Road Traffic Act or the Road Traffic Rules to allow buses to move with less obstruction, thereby benefiting more than 3.5 million bus commuters daily.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could I have your permission to show a few slides to illustrate my point?

Sir, Singapore has many good reasons to be progressive about environmental issues. Our limited natural resources and the population density are strong motivations to reduce consumption, to reduce local pollution and to improve the quality of our environment. Although we, as a state, may contribute very little to the global environmental changes, we have another very good reason to go "green". We can show how a small city-state can do this, can be environmentally friendly in a way that is effective, that is economically sustainable, and in a way that perhaps others can learn from and maybe even emulate.

After some years of striving to be more environmentally friendly, the results are mixed. Some external indices will rank us as Asia's greenest metropolis, or as one of the world's most efficient energy users. But there are some studies listing Singapore as having one of the biggest carbon footprints per person in Asia. There are many factors that contribute to the calculation of a country's carbon footprint, but the consumption pattern of its people is a major factor. It is this that I wish to address and, specifically, how the execution of the proposed amendment might impact upon our consumption behaviour.

Sir, the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle (CEV) scheme, which is a component of the proposed amendment to the Bill, will enable the imposition of a tax on high-emission vehicles and grant a rebate for the low-emission cars. This proposed scheme is fairer and more precise than the previous "Green Vehicle Rebate" because it rewards or penalises the purchasers on the basis of the actual emissions tested and not merely on the allegedly greener technology which may have been installed. Not all the marketing is true.

While the new scheme has merits, I wonder whether it will have a significant impact on changing our purchasing behaviour or on our consumer preferences. Is the aim of this change to significantly shift car purchasing behaviour and significantly shift our car population to make it greener? What indicators will the Ministry use to gauge the success or failure of this scheme and what extent of a shift will be considered a success?

I have two main concerns – the quantum of the tax and proposed rebate and, secondly, the carbon dioxide emission cut-offs chosen.

Sir, under the proposal for the new scheme, about 20% of cars will be considered as having high emissions and, as explained, will be taxed up to about $20,000. At the other end of the spectrum, 20% of cars will be considered as having low emissions with rebates of up to $20,000. But this leaves the majority, the 60% in the middle, of cars unaffected. Even with the introduction of this new scheme, the majority of car buyers will not be affected. Their purchasing behaviour and their consumption behaviour will not be significantly influenced. One can make an argument that there is the carrot – the lure of the $20,000 rebate – at the low emission end. And maybe people who are within the standard emissions bracket will be persuaded to shift their behaviour downstream. However, with the rising cost of car ownership, this quantum of $20,000 is not a huge relative discount on the purchase price. And, over time, if car prices and COE prices continue to rise, that discount is going to become less and less significant.

Page: 1497

If you consider the high-emission side, this factor is even more pronounced. If you are a purchaser of a high-performance, high-capacity, high-emission car − some of whom very graphically described by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah − and many of these purchasers are wealthy, they are paying large sums of money for a car that they want to enjoy, this $20,000 tax is going to be an even smaller percentage of the purchase price.

The scheme sounds very neat – tax the highest 20%, give the rebate to the lowest 20%, but the effects at either end are disproportional. If you have already chosen to purchase a low emission car, if that is what you can afford and within your means, a smaller capacity car, one that suits your needs, you will be very grateful for the tax rebates, but your purchasing behaviour has not necessarily been changed. I put it that the group of purchasers at the high end – the 20% of high emission cars – is not going to have their purchasing behaviour significantly affected. And, really, I wonder whether the middle group, the 60%, is going to be lured by this up to $20,000, and maybe much less, rebate.

I worry that instead of purchasing a "sensible" car that meets people's needs, most consumers will do what they have always done, from the high-emission across the standard-emission cars, they will choose their dream car − not their green car.

Sir, moving on to my second concern, many countries have a system of carbon emissions tax. The limits set for taxation and benefits will, of course, vary from country to country, but compared to many countries, many limits for carbon emissions tax, Singapore's proposed limit of equal to or lower than 160 g/km for tax rebates is very generous. Many others will have a stricter standard of 120 g/km. What this means is that we are not as aggressive in pursuing this environmental cause, and we are going to have to do a lot of work to change consumers' mindsets and choices.

In several countries, the penalty barrier is at 150 g/km to 160 g/km. So, what we are considering as the threshold between low emission and standard emission, many other countries are considering as the barrier between standard and high emissions. To give you an example, the EU's average carbon dioxide emission for cars is about 145 g/km. The average for EU is actually within our low band, not even our standard band. Our average – I do not have the data for our average − if I take the assumption that MOT has set the cut-offs on the basis of the majority of our current car population, and our cut-offs are between 160 g/km to 211 g/km, the mid range is about 180 g/km to 190 g/km. As it happens, in the UK, the "F Band" – the fail band, the worst band of emissions – is set at 186 g/km. So, are we being too lax in our standards for carbon dioxide emissions for cars?

Page: 1498

I do support the motion and the proposed amendments. They are a welcome signal that we need to be taking these things into account, but I believe they do not go far enough. In addition, there is no consideration in the current scheme, given the fact that real-world driving, much like what is being described in Yishun, does not produce the same amount of emissions as a car would in the laboratory or in a test facility. The phenomenon is known as "cycle-beating" by the manufacturers where, under laboratory conditions, the car can be demonstrated to have relatively low emissions because it is driven in an ideal way but, on the road, people can put the pedal to the metal, burn the rubber, race from one red light to the other, apart from generating a lot of noise, using up a lot of fuel, the emissions of the car will increase very, very significantly. This is a difficult area to police, to enforce and to measure, but I wonder whether this is something that, moving forward, we should consider.

Further, in other jurisdictions, consideration is given to other gases, apart from just carbon dioxide and carbon emissions. Examples include carbon monoxide, as well as ultra fine particulates, and that is not in the current proposal at all.

Sir, I support the motion and its intent, but I am worried that the proposed scheme, as it stands, will not significantly shift our car population towards being more environmentally-friendly. I am concerned that the majority of car buyers will not in any way have their purchasing behaviour affected. I would like to recommend that the tax and rebate amounts be significantly increased, and the limits for carbon dioxide emissions made stricter. Will the Ministry review the limits after a year of implementing the scheme, so as to better incentivise car buyers to choose vehicles with lower emission rates? Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I would like to comment on section 5 – the enhanced penalty regime for the illegal modification of vehicles.

Noise pollution caused by modified motor cars and bikes has been one of the most common factors or topics in the feedback and complaints received by many Members, including myself, in this House. Such complaints are corroborated by the steep increase in the number of motorists caught for illegally modifying their vehicles. The number has risen from an average of 146 cases per month in 2008 to a staggering 920 in July this year. According to LTA, most of the offences were due to unauthorised changes on exhausts, tinted windows and lighting. In view of this disturbing trend, it is understandable the Ministry seeks to impose tougher measures.

Page: 1499

With the proposed amendment, a vehicle that is illegally modified may be detained for up to three months by the Registrar of Vehicles (ROV). Many drivers have told me that this penalty is quite harsh and, hence, I have no doubt it will act as an effective deterrent. Nonetheless, I feel that it should be the last resort for such offences. Public education should always be our first line of defence. I agree with my colleague, Er Dr Lee. In addition, all car workshops and their mechanics should be licensed by LTA to provide only approved modifications and parts for modifications or repairs or to assist the motorists to obtain relevant approval for modifications that do not conform to the approved list by LTA before modifications are done. In fact, the list can be found on the LTA website. It is quite comprehensive.

Excessive noise generated by illegal exhaust modifications is a pet peeve among most Singaporeans. I would like to ask the Minister if it is possible to introduce more clarity and uniformity for the definition of "acceptable" level of noise produced by cars and motorbikes so that there is no question of double standards that may be raised by the public.

The Ministry should also differentiate between modifications that may make a car even safer from other cosmetic or performance modifications. If a modification can add to safety, consideration should be extended to allow it.

Lastly, the Ministry may wish to consider the provision of amenities and facilities to meet the needs of local car enthusiasts. This will help to contribute to safety on our public roads. At least, motorcar fans will have an alternative venue to test their driving skills and also pursue their interests.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me thank all the Members who have spoken on this Bill. In particular, I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh for supporting the stiffer penalty regime for illegal modifications. I am glad they agree that the detention of vehicles is needed as a strong deterrent against illegal modifications, given that we have seen increased incidences of violations. Er Dr Lee would like the penalty to be harsher, whereas Mr Gan received feedback that it is too harsh. I think we are taking a calibrated approach. It is not the intention to go after motorists for the sake of it, but we do need to send a message that illegal modifications are not acceptable. With regard to Mr Gan's concern, I should clarify that the intent is not to detain each and every illegally modified vehicle. LTA intends to apply this penalty in cases of blatant violation or where the offender repeatedly infringes the law.

I would like to urge vehicle owners who need to make modifications for whatever reasons to check out information on LTA's website as well as the ONE.MOTORING portal which Mr Gan has noted. It contains relevant information on what kinds of modifications are legal and, if the owners are in doubt, they should check directly with the LTA. There is no particular hotline but, through the feedback channels, LTA will be willing to provide guidance. I think the owners should do this before going ahead instead of assuming whatever modifications that they are going to make are going to be alright. That is probably the best way to do it.

Page: 1500

Er Dr Lee talked about the importance of looking at enforcement against workshops. I should say that not all types of modifications are illegal, and so workshops that undertake modification works are not necessarily breaking the law. For example, if the vehicle is going to be used off the road at specialised race tracks, it could be legal. Currently, our enforcement regime targets owners of these illegally modified vehicles. One reason is, as Er Dr Lee earlier pointed out, they did not necessarily do the modifications in a workshop in Singapore. They could go elsewhere to get the modification done, in which case, enforcement against the workshop will not be terribly effective. It is better to enforce against the vehicle owners themselves. That is one reason we have targeted the owners rather than the workshops. Nonetheless, we do agree that it is important to get the workshops on board, and so LTA is in the midst of reviewing the enforcement and legislation against workshops. I thank her for her suggestion. For example, closure of workshops may turn out to be an effective deterrent for them. I also take her feedback very positively that it is not just setting up a deterrent. It is useful to work with the association to promote awareness and also to educate the owners on illegal modifications. So, thank you very much for that.

I would like to turn now to the CEV scheme. Let me first thank Dr Janil for his support. As he has pointed out, the CEV scheme is a step forward in promoting the use of low emission cars. However, as he has also noted, this involves behavioural change. And so, it is not possible to know in advance the exact scale of the impact of the scheme. The scheme is designed such that the maximum price between a high and low emissions car can be up to $40,000, which is more than the open market value of a typical mid-sized car. Existing buying pattern is certainly a reference point. The hope and the expectation are that, certainly, at the margins, vehicle buyers will consider moving from the band which just causes them to be levied a surcharge, into the neutral band, and, for those who are contemplating a purchase of the car that currently falls into the neutral band, to be incentivised by the existence of a rebate and modify their buying behaviour accordingly.

We have until the end of 2014 to observe the impact, which is when the scheme will be applicable up to. We plan to monitor, particularly, motorists' purchasing decisions, before deciding whether to go further and, if so, by how much. For the emissions thresholds that qualify for rebates and taxes, we note Dr Janil's comparison with other jurisdictions. Indeed, we are playing catch-up. But when we think about the thresholds in the future, we will also look at advances in technology, as well as the progress in Singapore's overall mitigation efforts on climate change. I should add that we are introducing the CEV scheme for the first time. We believe there will be some impact but are also mindful to give motorists time to adjust before drawing conclusions.

Page: 1501

Sir, let me now turn to some points made by Mr Ang Wei Neng. Mr Ang had highlighted the differences in the regulation of commuter behaviour on buses and trains. He shared a very useful observation, in my opinion, which I deeply appreciate. I shall ask the LTA to look into how we can be more consistent in a practical way. This is because there are some differences that will be necessitated by the different operating contexts of buses and rail.

For instance, bus drivers can play a key role in stopping passengers who are carrying suspicious goods or articles from boarding, but this is not feasible for our driverless trains, for example. And even for driver-operated trains, the driver would not be able to intervene in the same way as a bus driver. So, we will look closer at it.

Mr Ang also talked about measures to facilitate movement of buses. Today, we have about 180 km of bus lanes islandwide, of which 25 km are full-day bus lanes. There are also 203 mandatory "give way to buses" locations and we are adding another 150. So, all in all, in good time, about 353 locations will have the mandatory "give way to buses" rule. Enforcement is carried out regularly to ensure compliance by motorists. I assure Mr Ang that the vast majority of the 6,000 photographs that he had sent so far are acted upon by LTA. After all, the LTA helped fund the purchases of these cameras and so it is in its interest to use it for proper enforcement.

As for the suggestion to provide private bus pick-up points, I thank Mr Ang for highlighting the bus hubs with high usage by private buses. We will certainly explore the feasibility of providing private bus pick-up points in the vicinity of these bus hubs, as well as step up enforcement in these areas.

Sir, before I close, I would just like to point out a common theme that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Ang Wei Neng brought up. Quite a bit of the difficulties that we face – whether it is illegal modifications, noise pollution, or driver behaviour near to bus hubs – have to do with a lack of consideration for the well-being of other people, other road users, and other public transport users. These types of inconsiderate behaviour – I am sure Members will agree with me – is not something that we can completely overcome by enforcement alone. We certainly need enforcement, and, where appropriate, we should certainly tighten the penalties or make them stiffer. However, I think it would not nearly be enough. It does call for a change of mindset. It does call for us to be more gracious in the way that we drive and we get about on the roads. I think if we can do that, then the enforcement will be more meaningful. On that note, Sir, I thank all Members for their support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two clarifications. I would like to thank the Minister of State for agreeing to take the workshops to task if they do illegal modifications. Can MOT consider empowering LTA to require owners of illegally modified cars to disclose the workshop where they obtained the illegal modifications, so that they can be stopped at source? That is, getting information from the motorists. The second clarification is about the problem along Yishun Avenue 1. I would like to urge the Ministry to look into a permanent solution so that my young residents do not have to cry at midnight and old residents do not have to stare at the ceiling.

Page: 1502

Mr Speaker, Sir, MOT and LTA are always looking at a range of suggestions – and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has just raised two more. We will certainly consider all of them together. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify that of the 6,000 photographs that have been taken by SBS Transit, only a very small proportion is made up of photographs taken by cameras sponsored by LTA. The second clarification that I have is: we would like to thank Minister of State who said that they are agreeable to building more dedicated bus pick-up points for private buses. I hope the Ministry can very soon announce a list of bus stops where there is a high volume of private buses calling, and that some concrete action can be taken. The third clarification is that we understand that LTA has installed some cameras at some of the bus stops and other problematic areas to take photographs of cars that are parked illegally. I would like Minister of State to give an update of that scheme.

May I ask the Member if he is referring to the CCTV scheme that we have started on a pilot basis? Yes. Well, it is a pilot and the purpose of a pilot project is to assess how effective it is. If you look at some of the drivers who have received summonses because of this CCTV monitoring, I have received quite a lot of appeals myself. So, I think it is taking some effect, but I also hesitate to promise that in a short time, we will have CCTV cameras all over the island. Speaking as a motorist myself, I think it is quite frightening that the only way we can enforce against poor driving habits and illegal parking is by having CCTVs islandwide. We will have to be quite circumspect in how to make use of this tool. It is a very good and useful productivity device, but let us take a look at the results of this pilot and then decide what to do henceforth.

Page: 1503

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to seek one clarification. I can understand and appreciate the caution with respect to the tax and rebate quantum, given that car prices are a very emotive issue, and is something very hard to predict, as COEs fluctuate and supply and demand fluctuate with the economic uncertainty. I am questioning whether the same reasoning applies to emission cut-offs. My concern is that once we set a starting point, every time the revision comes up, a variance from that starting point will be something that people will resist. If we already know that other jurisdictions have chosen certain carbon dioxide emission levels or particulate levels as being appropriate, why do we need to start so far away from what is an internationally-accepted standard, given that we are not going to be able to make that leap in one jump the next time we revise this?

Secondly, given the life cycle of a car, even if in our next revision we make a substantial move towards this, the cars that are on the road will remain on the road for many, many years. So, if we really want to make an impact in terms of the local emissions and pollution, we need to not play catch-up and be aggressive about getting there ahead of the curve. So, I would like to seek clarification on the need for caution, and I believe the need for caution is different in the two arenas.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. Firstly, if we look at the rebates that we are offering, and compare them to some other countries that have similar "fee-bate" type of structure, in dollar terms, our rebates are generally more generous towards the motorists. As to the thresholds, because we are introducing the CEVs for the very first time, one consideration that we must always bear in mind is that for the motorists, they must have a reasonable selection of vehicles to choose from that are already imported into our market.

And if we look at the range of vehicles that are made available in the market, that also takes time to adjust. So, whilst we are keen to try and reduce the emissions, we have to be realistic. We have to look at the existing buying patterns and that, if we go too far, we could also at the same time be introducing a big barrier for individuals. So, we will take it one step at a time. As the scheme is implemented and we have more information, at the appropriate juncture, we can make adjustments.

Page: 1504

Thank you, Sir. I just want to add one more point. The hon Member mentioned modifications done by workshops, but not all cases actually are done by workshops. In fact, there are cases that are Do-It-Yourself (DIY), and the parts are procured by the workshops. So, I think we should also look at that aspect, whether how far, or to what extent, the law should be applied. That is question one. Question two is whether the Ministry will consider public education, such as media education, to constantly educate the public. The public may not be aware that what they did is actually an offence.

Mr Speaker, on the first question, yes, we agree with him. On the second question, the answer is yes as well.