New road traffic law raises doubts

A Road Traffic Law amendment bill late last week passed in its first reading at the Legislative Assembly (AL).

But several lawmakers have raised concerns over the bill, questioning the need for a deductible point system for some traffic-related infractions.

Several lawmakers including Nick Lei, Ella Lei, Leong Sun Iok, and Lo Choi In, have questioned the necessity of a system that mimics similar systems in many regions worldwide.

They claim the government’s proposed system is confusing, and the government side has been unable either to justify it or explain why it applies to some traffic infractions and not others.

Nick Lei, one of the more active critics, said Macau does not need to “copy what others have just because they have it.”

He said several infractions proposed for point deduction are not even that problematic and occur infrequently in Macau.

Ella Lei and Leong raised the same concerns while lawmaker Lo said the government should focus on improving road and street conditions before enforcing harsher penalties.

“The government should also improve a lot the conditions of some traffic-related facilities instead of imposing the penalties. There are zebra crossings in bad locations with a lack of visibility for drivers and pedestrians, for instance.”

“I believe before enforcing new penalties without a public discussion [] the government should fix the existing problems [that contribute to some of the traffic infractions and accidents],” she said.

The same lawmaker opposed the new rule that pedestrians are not allowed to use mobile phones while crossing streets. She said this is something that “interferes directly with people’s freedoms.”

In response, the Secretary for Transport and Public Works, Raimundo do Rosário, did not provide a clear answer to the many concerns raised, but he said the government side was open to discussing details about the point deduction system and the infractions included.

He refused to debate the topic at the plenary, calling instead for discussion to move behind closed doors, that is, to the AL Standing Committee meetings that will analyze the bill in detail.

This was the second time the bill has been discussed at the AL.

The first time it was discussed, the bill was not subject to a vote with several lawmakers calling for a postponement of the debate because the government could not clearly explain the proposed amendments.

This time, even though the responses were the same, most lawmakers voted in favor of the bill.

It was passed in the first reading and now moves to the First Standing Committee for further discussion.