(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 22nd July of this year the Minister for Communications introduced a White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore. This Paper, which contains several thousand words, enumerates the various problems facing our public transport service. It also very frankly discloses the various shortcomings which the Ministry of Communications has faced in the past. For instance, in its foreword, the Paper gives three possible reasons for the present unsatisfactory state of our public transport service, namely: `(a) Lack of definite policy in the past, with ad-hoc decisions being made as and when problems arise (b) Lack of continuity in the incumbent of the important post of Registrar of Vehicles (ROV). Since 1959 (11 years ago) there have been eight officials filling this post. This state of affairs is certainly not conducive to proper management of the Department. (c) More financial support is needed to recruit an adequate number of qualified staff, to provide proper facilities and equipment to enable ROV to perform, implement and to enforce its multifarious duties.' On this point the White Paper specifically mentions that the income of the Registry of Vehicles totalled $60 million in 1969, whereas the expenditure was only $1.2 million. Sir, I agree with the three reasons given. In fact, the situation in the R.O.V, in the past was rather chaotic. At the same time, it is only a branch of the Ministry of Communications which has control over it. The Ministry of Communications was set up only in 1968. This White Paper also proposes several measures to rectify the situation, the most important of which are to improve the services of buses, taxis, school taxis and school buses, the amalgamation of bus companies, and the eradication of pirate taxis. Another important measure is the anti-pollution campaign which is aimed at maintaining the health of our two million people. This should merit our support and attention. The White Paper also proposes to impose an age limit for various kinds of public vehicles, and to purchase a further number of buses, taxis, and other vehicles which will involve an expenditure of $50 million. From all these measures we can see that the White Paper is a significant and historic step in the reorganisation of our public transport service. Sir, these measures will have far-reaching effects on those who are engaged in the transport service. The reorganisation plan is expected to be completed in three years, and as it will affect the livelihood of tens of thousands of our people, I suggest that the Minister should carry it out with the utmost care and tact. In implementing it, he should formulate good, practical and proper methods and regulations in order to improve the public transport system. At the same time, he should try to bring about a better transport system that will help our people and promote our industrial and commercial development. Furthermore, the reorganisation plan should not adversely affect the livelihood of the workers and others who are engaged in the transport service. If it is carried out in this way, everyone will support the Government in its far-reaching and farsighted reorganisation of the public transport system. I would now like to touch on the introduction of the age limit of taxis. According to the White Paper's proposals, the age limit of taxis is set at seven years. In other words, if taxis are over seven years old, they will be delicensed. With this stipulation, within the three years of the implementation of the plan, about 30 per cent of the present 3,800 taxis, or 1,200 taxis, will have to be replaced. Undoubtedly this measure will have very serious consequences for taxi owners and drivers. Sir, I have received a memorandum from the Singapore Taxi Drivers' Association, representing the labour side, and also a memorandum from the Taxi Transport Association, representing the taxi owners, complaining about their problems. The Singapore Taxi Drivers' Association thinks that the age limit of taxis should be set at ten years, because taxis are better cared for and looked after than private vehicles. The Taxi Transport Association also holds the same opinion, and has advanced very good reasons to support this view. The first reason is the cost of a taxi. At the moment, the majority of taxis are of the Morris Oxford model. The cost of a taxi together with accessories is $9,500. On top of it, there will be an expenditure of at least $5,000 to pay for licence fees, tyres, insurance, inspection and repair charges, etc. And the yearly income is about $6,000. Balancing out, the yearly profit will be not more than $2,000. If a taxi is de-licensed according to the seven-year stipulation, then after depreciation of $1,000 per year and payment of interest, if it is acquired on hire purchase, how can a taxi owner or driver make a profit in the end? There are also some taxis of Mercedes-make. The cost of such a taxi and accessories is more than $15,000. If we set a seven-year limit on this make of taxi, it means that every year there will be a depreciation loss of $2,000. Thus these taxi owners will not be able to make a profit out of their cars. The second point is the emission of excessive smoke. According to figures given in the White Paper, out of 1,413 buses, there were 515 cases of smoky exhausts. Of the 6,652 lorries, there were 1,828 cases of smoky exhausts. Of the 3,816 taxis, there were 894 cases of smoky exhausts. From a comparison of these figures, we can see that there were fewer cases of taxis with smoky exhausts than buses or lorries. This goes to prove that taxis are better maintained than other public transport vehicles. In addition, taxis have to undergo inspection twice a year. If a taxi is found to be in poor condition, it will not be allowed to operate. From this, we can see that taxis are subject to very strict controls. All the complaints by these Associations concern the livelihood of several thousand people. According to statistics, 4bout 1,000 new taxis will be made available to taxi drivers to own their own vehicles. For instance, recently the Government licensed 600 taxis which belong to this category, and they were bought on hire-purchase terms or from loans from finance companies. If the seven-year age limit is imposed, then the taxi owners will incur an unnecessary loss. At the same time, this will also adversely affect the proposed Workers' Transport Co-operative, to which the Government has given a $6 million loan. In the end, the Government may not be able to get back the money loaned out. Who then is going to pay for it? Another matter is the saving in foreign exchange. At the moment, there are no locally produced or assembled taxis. So the purchase of every new taxi will incur a loss in foreign exchange. If we can extend the age limit, we will not lose any foreign exchange but instead will be able to provide jobs for those people in the taxi business. In addition, according to the White Paper, the Transport Advisory Board has proposed the age limit of taxis to be set at 10 years. Of course, this has the concurrence of the representatives of the people concerned. I believe this proposal is of practical value, and in view of the valid reasons given. I think the Minister should carefully reconsider and change the age limit to ten years. Now I would like to touch upon the increase in the number of taxis. According to the White Paper, the Government intends to issue 1,200 new taxi licences, 200 of which will be for special taxis. On this question the Taxi Drivers' Association has, in its memorandum, put forward a different proposition. According to the Association, our transport system at the moment is already in a state of confusion. There are various kinds of taxis, for example, ordinary taxis and SZ taxis. And if there is to be another kind of special taxi, then it will create further confusion, especially to tourists from abroad. Therefore, the Association suggests that these 200 taxis should also be allocated to the proposed Workers' Transport Co-operative. If the Government decides to increase the number of these special taxis to serve passengers, then, in that case, the marking of this type of taxis should be different. For instance, a different colour should be painted on the top of these taxis in order not to mislead the passengers. The Taxi Drivers' Association is also of the opinion that at the present stage no more taxi-driver licences should be issued because there are now more taxi-driver licences than taxis. There are 14,000 taxi-driver licences, whereas the number of taxis is only 3,800. Hence, many taxi drivers with licences do not have any taxis to drive. They cannot do anything but stay at home. The Association proposes that in the process of setting up a Workers' Transport Co-operative, the authorities should take into consideration the ratio of the number of taxi drivers to the number of taxis before any decision is made. The Association has also made a new proposition regarding the retiring age of taxi drivers. It thinks that any taxi driver on reaching 60 years of age should be allowed to continue with his occupation provided he is certified by a Government doctor to be healthy and fit for his job. There is no need for a grace period of three years. I think most of the propositions have merit. The White Paper is aimed at improving the public transport service of Singapore. On the other hand, the Government has the duty to safeguard the livelihood of the taxi-drivers. It should try to avoid causing any difficulties to their livelihood when the new measures are implemented. Now I would like to touch upon the replacement of overage goods vehicles. According to the Table of Statistics in the White Paper, of the 6,652 goods vehicles, about 30 per cent of them, namely, 2,200, are already 15 years old and they need to be replaced. On this point, I am of the opinion that the replacement should be carried out in stages, because goods vehicles are very important to the transport industry, to our prosperous building industry, and the Port of Singapore Authority. They are also necessary to importers and exporters. They cannot carry on their business without them. At the moment, there is no plant for locally assembled goods vehicles. Therefore, the new vehicles will have to be bought from abroad. As a result, we will lose a lot of foreign exchange. I therefore suggest that the replacement of goods vehicles should be carried Out progressively so as not to affect the business of those sectors in industry which use them. Next I come to the setting up of vehicle factories, either Government-owned or joint ventures. According to the White Paper, in the 3-Year Plan, it is necessary to buy 900 buses at a cost of $31.5 million, and 2,400 taxis at a cost of $20.7 million. The total equipment cost is about $50 million. In addition, there will be an increase of 450 school buses, and a total of 2,200 goods vehicles will need to be replaced. Undoubtedly a very large sum of investment will be involved. In its conclusion, the White Paper also points out that this is a great challenge to the people in the transport industry. First, there is a very good opportunity for investment in the transport service and, as a result, the drivers and other people involved will have better jobs. If the White Paper is not wrong, there will be about 6,500 new jobs created. Second, the motor industry, especially the locally-assembled vehicle industry, will have greater opportunities open to it. Third, the local banks, finance companies and the Development Bank of Singapore can also avail themselves of the opportunity to enter this field. It is correct to say that it is a great challenge to all of them. I feel that given determination and spirit, the commercial firms and the industrialists should be able to set up a vehicle assembly plant. It can be set up either with private capital or capital from the Government. The Government can even set up its own local vehicle assembly plant. In partnership with the private sector, it can set up a jointly-owned car manufacturing factory which can assemble or make various kinds of vehicles. It is no problem for the Government to get the money to do so. At the same time, we have people with the necessary expertise to set up such a factory and manage it. This will provide long-term investment opportunities which will save a lot of foreign exchange and also provide more jobs for our local citizens. So it is like killing two birds with one stone. I hope the Minister will seriously consider this point. Next I come to the question of the administrative system in the Ministry of Communications. I think it should be unified. In addition to the reorganisation of the public transport service and the purchase of more vehicles, there is also a need to have enough public officers and adequate equipment to cope with our requirements. The most important point is that the administrative system should be unified. At present the system works on this basis. The R.O.V, is responsible for the issuance of vehicular licences and the collection of vehicular taxes. The Traffic Police is in charge of traffic regulations and the testing of drivers. The Car Parks Division is in charge of car parks and taxi stations. But this division is under the Ministry of National Development. This triumvirate set-up will necessarily give rise to confusion and will affect the efficiency of the public transport service. The three departments should be unified into one in order to do away with the confusion obtaining at the moment in the various departments. I feel that all matters relating to transport and communications should be under the Ministry of Communications. Not very long ago I suggested to the Minister that these departments should be merged into one and the Minister took a favourable view of my suggestion. Now I will repeat here that the Minister should merge together all the various departments which now deal with the public transport service. Hence, the R.O.V., the Traffic Police, the Car Parks Division and the road building section should come under one department. Under a unified management, a unified policy on public transport will not only be achieved but, at the same time, it can also better cope with the problem of public transport in our country. We can achieve a double result with less effort. Sir, with the increase in taxis, I feel that the Ministry of Communications should lay out more parking lots for them in order to enable the taxi drivers to pick up their passengers more conveniently. I also feel that all car parks should be open to taxis as well. This will enable the taxi drivers to take their lunch or to rest there. At the moment, foreign imported cars and other kinds of vehicles can park in the car parks. Only the taxis cannot. What is the reason for this discrimination? If the taxis are allowed to park in the car parks, they are prepared to pay parking fees. After all, they are also local citizens. Why should there be discrimination against taxi drivers? It is really difficult to comprehend this situation. I hope the Minister will, in the reorganisation of the public transport service, take the necessary measures to remedy this unreasonable situation. To sum up, the various proposals enumerated in the White Paper not only create a new task for the people in the transport industry but they also pose a new challenge to all the people. They will have to adapt themselves to the new situation brought about by this reorganisation. Of course, to reorganise in tow the public transport service is a very onerous task. However, I believe that under the spirited and experienced leadership of the Minister for Communications, the programme will be smoothly carried out. I would, however, like to remind the Minister of several points. First, the reorganisation should be carried out with the utmost care, and sympathetic consideration should be given to the livelihood and difficulties of the people affected by the reorganisation. The reorganisation should also not adversely affect the development of our commerce and industry and the livelihood of the people in the transport industry. In addition to this, there is the attitude of Government servants. Recently, I received certain complaints about the discourteous and arrogant attitude of public servants towards members of the public. If this is true, I urge the Minister to look into this problem and see to it that the officers concerned carry out their work efficiently. Public officers should understand that they are servants of the people and their salaries come from the taxes paid by the people. Therefore, they should serve the people courteously. They should not abuse their powers and embarrass or oppress the people, especially now that we are carrying out a large-scale reorganisation of the public transport service. Public servants should maintain a fair and just attitude in carrying out their duties. Only thus can this large-scale exercise receive the full support and co-operation of the people, and the objectives of the White Paper achieved, so that in the 1970s we can have a completely new and efficient system of public transport. 6.16 p.m.