.png)
Braking Point: Rethinking Road Justice in Singapore
- Joyden Choo and Keegan Goh
- 2 days ago
- 6 min read
In this Explainer, find out...
What changes were proposed in the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill?
Why were these changes proposed?
How does the Bill reflect Singapore’s stance towards road traffic offences?
Introduction
In 2019, Singapore drew a clear line against irresponsible road users. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2019 introduced greater penalties for traffic offences —longer maximum jail terms and heavier fines for dangerous and careless driving. A tiered penalty system was introduced, escalating from endangering life to causing grievous hurt or death. Most notably, mandatory minimum jail terms and disqualification periods were imposed for the most serious offences.
The message was clear: drive carelessly or dangerously, and you’ll face the full force of the law.
Yet, recent events have reignited long-standing questions over whether these penalties are effective. In this Policy Explainer, we will first revisit recent debates surrounding the effectiveness of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2019. We will then examine Parliament’s response to these concerns and proposals in the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Finally, we will consider how these reforms reflect Singapore’s evolving stance on road traffic offences moving forward.
Recent Debates On The Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2019
In May 2024, a fatal accident along Tampines Avenue 1 shocked the nation. A 42-year-old driver allegedly drove recklessly, making an abrupt lane change and running a red light, resulting in a multi-vehicle collision. He was accused of causing the deaths of a junior college student and a pest control company employee while injuring six others.
The tragedy sparked renewed scrutiny of the Road Traffic Act in Parliament. Several Members of Parliament (MPs) questioned whether the existing penalties under the Act remain adequate for the offence committed. In response, then Minister of State for Home Affairs Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim defended the current framework, suggesting that the laws today are already “quite stiff”. He added that they may sometimes risk unduly penalising first-time offenders.
At the heart of this debate lies a deeper truth: not all accidents stem from recklessness. Between 2019 and 2023, the leading causes of fatal accidents were the failure to keep a proper lookout and poor control of one’s vehicle, both stemming from the natural limits of human cognitive capacity as individuals continually assess and navigate dynamic traffic conditions. Therefore, Parliament has introduced the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to better respond to current realities and ensure that penalties remain fair, proportionate, and effective.
Understanding a Typical Sentencing Process
Before exploring the proposed changes in the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments Bill), it is helpful to understand how a typical sentencing process works in Singapore.
The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill
The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill was passed on 7 January 2025. It was introduced to enhance proportionality and flexibility in sentencing under the Road Traffic Act. It comprises three key reforms.
Flexibility in Prosecutors Pursuing Charges Against Offenders
First, the Bill grants the Prosecution greater discretion in determining the appropriate charge (see Stage 1 of Figure 1) based on the context of the offence.
Let us break down the typical parts of a road traffic offence charge.
Scenario
A driver drives carelessly and causes a pedestrian to suffer a fractured finger.
Under the Previous Law
The Prosecution would be obligated to charge the offender with “careless driving causing grievous hurt”, as a fractured finger is legally classified as “grievous hurt” under the Penal Code and the Road Traffic Act.
However, this was found to create a one-size-fits-all approach, where the severity of the injury automatically dictated the charge, even if the driver’s actions were unintentional or had minimal fault. This rigid approach also conflicted with the Penal Code, where greater penalties are imposed only when harm is voluntarily caused.
The Reform
Under the Bill, the Prosecution may opt for a lesser charge, such as “careless driving causing hurt”, depending on the facts and context. This ensures the charge and eventual sentence are proportional to the driver's level of responsibility, while still ensuring accountability to the general public and deterrence.
Flexibility in Courts Imposing Sentences on Offenders
Second, the Bill grants the Courts greater flexibility at the sentencing stage (see Stage 3 of Figure 1), particularly in cases involving shared responsibility.
Scenario
A first-time offender beats a red turning arrow and collides with an oncoming motorcyclist speeding through an amber light at the junction. The motorcyclist suffered abrasions to the neck and shoulder and was issued 25 days of medical leave.
Under the Previous Law
The offender would be convicted of “dangerous driving causing grievous hurt”. The Court would have been bound by the mandatory minimum sentence of one year imprisonment and eight years of driving disqualification.
Even though the motorcyclist contributed to the accident by speeding through the amber light, the Court lacked the choice or ability to impose a lighter sentence on the offender.
The Reform
The Bill removes mandatory minimum sentences for first-time offenders and reduces them for repeat offenders. This allows the punishment to better reflect the driver’s actual degree of fault.
These changes also align traffic offences with Singapore’s legal norm, where most criminal offences do not carry mandatory minimum penalties. Nonetheless, this does not mean the offender will face a sentence lower than one year. If the facts of the case show that the offender’s fault is greater, the eventual sentence may be even higher.
Redefining a “Repeat Offender”
Third, the Bill narrows the definition of a “repeat offender” for speeding-related offences. This is significant, as repeat offenders tend to receive more severe penalties, with the Courts typically linking reoffending with a continued disregard for the law.
Under the Previous Law
A motorist is considered a repeat offender if he has been previously convicted of any one of the following: dangerous or careless driving, conducting illegal speed trials (also known as illegal racing), or speeding.
The Reform
The definition of a repeat offender remains the same for those who have been convicted of dangerous or careless driving, as well as those conducting illegal speed trials.
However, for speeding-related offences, a motorist must now satisfy two criteria to be deemed repeat offenders: (1) at least two prior convictions, both exceeding the speed limit by at least 40 km/h, and (2) the two convictions must have occurred within the past five years.
The new amendments thus 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.
However, the Courts are recommended to adopt a balanced approach in their sentencing. Relevant records from more than five years ago can still be considered by the Courts, and may lead to the imposition of a harsher penalty. Still, the maximum punishment imposed on first-time offenders will remain less severe than the enhanced penalties for those classified as repeat offenders.
Criticisms Of The Amendments
A More Lenient Approach?
With a recent rise in traffic accidents and speeding-related fatalities, some have questioned if the amendments signal a more lenient stance at a time when stricter penalties seem to be needed.
Significantly, Members of Parliament Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Hazel Poa expressed concerns over the new amendments, and questioned if the Government was sending the wrong message by “going soft on offenders”. To that end, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has clarified that the amendments aim to strike a balance between the legal principles of deterrence and proportionality for traffic offences.
On one hand, deterrence measures aim to provide a coercive incentive to individuals from potentially offending and reoffending. Concurrently, proportionality ensures offenders are punished appropriately in relation to the severity of their crime, preventing overly lenient or overly harsh penalties.
Previously, the Road Traffic Act had harsh penalties that were arguably disproportionate in its severity for first-time offenders, given that it neglected the context and intentions of such offenders. Further, the previous law was strict on repeat offenders for speeding, giving them no opportunity to clear their record for an offence that may occur unintentionally.
This was highlighted in Chen Song v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 129, in which the application of the amendments to the Road Traffic Act in 2019 prevented the Prosecution from reducing the charges to a lower level of harm. Instead, the charges pursued had to be “determined purely by a factual finding of the injuries suffered by the victim”, thereby ignoring the circumstances of the incident.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the Courts can still impose sentences higher than the current mandatory minimum terms. The maximum punishments for traffic offences remain unchanged, and there are no amendments to how serious offenders are treated, especially those who drive irresponsibly while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. To that end, it is unlikely that the new amendments to the Road Traffic Act will incentivise more reckless driving — rather, it provides greater fairness to those whose involvement in traffic incidents are beyond their control.
Conclusion
Justice in Singapore has always been a balancing act between deterrence and proportionality. In its pursuit for stronger deterrence, the Road Traffic Act has inadvertently been too punishing towards offenders without ill intent.
With the consideration of context and circumstance, the new amendments have found the balance that Singapore has strived towards. These amendments do not seek to be lenient — they seek to be fair.
This Policy Explainer was written by members of MAJU. MAJU is a ground-up, fully youth-led organisation dedicated to empowering Singaporean youths in policy discourse and co-creation.
By promoting constructive dialogue and serving as a bridge between youths and the Government, we hope to drive the keMAJUan (progress!) of Singapore.
The citations to our Policy Explainers can be found in the PDF appended to this webpage.
Yorumlar