1. I thank Members for their support for the Bill.
2. I appreciate their frank views and feedback. They raised important questions which I will now attempt to address.
Recalibrate Balance between Deterrence and Proportionality
3. Members raised concerns over the removal of mandatory minimums.
4. Ms Hazel Poa asked for the reason for the proposed amendments.
5. As explained in my earlier speech, MHA reviews the offences and penalties in the Road Traffic Act (RTA) from time to time. Following the 2019 amendments, we have given some time for the laws to take their course, and we now assess that amendments are necessary to re-calibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality. As pointed out by Ms Poa, we have provided some examples to illustrate the need for these amendments. These examples are adapted from actual cases.
6. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the Ministry will ensure that sentences are equitable and reflect the severity of offences, and how our courts will be guided on the minimum sentences for offences, given the removal. Assoc Prof Razwana suggested establishing dedicated traffic courts to ensure sentences are consistent and appropriate.
7. Regarding Mr Yip’s concern, it is precisely because of the need for fairness that we are moving these amendments. Our intent is indeed to ensure that the RTA penalties reflect the severity of the offence, as well as the culpability of the offender.
8. Sentencing decisions are made by the Courts, which will consider the facts and circumstances of every case. The Bill will give the Courts more flexibility to decide on the appropriate sentences, rather than be constrained by the statutory minimums.
9. Regarding Assoc Prof Razwana’s suggestion of dedicated traffic courts, it is already the case today, in practice, that if the motorist faces only traffic charges, his case will generally be heard in the Traffic Court. To enhance sentencing consistency and transparency, the Sentencing Advisory Panel is also looking at issuing guidelines for Dangerous and Careless Driving offences. This will provide guidance to the judges on the sentencing approach for such offences, while allowing them to decide the exact sentence for each case depending on its own facts.
10. Mr Yip asked if lighter sentences could embolden risky behaviour and lead to more repeat offenders. Ms Joan Pereira, Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Dennis Tan, and Ms Hazel Poa were also concerned that the amendments would send the wrong message to offenders. I wish to reiterate that the intent of these amendments is not to signal a more lenient stance towards egregious motorists, nor to let them off with lighter sentences. We will continue to punish those who exhibit irresponsible driving behaviour. The maximum penalties are stiff and remain unchanged. Judges will have full flexibility to decide the appropriate sentence up to the maximum sentence prescribed in law, depending on the facts of each case.
11. Ms Hazel Poa asked if there were any recent cases of dangerous driving causing death, for which we believe the mandatory minimum imprisonment of two years is too harsh.
12. There are no such cases because in the appropriate circumstances, AGC had exercised its prosecutorial discretion to prefer a lesser charge, for example, to proceed on a Careless Driving charge even though there was Dangerous Driving involved, or a charge involving “hurt” even though “grievous hurt” was caused. However, this is not a fully satisfactory approach. Moreover, as mentioned in my opening speech, the High Court has recently ruled that the Prosecution presently does not have the discretion to prefer a “hurt” charge where “grievous hurt” is factually caused. The proposed amendments to the RTA, including the removal of mandatory minimums, will allow the Prosecution to proceed with the charge that most appropriately reflects the offence committed and the offender’s culpability, without impeding the Courts’ discretion to mete out an appropriate sentence. So, it goes back to balancing discretion and proportionality.
13. Mr Dennis Tan also asked about the rationale for only taking into consideration, a prior conviction of speeding in excess of 40km/h.
14. The existing practice is that any offender who has sped in excess of 40km/h of the relevant limit will generally be prosecuted in court. This is not new and is part of the calibrated approach that MHA takes towards speeding offences, such that more egregious speeding is dealt with through prosecution, and less egregious speeding is generally dealt with through our demerit points and the composition regime. The amendment simply formalises this approach in law.
15. Ms Joan Pereira asked for the rationale of having at least two counts of prior speeding convictions before the motorist is considered a “repeat offender”.
16. The amendment we are introducing today is part of the re-calibration of the balance between deterrence and proportionality. It ensures that less serious offences are not overly penalised, while still allowing the courts to take egregious offenders to task. Specifically, the RTA explicitly provides for heavier penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences, in the event that the motorist meets the legal definition of a “repeat offender”. Where the motorist is currently being charged for a dangerous or careless driving offence and is a “repeat offender” within the meaning in the Act, the Courts must, if it finds the motorist guilty, impose heavier penalties that are specified in the RTA, including a minimum mandatory disqualification period ranging from 5 to 10 years. The proposed amendment reserves the heavier prescribed penalties for recalcitrant and egregious offenders, who show a deliberate and blatant disregard for road safety.
17. To be clear, a motorist with prior speeding convictions, but who does not satisfy the legal definition of a “repeat offender”, may not necessarily be sentenced as if he had a clean record. In such a case, the Court can continue to take into account his prior speeding convictions, when deciding on the sentence for a current dangerous or careless driving offence. In other words, such a motorist can continue to expect heavier penalties to be imposed.
18. Mr Tan asked if those who were previously sentenced to the mandatory disqualification under the existing law will be allowed to have their period of disqualification reduced accordingly.
19. The answer is no. This law does not apply retrospectively. The new set of penalties will only apply to offences that are committed after the amendments come into force. Concluded cases would have been sentenced under the previous offence provisions. That being said, for cases where the offender committed their driving offences before this amendment, AGC will consider the facts and circumstances of these cases, and adjust their sentencing position where it is fair to do so.
20. Mr Tan asked about our plans to curb the increase in road traffic fatalities and injuries. Assoc Prof Razwana asked about existing efforts to shape motorists’ behaviour, including education or rehabilitation programmes.
21. We adopt a multi-pronged approach to keep our roads in Singapore safe. In addition to our reviewing laws and regulations, other key prongs include enforcement, education and engagement.
22. In terms of enforcement, the Traffic Police deploys a suite of enforcement tools to detect and deter against road traffic violations, which includes fixed speed cameras, red-light cameras, as well as routine patrols by TP officers. The speed cameras are deployed at speeding-prone and accident-prone locations, where the terrain is suitable.
23. For education and engagement, the Traffic Police raises awareness on good road safety habits through online and in-person events such as talks, exhibitions and carnivals. In 2024, these engagement efforts reached around 150,000 attendees. The Traffic Police also worked with the Singapore Road Safety Council and other stakeholders to organise campaigns targeted at different groups of road users. These include the “Road Safety Carnival for Families”, “Anti-Drink Drive Campaign”, and “Singapore Ride Safe” event that is targeted at motorcyclists. When there are egregious cases of reckless and dangerous road behaviour, the Traffic Police will issue media releases to educate the public on the facts, charges and sentences for these cases.
24. As for rehabilitation programmes, the Traffic Police has introduced the Safe Driving Course for motorists who have accumulated demerit points but are not yet liable for suspension. The course educates these motorists on safe driving practices and corrects their risky behaviours. Upon completion of the course, the motorist will have some of their demerit points expunged.
25. Assoc Prof Razwana spoke about support for accident victims and the use of restorative justice procedures. The Police may refer families who require support to Social Service Offices or Family Service Centres, depending on their circumstances and needs. For those requiring mental health support, the Police may refer them to mental health helplines and counselling services, which are run by trained professionals or the Institute of Mental Health.
26. While there are no specific restorative justice programmes for traffic offences, certain features of our sentencing regime – such as criminal compensation orders – are restorative in nature and seek to redress the harm to the victim.
27. Assoc Prof Razwana also suggested monitoring sentencing trends and the impact of the amendments on driving behaviour. I thank the Member for her suggestion and assure her that MHA regularly reviews our laws to ensure they meet our policy intent.
28. Assoc Prof Razwana asked for an update on the transport arrangements for foreign workers. The Ministry of Transport has given a comprehensive reply in July 2023 on this issue.
29. Given that these are not the focus of this Bill, we invite the Member to file a separate Parliamentary question on this matter.
Enhance Powers to Enforce against Errant Motorists
30. I will now deal with questions pertaining to the enhancement of our enforcement powers.
31. Mr Yip asked about the training of immigration officers to exercise their powers, and whether the Ministry could leverage technology to speed up the process and avoid potential delays at checkpoints.
32. Today, immigration officers already assess if there is any suspected drink-driving violation at the checkpoints. The key difference is that today, the immigration officer has to activate a police officer to conduct an alcohol breath test, as only a police officer is legally empowered to conduct the test.
33. With the amendment, immigration officers will be empowered to conduct breath tests directly and immediately, should they detect any suspected violation. So there should be no impact on congestion. On the contrary, traffic flows may even be enhanced, since these tests can be conducted more quickly. Officers deployed at the frontline will undergo the appropriate training to administer the tests.
34. Next, Mr Yip asked about our approach for foreign vehicles with outstanding fines for traffic and illegal parking offences, as well as the number of foreign vehicles caught for traffic violations in 2023.
35. In 2023, about 14,000 foreign vehicles were caught for traffic violations.
36. Foreign motorists who enter Singapore must abide by Singapore’s laws. They should settle any outstanding fines for traffic, parking, or vehicular emissions offences promptly. We take violations by foreign motorists just as seriously as we do violations by local motorists. To strengthen enforcement against foreign motorists who violate our laws, since 2019, we have denied foreign vehicles with outstanding fines entry into Singapore.
37. The authorities also regularly conduct operations against foreign motorists who commit offences in Singapore and do not settle their fines. In July 2024, the Traffic Police led a multi-agency operation where 188 foreign motorists were stopped and directed to settle their outstanding fines for vehicular and traffic officers when they entered Singapore via Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints.
38. We also issue public advisories regularly to remind foreign motorists to check the AXS website for any outstanding fines, and to settle them promptly.
39. On Mr Yip’s concern about seniors who are not digitally savvy, I wish to clarify that summons will only be issued by email if there is prior written consent from the individual. The Police will also put out advisories on how to identify legitimate summonses. Members of the public who are unsure about the legitimacy of any communication from the Police can call the ScamShield hotline at 1799.
Conclusion
40. Madam Deputy Speaker, this Government is determined to keep our roads safe. But laws alone cannot prevent all accidents. I call upon all road users – motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, members of the House and others – to uphold a culture of vigilance and courtesy on our roads. One distraction, one careless mistake, one temptation to speed, is all it takes to cause an accident and lead to a life of regret.
41. I thank the Members again for their support and suggestions for the Bill, and beg to move.
