Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill. I'd like to make three points.
First, I'd like to clarify the intent of section 63A — purposeful endangerment using a motor vehicle.
In March, I asked the Ministry whether we needed an offence of vehicular homicide with penalties on par with culpable homicide, due to the mens rea hurdles of the Penal Code. The reply was that such an offence was being considered, and described it in almost the exact terms now before us at section 63A. I welcome it, and that's why I would like to understand its boundaries.
Its middle limb requires the purpose to endanger "a particular person". In March, the Ministry said it would be "another person", and the Bill's three illustrations are of one driver against another.
So does section 63A apply to these two examples:
(A) the driver who drives at a crowd, meaning to hurt whoever is in front of his or her car, picking out nobody in particular;
(B) the driver who drives at a tree with the intent to kill him or herself. We note that we repealed attempted suicide in 2019.
Second, the ceilings. This Bill raises the penalty for grievous hurt to seven years and leaves killing at eight. This gap of one year seems small, given road deaths last year were the highest in a decade, with 149 in 2025. So why did the Government choose to retain this eight-year ceiling for causing death?
Third, we will need firmer measures against drivers who are on the road when they should not be there at all — the driver a court has banned, and the driver who has lost his or her licence and never earned it back. I have three questions.
(A) Driving without a valid licence carries up to three years' jail. This year, in Public Prosecutor v Eng Kwan Meng Garrick, our High Court set the starting point for a driver who had lost his licence completely and drove anyway at three weeks. Three weeks under a ceiling of three years tells us the ceiling is actually doing very little work. So I'd like the Government to consider a minimum sentence for this offence. The Government has said they will work with the Sentencing Advisory Panel on guidelines for drink driving. Would it do the same here?
(B) Forfeiture of the vehicle is mandatory only on a second conviction for driving while disqualified. Would it consider making it mandatory for the first?
(C) Our annual road traffic report tells us how many speeders and drink drivers we catch, but not how many disqualified or unlicensed drivers. Will the Government publish that number, and how many of them go on to re-offend?
Now I'd just like to also put forward my approval and agreement with the Member Mariam Jaafar's earned buffer system. I have had residents with ten-year clean records with a single high-demerit-point offence, which have endangered their private hire vehicle driving livelihoods. Some consideration of their long-term clean history should be given, so as to better take the circumstances into account.
Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I support the Bill and its aim of making our roads safer. Thank you.
