Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Members may recall that the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore (Command 21 of 1970) was tabled in this House on 21st July, 1970, and I would particularly draw attention to paragraph 4.4 which stated as follows: `It is the aim of the Ministry [that is, of Communications] to allow only four bus companies to operate the domestic public bus services in Singapore, as from 1st January, 1971. To this end, the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority Ordinance will be suitably amended to give OSLA additional and wider powers so that it can function as a proper Road Transport Authority.' It is in pursuance of this objective that the Bus Services Licensing Authority Bill has been drafted to provide for additional and wider powers so that it can function as a proper and effective Road Transport Authority. The existing Omnibus Services Licensing Authority Ordinance, 1956, which was adopted from the Municipal Ordinance (Cap. 133), 1936 Revised Edition, contains provisions which, to say the least, are outmoded, both in form and content. In the past when the public transport system was under the monopoly of a single undertaking, both the Municipal Ordinance or the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority Ordinance may be considered adequate legislation to govern the issue of licences for bus services. The Singapore Traction Company of 1925 was then the only large public bus company with the ability and resources to meet the needs of the bus travelling public. However, as the demand for better and more efficient services became evident over the years, the relatively small private Chinese bus companies, who were once content with operating only a "mosquito" bus service over the rural routes, began to show a greater interest in this field, as evidenced by their growing investments, firstly, in new buses, and later, their applications for new routes in areas where the S.T.C, services were unable to provide such services. Whilst desiring to provide the public with a more adequate and better public bus transport service, the Authority (O.S.L.A.) was, however, greatly hampered by the provisions of the existing Omnibus Services Licensing Authority Ordinance, 1956, which, inter alia, imposes upon O.S.L.A, the obligation to consider the interests of the S.T.C. when granting new routes, including those within the city central area. Traditional routes of the S.T.C, granted before the coming into operation of O.S.L.A, in 1956 were also to be renewed, as of right. In addition, no route operated by the S.T.C, could be withdrawn, even if it was inefficiently run. No condition could also be attached to any of the S.T.C.'s authorised routes. Neither are any fees payable in respect thereof. These are not all. Under the Singapore Traction Ordinance, 1925, the company is exempted from paying licence fees in respect of its vehicles. In its place, the S.T.C, pays to Government a royalty of 5 per cent of its gross receipts and contributions of two cents per car mile run, which works out quantitatively to be far less than what is being paid by the Chinese bus companies in respect of their licensed buses. The S.T.C, is also empowered to license its own drivers and conductors so that even the Registrar of Vehicles has no authority whatsoever to withdraw or suspend their vocational licences for any breach of conduct. Government has also lost considerable revenue over the years because the S.T.C, is exempted from paying the usual customs import duty and additional registration fee which are applicable to the other bus companies. The large crowds waiting helplessly at bus stops during peak periods in the city central area, which are mainly served by the S.T.C., is a clear indication that the S.T.C, has failed in its task to provide an adequate public bus service. This state of affairs is not of recent origin but has been prevalent over a long period of years. It is, therefore, no wonder that the `pirate' taxis have emerged to fill the need, having regard to the existence of an unsatisfactory public bus service in Singapore for some time. With the publication of the White Paper in the middle of last year aimed at the eradication of the `pirate' taxis, and the repeal of both the Singapore Traction Ordinance (Cap. 111) and the existing Omnibus Services Licensing Authority Ordinance, the new Bus Services Licensing Authority should then function as a proper Road Transport Authority. Clause 13 provides for that0 The privileged position of the S.T.C. must go and it will have to compete on an equal footing with the Chinese bus companies, which have amalgamated or are in the process of amalgamation into three regional groups -
(a) The Western group comprising: (1) Hock Lee Amalgamated Bus Co. (Pte) Ltd., (2) Kampong Bahru Bus Service (Pte) Ltd., (3) Keppel Bus Co. (Pte) Ltd., already amalgamated themselves on 16th November, 1970, as the Amalgamated Bus Co., Ltd. (b) The Eastern group comprising: (1) Changi Bus Co. (Pte) Ltd., (2) Katong Bedok Bus (Pte) Ltd., (3) Paya Lebar Bus Service (Pte) Ltd., (4) Ponggol Bus Service (Pte) Ltd., also amalgamated themselves on 10th December, 1970, to be known as the Associated Bus Services (Pte) Ltd. (c) But, unfortunately, the Northern group comprising: (1) Easy Bus Co. (Pte) Ltd., (2) Green Bus Co. (Pte) Ltd., (3) Tay Koh Yat Bus Co. (Pte) Ltd., were a little tardy and were not able to meet the deadline of amalgamating themselves by 1st January, 1971, and are still in the process of amalgamation to become the United Bus Co. (Pte) Ltd. Not very united, to begin with! I wish, however, to assure the House that this matter will be finalised soon. If Members refer to paragraph 4.3 of the White Paper, it will be noted that the dominant position of the S.T.C, has been eroded over the years. As at 30th April last year, out of a total of 1,087 operating buses, the S.T.C, had 404 or less than 40 per cent of the total bus fleet of Singapore, whilst the Chinese bus companies had 683 or more than 60 per cent of the fleet. It is pertinent for me to draw the attention of this House that over the last eight months, whilst the size of the S.T.C.'s operating fleet remained static, the Chinese bus companies have substantially increased their bus fleets, so much so that the S.T.C.'s fleet as at 31st December, 1970, stood at less than 30 per cent of the total bus fleet - a drop of ten per cent! I wish to inform Members of this House that, subsequent to the publication of the White Paper, I called up a delegation of three Directors of the S.T.C. (which included its Chairman) on 15th September, 1970, and drew their attention to paragraph 4.15 of the White Paper which stated as follows: `4.15 STC to be reorganised As bus services are a public utility, it is cleat that unless STC takes strong steps to reorganise itself, the Ministry [the Ministry of Communications] will have no alternative, but to intervene. If Chinese Bus Companies (which on the whole are showing profitable results) are required to reorganise themselves through amalgamation, there is no reason why SIC should be allowed to drag its feet, when bus commuters are so vocal and critical of the performance of STC, for many years.' It was also made clear to the S.T.C. Directors that with the proposed reorganisation of the public bus system with uniform legislation and bus fare structure, the S.T.C, would lose its present privileged position and be treated as just one of four bus companies, after the 10 Chinese bus companies have amalgamated themselves into three larger groups. In the Bill, it is also proposed to increase the membership of the Authority from three to six, and membership is also not to be restricted to public servants, vide clause 3. Under clause 5, bus licences are to be made renewable for a period of three years instead of one year, as at present. As the present practice of bus companies working out their own routes and applying for same has been found to be unsatisfactory, provision is now made for the new Authority to determine the routes and to invite applications from the bus companies concerned. The cost of such advertisements and expenses involved will have to be borne by the successful applicant. Temporary licences for any purpose can also now be granted, vide clause 7 of the Bill. The Authority is to be given the power to require bus companies to furnish to the Authority their audited accounts in the form to be prescribed. This comes under clause 9. Offences in the nature of breach of conditions are also punishable by increased fines, vide clause 10. This is the opportune moment for mc to inform the House that the study on the co-ordination and rationalisation of the then existing 117 bus routes, to be undertaken by the Transport Consultant, Mr R. P. Wilson, Traffic Manager of the Municipal Tramways Trust of Adelaide, South Australia, as stated in paragraph 4.5 of the White Paper was completed on 26th November, 1970. When making copies of the Wilson Study available to the bus companies on 15th December, 1970, I indicated to them that before Government proceeds with the implementation of the Wilson recommendations on 11th April, 1971, we would, however, like to have the benefit of their views for consideration. These should be submitted not later than 15th January, 1971, i.e., within this week. It is our intention to release the Wilson Study, together with full details of the implementation, not later than the middle of February, so that the bus commuting public would have two months' advance notice of the proposed major reorganisation of the bus services before it comes into effect early in April. In these circumstances, the Bill now before this House can be regarded as not only being timely but most appropriate, so that my Ministry may be giver! The necessary legislative backing and "teeth" to carry out its onerous task of a long overdue major overhaul of our public bus transport service, and to usher in the dawn of a new era for a more rational, adequate and effective public bus service for our people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.19 p.m.