Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, I seek to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, road safety remains a key priority for the Ministry. Road accidents, which can lead to severe and irreversible consequences for victims and their families are entirely preventable. Our accident rates and fatality numbers need to come down. Last year we had a record high of 149 fatalities – almost one death every two days on the roads.

There are several pillars in our approach towards promoting road safety. One pillar is having strong and effective laws. Over the years, the Ministry has reviewed and updated the Road Traffic Act (RTA) to ensure that it remains fit-for-purpose. Since 2019, the Act has been amended four times. We seek to do so again today, to achieve three key objectives:

First, strengthen accountability for the most egregious road conduct; Second, further deter driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and third, enhance the Traffic Police's ability to detect and enforce against traffic offences.

Sir, the most egregious road conduct must be met with sufficiently severe consequences. We will amend the RTA in two ways to ensure this.

First, the Bill introduces a new offence of purposeful endangerment where an offender deliberately uses a motor vehicle to endanger another person's life or safety, resulting in death or grievous hurt.

Members may recall the case of Jarrett Tee. Whilst racing a motorcyclist along a highway, the offender deliberately swerved his car to cut off the motorcycle and prior to doing so, said to his passengers, "Do you want to see motorcycle fly?" The offender's car then side-swiped the motorcycle, causing the motorcyclist and the pillion passenger to be flung off the motorcycle. The pillion rider passed away as a result.

The Prosecution described the case as, "One of the worst examples of dangerous driving possible," and his culpability was, "on the extreme end of high".

Yet the most serious charge that the offender could face, based on the facts of the case, was dangerous driving causing death, which carries a maximum imprisonment sentence of eight years.

The Government's view is that such conduct must face harsher consequences.

Where an offender deliberately uses a vehicle to endanger another person's life or safety, for example, by deliberately swerving a motor vehicle towards another driver to force the latter off the road or purposefully driving one's vehicle towards another road user, the offender's culpability is significantly higher than that of a driver who speeds or beats a red light. The law must recognise this distinction.

However, existing RTA offences do not adequately distinguish purposeful endangerment from dangerous driving. It may also be challenging for the Prosecution to prove that the conduct fulfilled the mental elements required for more serious Penal Code offences, such as murder, culpable homicide or voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means. For example, in a case like Jarrett Tee, where a driver deliberately swerves to cut off the motorcycle, it may be difficult to prove that he did so with the knowledge that death or grievous hurt was likely to result.

Clause 6, therefore, introduces a new offence of purposeful endangerment. It fills a gap in respect of offenders who deliberately use their vehicle to endanger another person's life or safety. Given the severity of the conduct, the penalties for the offence will be higher than those for dangerous driving causing death. Where death is caused, the offender is to be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to 15 years and is also liable to fine or caning, or both. The Court must also impose driving disqualification for life, unless there are special reasons not to do so; and if special reasons apply, the Court must impose at least 10 years of driving disqualification. The Court may also order the forfeiture of the vehicle used in the commission of the offence.

The offence will apply even if the person who died or suffered grievous hurt is not the person whom the offender intended to endanger. This ensures that the offender remains fully accountable for the consequences of their conduct.

Second, the Bill raises the penalties for careless and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt.

We are making this amendment because the most serious forms of grievous hurt may cause victims to suffer permanent, life-altering consequences, leaving them unable to work, live independently or care for themselves. For example, Members may recall a recent case of an auxiliary police officer who was on duty at Tuas Checkpoint when a drunk driver collided into him. He survived the collision but suffered traumatic brain injuries and is now paralysed and requires lifelong care.

The penalties in such cases must be proportionate to the harm. Yet today, the maximum penalties for reckless or dangerous driving, which I will hereafter refer to as dangerous driving, causing grievous hurt under the RTA remain significantly lower than those causing death.

Clause 7, therefore, increases the maximum penalties for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, bringing them closer to the corresponding offences causing death. For dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, the Bill increases the maximum imprisonment term for first-time offenders from five years to seven years, and for repeat offenders from 10 years to 13 years.

Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill also increases the additional imprisonment terms that serious offenders are liable for. Serious offenders referring to those who drove under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

For both careless driving – also known as driving without due care or reasonable consideration – and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, the maximum uplift for serious offenders will increase from one year to one and a half years' imprisonment. For serious repeat offenders, who are convicted of a dangerous or careless driving offence committed while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and who have a previous conviction for driving under the influence, the maximum uplift will increase from two years to three and a half years' imprisonment.

Our intention is for the increased penalty range to only apply to the most egregious cases. We do not intend to affect the prevailing sentencing benchmarks for those with lower culpability or who cause less serious forms of grievous hurt. The Ministry will work with the Sentencing Advisory Panel to develop sentencing guidelines to give effect to this intent.

Sir, the second objective of this Bill is to further deter driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Sir, driving under the influence of such substances is simply inexcusable. It poses a serious threat to the safety of all road users. Every instance of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is entirely preventable and highly culpable. It reflects conscious and reckless risk-taking behaviour. Yet year after year, we continue to see far too many motorists make this dangerous decision.

Over the past five years, the Traffic Police detected between 1,500 and 1,800 drink-driving violations annually. And we know this is an under-detection, because drink driving generally can only be detected at roadblocks and with our limited operational resources, we cannot be setting up roadblocks everywhere.

This Bill introduces two provisions to enhance deterrence against driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

First, Clauses 11 and 19 tighten the prescribed alcohol limits from exceeding 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, to 15 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath; and from exceeding 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, to 30 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The current prescribed alcohol limits have been in force since 1985. Since then, scientific understanding of alcohol impairment has advanced considerably. Many jurisdictions, including Thailand, Philippines, Australia and South Korea have adopted lower prescribed alcohol limits.

The evidence today consistently shows that even low levels of alcohol can impair a driver's reaction time, judgement, concentration and ability to respond safely to situations. As blood alcohol concentration increases, the degree of impairment increases and so does the risk posed to other road users.

The new prescribed limits represent the point at which impairment and thus, unacceptable risk to road users begins. The new prescribed limits broadly correspond to no more than 1.5 standard drinks for males and not more than one standard drink for females, consumed three hours before driving. These are only broad illustrations for reference and do not represent the "safe" number of drinks to go below the revised limits. This is because the effects of alcohol differ significantly depending on factors, such as age, sex, health and body composition.

Our message remains: if you drink, do not drive. You cannot be sure of your level of impairment after drinking, so do not take the risk.

As we make this amendment, the sentencing guidelines applicable to the new alcohol limits would also need to be reviewed. The Ministry's view is that offenders who drive with very high blood alcohol levels should face imprisonment given the significant risks such conduct poses to other road users and to enhance deterrence. We will work with the Sentencing Advisory Panel to consider issuing new sentencing guidelines for drink driving, including guidelines on when imprisonment is warranted.

Second, the Bill introduces a new offence of driving with controlled drugs, psychoactive substances or intoxicating substances present in one's blood. I refer to these substances collectively as "specified substances".

Today, it is already an offence to drive under the influence of specified substances in a manner that results in impaired driving. However, while it is an offence to drive simply with a certain concentration of alcohol in one's blood, there is no corresponding offence for specified substances. This is because there is no single scientifically established concentration threshold that can reliably indicate impairment across a wide range of such substances.

Instead, under the current offence, the prosecution must prove not only that the driver had consumed drugs, but also that the drugs had rendered him incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

This gives rise to significant evidential challenges. For instance, where Police officers arrive only after an incident has occurred, a positive blood test alone may not be sufficient. This is because it may not be possible to prove that the drugs had impaired driving, unless there is evidence, such as in-car camera footage showing such impairment.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has reviewed this and assessed that there should not be a need to prove impaired driving. Driving with the presence of specified substances in one's blood is itself dangerous and should be deterred, since these specified substances – for example, etomidate – are already regulated under our existing laws and are known to impair driving ability by affecting reaction time, attention and coordination.

Clause 11 therefore introduces a new offence under the new section 67(1)(c) of the RTA, where a person who drives or attempts to drive with the presence of a specified substance in his blood will commit an offence, without separately proving that he was impaired whilst driving.

Minister Sim Ann, if I may ask you to just take a seat.