The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill today proposes to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Motor Vehicles (Third‑Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960, and to repeal the School Crossing Patrols Act 1955.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill but would like to speak on the proposal to remove or lower mandatory minimum sentences. Essentially today’s amendments will remove the mandatory minimum sentence and disqualification period for first-time offenders who are convicted of dangerous or careless driving offenders. The mandatory minimum sentence for such repeat offenders will be halved.
In justifying the reason for the amendments, MHA has in its advisory in November 2024 explained that today’s amendments were part of their regular review, the last being done in 2019. We are told that the amendment is required as there is a need to adjust the Act to balance deterrence and proportionality,
which are applicable sentencing principles which the Court will abide by. Importantly, MHA has explained that the changes will ensure that behaviour that is relatively less egregious is not overly penalised, while the law can still be used to penalise egregious offenders. For example, the court will be able to give lighter sentences where other road users have also behaved irresponsibly.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think there are different responses to the proposed changes. On one hand, there are Singaporeans who are concerned that the removal of the minimum sentences will represent a relaxation of the laws on careless or reckless driving.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, such concerns may be understandable especially bearing in mind recent high profile serious road traffic accidents such as the road accident at the junction of Tampines Avenue 1 and Tampines Avenue 4 on 22 April 2024 where a driver failed to stop at a traffic junction and caused an accident involving 5 other vehicles and leading to the unfortunate death of 2 persons.
It was also reported more recently on 18 December 2024 that a driver was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and disqualified for 8 years after he pleaded guilty to 3 charges of causing death of a pedestrian in October 2022 by driving without due care and attention, failing to render assistance and obstructing the course of justice. The driver was previously fined $500 and handed 12 demerit points for speeding just a month before the fatal accident. The victim, a 26-year-old pharmacist, was a Hougang resident of mine.
In fact, in light of similar serious traffic incidents in recent years, some Singaporeans have asked whether we should enhance our laws to deter reckless driving and serious road accidents. Following the accident at Tampines Avenue 1, I and some other members of this house have asked questions, and the Government addressed some of such concerns in Parliament in May 2024. I trust that the Government will assure such Singaporeans today that the proposed changes in this Bill will not lead to a relaxation of the law or the enforcement efforts for careless or reckless driving and result in a worsening of the existing situation.
Under this Bill, the prosecution will be able to proceed with a charge of causing “hurt” and not “grievous hurt”, even if the victim’s injuries meet the legal definition of grievous hurt. Grievous hurt is defined under Section 320 of the Penal Code and it can include fractures or dislocations, and when the victim cannot follow his or her ordinary pursuits for at least 20 days.
MHA had explained that the change under this Bill would better allow the prosecution to take into account the nature of the injury caused and whether other road users share responsibility for the incident.
The definition of a repeat offender will also be narrowed. Currently, a motorist is a repeat offender if he or she has been convicted previously of any one of the following: dangerous or careless driving, conducting illegal speed trials, or speeding.
The Bill proposes that a motorist facing a dangerous or careless driving charge will only be considered a repeat offender vis-a-vis his speeding convictions only if he or she:
- Has at least two prior speeding convictions in which the driver sped in excess of 40kmh of the road’s or the vehicle’s speed limit, and
- At least two of the prior speeding convictions occurred within the past five years before the motorist’s current driving offence.
May I ask the MOS to explain the rationale for the limit of previous speeding in excess of 40km/h and not any less e.g. why not in excess of say 20-39 km/h? I ask this as some Singaporeans would regard speeding in excess of lower speed ranges such as between 20-39 or even 30-39 km/h to be already excessive and deserving of the current minimum punishment under the present law.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, such views are understandable; Singapore still suffers from a significant number of deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents.According to the SPF’s Police Annual Road Traffic Situation 2023, Singapore suffered about 136 deaths in 2023 due to road traffic accidents. Road traffic accidents in 2023 also caused 8931 people to suffer non-fatal injuries.
According to the Police Annual Road Traffic Situation 2023, road traffic fatalities have increased year-on-year since 2020 (from a low of 83 during COVID to 136 in 2023); the current number of annual fatalities are also higher than the pre-COVID numbers (136 in 2023 vs 118 in 2019). Similarly, the traffic accident cases involving injuries have similarly increased year-on-year since 2020 (from 6669 in 2020 to 8931 in 2023).
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would also like to ask the MOS, beyond the proposed amendments, do the authorities have any other plans to curb the continuing increase in the number of accident cases involving fatalities and injuries in the next few years?
The MHA also mentioned two past cases justifying the Government’s intention to remove minimal sentences. The first case involves a taxi driver who fails to conform to a red traffic light signal at a T-junction and collides into an oncoming motorcar which has the right of way. The victim sustains neck and shoulder pain, with numbness in one half of his body, and receives 25 days of MC, but a subsequent medical assessment finds that the victim has made a full recovery. Because the victim has received at least 20 days of MC, and Section 320 of the Penal Code defines grievous hurt as, among other things, any hurt that causes the victim to be unable to follow his or her ordinary pursuits during the space of 20 days. This meant that the injury to the victim in the cited case was regarded as grievous hurt under the law. This is notwithstanding that the overall injury suffered was not actually that severe having regard to the initial injury report and the victim’s full recovery. The driver who caused the injury was upon conviction, subject to a mandatory minimum of 1 year’s imprisonment and 8 years disqualification.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are also critics who may feel that the removal of the mandatory minimum sentencing should be objected to on other grounds. For example, the driver in the first example may be regarded as objectively reckless in running the red light and it may be argued that, whether the victim is more or less injured is just a matter of fortuity.
Another criticism is that the problem may not be the minimum sentence itself but the definition of grievous hurt under s320 of the Penal Code especially as we now see how it has applied to the Road Traffic Act e.g. the factual scenario seen in the first example cited by MHA. Further, there is also the issue of whether the length of an MC necessarily commensurate with the seriousness of the injury caused or has a definitive bearing on say permanent incapacity?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are also Singaporeans who agree with the proposed amendments and take the view that the court should have a wider judicial discretion which will enable the courts to punish more appropriately in accordance with the circumstances of each case. A more restricted discretion may result in drivers being penalised unnecessarily or unnecessarily harshly. In some cases, the punishment may have more serious consequences or resulting in loss of job and/or deprivation of employment income and resulting financial hardship.
Mr Speaker, as a lawyer, I have full confidence that our courts will ultimately be able to achieve the desirable calibration between different cases when exercising their discretion. It is, however, important for the courts to create clear guidelines after the law is amended so that drivers are punished more appropriately according to what they have done but are not overly punished. I am therefore heartened to hear the MOS sharing with this house that this will be carried out by the courts.
I also agree with MHA’s explanation in their second example where a driver collided with a cyclist who failed to give way to the driver and crossed the road. I am of the view that in accidents where both a driver and an injured road user failed to give way to each other or were both guilty of different traffic offences resulting in a collision, MHA should not over-penalise one party merely because another party was physically injured. Using the second case example given by MHA, the primary consideration upon which punishment should be imposed should first be the primary wrongfulness, if any, of both parties leading to the accident, rather than merely the cyclist being injured. In MHA’s example, there is the failure of the cyclist to stop and give way and there is also the failure of the driver to keep a proper look out for a cyclist in breach of the cyclist’s own legal obligations. There should be greater and appropriate proportionality given to both road users for their respective breaches.
Mr Speaker, we do see many cyclists breaking the law by not following traffic lights or road traffic rules, and this is something I have spoken about in the past. If they are more seriously taken to task when they are found to be in breach, this may encourage a change in our riding culture on the roads and enhance the safety of our roads and accidents can be minimized or prevented.
Further, it is not uncommon for parties involved in accidents to latch on to the TP’s charges against particular motorists to argue that their opponents’ case may be weaker. If successful, this together with the law of contributory negligence, may mean that in the ensuing civil claims, a motorist may be the ultimate paying party in such a case where another road user ( and this can be a motorist too) who also blatantly breaks the law, is injured.
Mr Speaker, I would next like to share some feedback from our residents. One of our residents, a first-time offender with 45 years of unblemished records, shared that he was charged for Careless Driving Causing Grievous Hurt under Section 65(1)(b) of the RTA. The accident involved a side swipe with a motorcyclist resulting in the latter suffering a fracture. Our resident was fined $4000 and sentenced under the mandatory disqualification regime to 60 months and still has to serve a remaining period of 29 months. Our resident would like to know whether people like him, who were previously sentenced to the mandatory disqualification regime under the existing law will be allowed to have their period of disqualification reduced.
Another resident said that with the change, there may be the anomaly arising from those who were more recently punished under RTA 2019 coming out from their disqualification periods even later than those who may be sentenced under RTA 2024 in the near future.
Given the change in law and the rationale given by MHA for the change, there may be an issue of fairness as such. Will the Government address the above concerns?
Mr Speaker, we also have feedback from residents regarding the harshness of such offence being a registrable offence and for a 5 year period. The argument is that such offences should be distinguished from other crimes if such offences arose purely as an accident, that there was no deliberate intent to break the law or to commit the offence, and there was no premeditation. There may be consequences or burdens on the convicted in terms of employment or travel when declarations for such convictions are required. I hope MHA will consider this feedback.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns and feedback I have raised as well as the clarifications I have, I support the Bill.