Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill - Opening Speech by Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ministry of National Development

Mdm Deputy Speaker,

1. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

2. The last comprehensive review of the Road Traffic Act, or RTA, was conducted more than five years ago, in 2019.

3. It is timely that we do another review. The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendment) 2024 Bill seeks to:

(a) Firstly, recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality for RTA offences; and

(b) Secondly, enhance powers to enforce against errant motorists.

Background

4. Let me start by setting out the context.

5. MHA works closely with the Ministry of Transport to keep our road users safe. Our strategy is underpinned by five pillars:

(a) First, stiff penalties for irresponsible driving offences.

(b) Second, firm enforcement against errant motorists.

(c) Third, regulations such as the demerit points regime to discourage risk-taking behaviour.

(d) Fourth, appropriate road infrastructure to ensure road safety, such as red-amber-green arrows restricting discretionary right turns, as well as Silver Zones and School Zones.

(e) Last, public education and engagement, including targeted initiatives for vulnerable road users.

6. We regularly take stock of our efforts and make further improvements where necessary. Most recently, in 2024, we commenced the mandatory installation of speed limiters in lorries and activated the speed enforcement function in red-light cameras.

7. We have also assessed that refinements are required in relation to certain offences and penalties in the RTA.

8. Members will recall that in 2019, we made comprehensive amendments to the RTA, of which three are relevant to today’s Bill. First, we enhanced the punishments for two classes of irresponsible driving offences – Dangerous Driving and Careless Driving.

(a) Dangerous Driving refers to driving a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public.

(b) Careless Driving is less serious than Dangerous Driving. It refers to driving on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

(c) Dangerous or Careless Driving Offences are punishable with a longer maximum imprisonment term and a higher maximum fine, than the corresponding Rash Act or Negligent Act offence in the Penal Code.

9. Second, we introduced a tiered approach for the penalties for these offences, based on the level of harm caused.

(a) In addition to circumstances where there has been no hurt caused, the three levels of harm are death, grievous hurt and hurt. The more serious the harm, the more severe the penalties.

(b) Additional penalties apply for repeat offenders of certain driving offences, and those who drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol, whom we refer to as “serious offenders”.

10. Third, we introduced mandatory minimum sentences and minimum disqualification periods, for offences causing death and grievous hurt. For these offences, the law requires the Court to impose a minimum imprisonment term and minimum period of disqualification from driving, save for exceptional circumstances such as when responding to a medical emergency.

11. The 2019 amendments sent a clear message: irresponsible driving will not be tolerated. This message has not changed. We remain committed to deterring and punishing irresponsible driving behaviour.

12. That said, MHA has observed the impact of the 2019 amendments and identified areas where we should re-calibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality, particularly in cases where the circumstances of the offence indicate that the offending motorist might have a lower level of culpability.

Recalibrate Balance between Deterrence and Proportionality

13. I will first speak about the amendments to recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality. These are reflected in clause 5 of the Bill.

14. First, the Bill will remove mandatory minimum sentences and disqualification periods for first-time offenders. This will give our Courts greater discretion to determine the appropriate sentence based on the circumstances, instead of the current situation where there are prescribed mandatory minimum sentences. To be clear, first-time offenders will still face penalties. These penalties will be determined based on factors including the nature and severity of the harm caused to the victim, and the level of culpability of the accused.

(a) Members will be aware that the vast majority of criminal offences in our laws do not prescribe any minimum penalty. The Courts have discretion to impose a just sentence up to the statutory prescribed maximum. These amendments therefore bring the approach for first-time traffic offenders closer to the norm.

15. Let me illustrate with an example, which is adapted from an actual case.

16. A taxi driver, who is a first-time offender, beat a red turning arrow signal and collided into an oncoming motorcyclist who was speeding across the junction on an amber signal. As a result of the accident, the motorcyclist had pain, scratches and abrasions to the neck and shoulder and received a total of 25 days of medical leave.

(a) If the taxi driver is convicted for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, the current law requires the Courts to impose a minimum of one year imprisonment and a minimum disqualification from driving of eight years.

(b) However, it can be argued that the taxi driver is not as culpable because the motorcyclist had been speeding across the junction on an amber signal. The accident might not have occurred if the motorcyclist had slowed down and prepared to stop when the traffic light turned amber.

(c) The Government’s view is that the Court should have the discretion to decide if a lesser sentence would be more proportionate to the culpability of the taxi driver and the extent of injuries suffered by the motorcyclist.

(d) Put simply, in circumstances where the victim had also contributed to the accident, the Court should have the flexibility to impose a sentence lower than the current statutory minimum.

(e) For the avoidance of doubt, these amendments do not necessarily mean that the offending motorist will face a sentence lower than the current mandatory minimum of one year. The Court, having full regard to the facts of the case, will ultimately decide the sentence, which may even be higher than the current statutory minimums. The key point is, with the amendments, the Court will not be constrained by the statutory minimums.

17. With the removal of the minimum sentences for first-time offenders, we will make corresponding changes to lower the mandatory minimum imprisonment term for repeat offenders. Specifically, for Dangerous Driving offences causing death for repeat offenders, the mandatory minimum imprisonment term will be lowered from four years to two years. For Dangerous Driving offences causing grievous hurt, it will be lowered from two years to one year. This adjustment aims to create a more gradual progression in sentencing between first-time and repeat offenders under the new regime.

18. The intent of these amendments is not to signal a more lenient stance towards repeat offenders. Repeat offenders will continue to be subject to mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and disqualification periods, and, where warranted on the circumstances, the Courts may in fact impose sentences higher than these mandatory minimum terms.

19. I want to also emphasise that there is no change to the way we are treating serious offenders, especially those who drive irresponsibly while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. They will continue to receive severe penalties, as well as mandatory minimum penalties where grievous hurt or death is caused.

20. Let me illustrate a case for which the current proposed amendment will have no impact.

21. The driver failed to stop when ordered by a Traffic Police officer. In the subsequent pursuit, the driver drove dangerously by filtering lanes rapidly and collided into a pedestrian crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian sustained multiple fractures. The offending driver is charged with Dangerous Driving causing grievous hurt. He is a first-time offender. After the proposed amendments to the RTA are operationalised, there would be no mandatory minimum imprisonment sentence or disqualification period applicable to this offender. However, given the aggravating factors in this case, including the failure to heed a Traffic Police officer's instructions and engaging in more egregious behaviour that increased the risk of harm to the Traffic Police officer and other road users, the offender can expect to be sentenced to imprisonment and disqualified for periods that are longer than the mandatory minimums today.

22. I emphasise that there are no changes to the maximum penalties for Dangerous or Careless Driving offences, which could include lifetime imprisonment and lifetime disqualification from driving in highly egregious cases.

23. The Sentencing Advisory Panel, chaired by Justice of the Court of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang, is looking at issuing guidelines for Dangerous and Careless Driving offences, to enhance sentencing consistency and public understanding of the range of sentences that may be imposed under various scenarios.

24. Second, the Bill will provide the Prosecution flexibility to proceed on a “hurt” charge even where “grievous hurt” has factually been caused.

25. Because of the manner in which the Dangerous and Careless Driving offences are presently structured in the RTA, the High Court has ruled that where an injury designated as “grievous hurt” was factually caused as a result of the accused’s driving, the Prosecution can only prefer a charge of Dangerous or Careless Driving causing “grievous hurt”, and not a charge of causing simple “hurt”. As a result of this ruling, if a driver drove carelessly and caused a pedestrian to sustain a fractured finger, the Prosecution presently does not have the discretion to proceed on a charge that is anything less severe than a “grievous hurt” charge.

26. The Government’s intent has always been to allow the Prosecution to exercise its discretion to prefer the appropriate charge – be it a “hurt” or “grievous hurt” charge – after taking into account the circumstances of each case. This amendment restores the policy intent, and in my example, allows the Prosecution the discretion to proceed on a simple hurt charge, if it assesses that it is in the public interest to do so. It also promotes consistency with our other penal provisions, by clarifying that “hurt” has the same meaning in the context of both the RTA and the Penal Code. This will also align the position for road traffic accidents with the Penal Code, where the Prosecution has the discretion to proceed on a “hurt” charge even if the assailant had in fact caused “grievous hurt”.

27. Third, the Bill will adjust how a motorist’s track record will count towards being classified as a “repeat offender” for a Dangerous or Careless Driving offence. Being classified as a “repeat offender” leads to enhanced penalties for the offence. Today, a motorist is classified as a “repeat offender” if he has a prior conviction of Dangerous Driving, Careless Driving, Speeding, or Illegal Speed Trial offence, colloquially known as illegal street racing.

28. Specific to a prior conviction of a speeding offence, we will amend the RTA such that a motorist will only be classified and charged as a “repeat offender” if he satisfies two criteria:

(a) First, the motorist had at least two prior speeding convictions in which he had sped in excess of 40 km/h of the road or vehicle’s speed limit; and

(b) Second, at least two of those prior speeding convictions occurred within the five years preceding the motorist’s current Dangerous or Careless Driving offence.

29. The threshold of 40 km/h in excess of the relevant speed limit is not new. Today, most speeding offences are minor in nature and typically resolved with composition sums. Typically, only those who sped in excess of 40 km/h of the speed limit are charged in Court.

30. This amendment allows us to focus on offenders who have exhibited a pattern of risk-taking driving in recent times, without overly penalising offenders for mistakes committed more than five years ago. For the avoidance of doubt, any relevant antecedents from more than five years ago can still be taken into account by the Court as an aggravating factor when deciding on the sentence, but it will not attract the enhanced penalties that the RTA provides for those classified as “repeat offenders”.

31. There is no change to how prior convictions of other offences, such as Dangerous and Careless Driving, will count towards a motorist’s classification as a “repeat offender”.

Enhance Powers to Enforce against Errant Motorists

32. Let me now move on to the other proposals in the Bill.

33. Clauses 3, 11, and 14 of the Bill streamline the commencement date of the disqualification period for both the RTA and the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act.

34. Today, for some offences, the commencement date of the disqualification period starts from the date of conviction, whereas for others, it starts from the date of release from prison. In yet other cases, it may not be specified in the law.

35. The Bill will make clear that:

(a) If the offender is imprisoned for any offence, the disqualification period will commence from the completion of the sentence.

(b) If the offender has an existing disqualification order and is imprisoned for any offence, the disqualification order will be suspended during the term of the imprisonment and will resume immediately after the date of release from the sentence.

(c) If the offender does not receive an imprisonment term, the disqualification period will commence from the date of conviction.

36. This will ensure consistency and parity across the various disqualification regimes and remove irresponsible drivers from the roads in a timely manner.

37. Clause 4 will also enhance the Traffic Police’s immediate suspension powers, by ensuring that a motorist’s licence remains suspended until he is fully convicted or acquitted, including during the period of appeal.

38. Today, the TP can immediately suspend the driving licence of any motorist under specific circumstances. This includes where there was serious injury or death to a person, or serious damage to buildings and structures.

39. However, the suspension automatically lapses by law once the motorist is convicted or acquitted by the Court. This means that if the motorist appeals, he can resume driving pending the determination of his appeal. As the suspension automatically lapses upon conviction, and he has been convicted, his suspension lapses by law, even though his appeal is pending. The same can happen if the disqualification order against the motorist is deferred by the Court to start at a later date.

40. Clause 4 of the Bill will ensure that the motorist’s licence remains suspended, until the final decision is made on the sentencing, or until the disqualification order has commenced, whichever is later. This will close the above gaps.

41. To be clear, if a motorist has been acquitted by the Court, regardless of whether the Prosecution appeals against the acquittal, the suspension order will no longer be in force.

42. Clause 9 will empower an immigration officer to administer breath tests at the border checkpoints and their vicinity, to detect and take prompt preventive action against errant drink drivers driving into our checkpoints. This will enable the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to more holistically discharge their protective security functions at the land and sea checkpoints, which they have taken over from the Police.

43. Clause 10 will amend the RTA to incentivise owners to collect their seized vehicles in a timely manner, and streamline the subsequent disposal process. The RTA currently only allows the Traffic Police to dispose of any vehicle within one month of its detention, if no owner comes forward to claim it. However, there are vehicles that cannot be disposed of, as the vehicle owners have laid claim to them but have delayed collecting them.

44. To address this issue, the Bill will require a vehicle owner to take delivery of a seized vehicle within a specified period. The Traffic Police can recover storage costs from the owner, if the owner fails to collect the seized vehicle within the collection period. The Traffic Police will be able to dispose of the seized vehicle one month from after the expiry of the collection period.

Other Miscellaneous Amendments

45. There are also several miscellaneous amendments to improve Traffic Police’s operational efficiency, such as clause 12, which amends section 131A of the RTA to allow summonses which are not punishable with imprisonment to be served by email. The summons may only be served by email if the person on whom the summons is to be served gives prior written consent and specifies in the written consent the person’s email address to which the summons is to be sent.

46. Lastly, clause 15 repeals the School Crossing Patrols Act 1955. The Act is obsolete and the policy intent to ensure safe school crossings has been met by other means.

Conclusion

47. Madam Deputy Speaker, the amendments proposed in this Bill are the result of careful consideration. They are necessary to make our laws fairer, while ensuring that those who engage in egregious road behaviour continue to be punished severely.

48. Madam, I beg to move.