MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1973 TO 31ST MARCH, 1974
Mr Speaker, Sir, considering the number of Members who have commented on the bus services in Singapore, may I begin by saying that my Ministry is not complacent about the state of affairs of our bus services, although we feel that ever since the reorganisation which took place two years ago, we can say that there has been quite an improvement over previous years. There are many factors pertaining to the public bus services which have got to be looked into before we pass any comments or criticise without knowing the actual background and history. 5.45 p.m. Only two years ago, before introducing the reorganisation of the bus services, we had to contend with getting about 8,000 to 10,000 pirate taxis off the roads and to get the bus companies to meet the vacuum once they were off the roads. Another difficulty, which perhaps we may lose sight of, is the fact that after having reorganised the bus services in April 1971, which is just less than two years ago, one great casualty occurred in that the Singapore Traction Company collapsed. It is all very well, now that everything is over, for you to forget how tragic this event actually was. It was, now that it is all over, a very large company with $14 million paid-up capital, employing nearly 3,000 workers. The reorganisation brought about the collapse of this company and 400 of its buses had to be taken over by the other three companies. A great number of these 400 buses are derelicts. Today, very often we see them in a state of breakdown on our roads. But what is most important was the fact that nearly 3,000 workers were not unemployed. They were given employment by the other three bus companies without any single cent from the Government. These were private companies which rose to the occasion. So, to be fair to these three companies, let us not keep saying that they have not played their part. I am glad that the hon. Member for Kim Keat took the opportunity to quote what I said last year from a newspaper article. The reason I quoted that article was just that here was a newspaper which probed into the matter and came to a certain conclusion. It is true that the three bus companies managed to make a profit, whereas the STC which had a monopoly of the bus services for umpteen years showed losses of over $5 million. To be fair, therefore, I would say the three bus companies took over this bankrupt bus company of 400 buses and nearly 3,000 workers into their midst; and they are running it to the best of their ability. We must give them time to re-adjust to the new conditions. It is only just one year since they have been given this opportunity, before we begin to criticise. They must be given time to earn the revenue with which they can buy more new buses. I think the suggestion by the hon. Member for Kim Keat that perhaps the profits from these three bus companies should be used for building more bus shelters is a good one. But I would prefer that their profits, if any, should be ploughed back for the purchase of more new buses because the question of erection of bus shelters rightfully falls on the Government. In fact, it is the Public Works Department that handles this. I agree that not enough bus shelters are being provided at the present moment. But here again let us give them some time to allow money to be properly spent, because there is still a period of adjustment. The present bus shelter sites are not necessarily the best. They may have to be moved. So we do not want to tear down $30,000 worth of bus shelters today and then move them elsewhere in a few months' time. I think it is a question of time really before we can bring about a state of affairs of which we can be proud. But I do ask for time to be fair to the companies. Let me assure hon. Members that whilst they may appear to show some profits - I must confess that up to today, my Ministry has not received audited accounts of these three bus companies - I have asked for monthly figures, and on the face of those figures, I believe they are making a profit. I suppose only the Income Tax Department can tell us the truth. And I have no recourse to those documents. However, Sir, criticisms have been levelled and 1 think it is only fair that I should endeavour to give an explanation as best I can. Let me say again that we are not smug or satisfied with what we have achieved. We think there is still a long way to go and much has to be done. But there are priorities and I do plead for some patience. Let me say that over the last year, two of the three bus companies were owing Government taxes, one as much as $1 million, and the other $1/2 million. And it is only after talking to them and pleading with them, that their accounts had been brought up to-date. So I must say that we are keeping a very close watch, and I think the hon. Member for Boon Teck knows the position best. He has been able to get all 10,000 bus workers to join his union, SILO, and it was only in December 1972 that all bus workers came under one union for the first time and they were able to get a fair deal from the three bus companies. Here again, first things must come first. The 10,000 bus workers should feel that they are getting a good deal as a result of the bus services reorganisation. They never had a chance in the past. You must have a group of happy, satisfied workers, before you can have a good public bus system. So I must allow for these things to move step by step. I think, this year, we should be able to see more new buses on the roads, and all the broken-down buses, known as low ya chia, will not be found on our streets. Let me now come to the various criticisms levelled against them. The Members who spoke of their dissatisfaction with the bus services are the Members for Sembawang, Toa Payoh, Kim Keat, and Potong Pasir. I think the Member for Kim Seng very gallantly supported the need to be a bit fair, and I am very grateful to him for that. But we have got to take other things into consideration. The hon. Member for Jalan Kayu is very unhappy that old buses are made to serve the countryside. As regards time schedules for buses and commuters having to wait a very long time before they can get on to a bus, there are many factors. Congestion of the roads can bring this about. I am sure everyone in Singapore knows that traffic today has increased considerably, and with congestion time schedules of buses are naturally upset. Sometimes we see three, four, five or even six buses all "bunching up". Of course, it would be simple to say that bus drivers somehow or other make it a habit to come together, as if coming for a meeting! It is not true. When there is congestion, all time schedules are upset and so at a certain point of time all the buses are there. So I do not think we should say that bus drivers are unco-operative, and that they do not seem to care for passengers. Sometimes people seem to pay too much attention to letters in the press. But we do know that some of those letters are not genuine. This can happen. We do not deny that such a state of affairs can exist. Anyway, congestion is a problem. We hope we can tackle this in a number of ways. One way will be a long-term solution, which is the possibility of a mass rapid transit system. That is a subject under study, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Kim Keat. But it will take time for a decision to be taken. It is for the long-term. Even if we make a decision today, it will perhaps be five, eight or 10 years before we can see the mass rapid transit system operating in Singapore. However, we are asking the bus companies to introduce express bus services for commuters from large housing estates to their work areas. This is not something new. It has been done in the past by the STC in city areas. The bus companies have agreed to consider the matter, and I think they would themselves be quite happy to bring this about. But here again we should give them time to work things out before putting it really into effect. On the question of accident rates, there are so many factors. If the roads are congested, then the chances of accidents occurring are greater. As regards recklessness, it is not a question of bus drivers only but drivers of all types of motor vehicles. We do have an Enforcement Section which attends to complaints of this nature, and bus commuters themselves can help to stop the dangerous practice of buses pulling off before passengers have boarded or alighted by giving the particulars of the incident when reporting to the Registrar of Vehicles. It is not enough to say: `I saw this bus do this and that'. Please let us have more details, such as the number of the bus concerned, and the time and date, so that we will be able to follow up on those reports. Where a complaint is proved to be genuine, then the bus driver or conductor will be pulled up. But to make general statements will not be of much help. The ROV Inspection Centre also conducts field inspections, and they will follow up cases when we have more evidence. As regards the question of over-aged buses, ever since we reorganised the bus services in April 1971, less than two years ago, the three bus companies have replaced about 290 buses of their own. As for the bus fleet itself, this has been increased from 1,339 in April 1970, three years ago, to 2,103 buses as at the end of last January 1973, i.e, an increase of 764 buses. Now if we add up these two figures, 290 plus 764, there has been an increase of 1,054 new buses on the roads within the last few years. And what is the total bus fleet in Singapore today? 2,000. One-half of the fleet is new, over the last two or three years. And if we work on the basis that each bus costs $40,000, we can arrive at what is the capital sum that has been invested on these 1,000 buses. It is $40 million. We do not just produce $40 million from thin air. It has got to come from somewhere. So we should not push it too hard. The companies themselves know that an old bus, or a bus that is broken down, means less revenue for them. They will of their own accord replace old buses as fast as they can, even without intervention on our part. 6.00 p.m. Coming to the lack of so-called courtesy on the part of drivers and conductors. Here, I think the Member for Boon Teck can tell us how hard he has worked. The first courtesy campaign was organised between the bus companies and bus workers. I had the privilege of being present at the opening ceremony. This was done for the first time. There never was an occasion before where employers and workers combined their efforts together. Unfortunately, of course, the companies did say that it cost a bit too much, for the results. So they are a bit shy about repeating it. I mean, let us be fair. People are not going to spend money only to find that the results are not worth the money spent. So it does not mean that nothing is being done. We want to see more new buses rather than all the ramshackle buses serving the rural areas. As regards cleanliness and smoky exhausts, as brought up by the Member for Potong Pasir, I must say that this has been done. On air pollution, may I just say that air pollution is a very big subject. There is such a thing as pollution which you do not see but which constitutes a greater danger. For example, pollution from petrol engines. The pollution that you see is a lesser evil. Smoky exhaust, which is visible pollution, is really the lesser evil. We have attempted to tackle only the lesser evil. I do not say that we have been completely successful, but I think there is less of smoky exhaust in Singapore today. As regards the greater evil of pollution by petrol driven cars - we do not manufacture those cars, but they are manufactured in the United States of America - I think President Nixon has asked that by 1975 cars with a minimum amount of pollution will only be allowed on the roads. That is something that will stretch not only our finances but also our imagination. I hope that if we have succeeded in reducing visible pollution, we would have already gone some way towards our fight for a cleaner atmosphere. As regards clean buses, it is expected of them. But as one Member himself has already indicated, perhaps we should try to persuade the Chairman of the PUB to allow more water to be used for cleaning of buses. So you can see the difficulties we have to face. I hope I have covered most of the grouses in respect of the bus services, and may I then move on to the Singapore Telephone Board and the Overseas Telecoms Service, which is being handled by a separate authority, at present known as the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore. May I first deal with the Singapore Telephone Board. The Members for Sembawang, Jurong and Bukit Panjang have complained about the difficulty of getting through a telephone call. First of all, it is the rapid development of our own telephone services. Normal developments in other countries would be perhaps 5 per cent per annum. Ours is easily 15, 20 or even 30 per cent per annum. At this rate of development, it is very difficult to catch up with the provision of services of a high standard. There is generally a breakdown. Of course, we do not wish for this to happen, but we are doing our best. May I say that in this respect we were let down by a firm of manufacturers for telephone equipment. I will name it. It is the L.M. Ericsson of Sweden. As a result of a contract to provide equipment, we entered into a joint venture to manufacture telephone equipment in Singapore, to be known as the Telephone Industries of Singapore Pte. Ltd. At the end of 1971, just when it was supposed to start manufacturing, this company L.M. Ericsson, decided not to go on with the project. That upset our plans and also the delivery of equipment all the way from Sweden. This problem went on for quite some time, and you may have read in the newspapers very recently that we have signed a contract with a well-known firm of manufacturers in Japan, known as Fujitsu, for the supply of 100,000 telephones. So if we do have some unsatisfactory service in certain exchanges, it is partly due to this unfortunate decision on the part of L.M. Ericsson not to proceed with the joint venture, which resulted in withholding the delivery of equipment, etc, by them. So we were in a bit of a jam, but that has been put right now. Past contracts for delivery are now in the pipeline and we have also changed our contractors. In due course it should be possible to improve our telephone services. The Member for Jurong mentioned the fact that our overseas telephone services are also very bad. Our overseas telephone services have been increasing at the average rate of 30 per cent per annum. Over the last six years, the development rate has been much too great for the personnel concerned, and there is a limit to human endeavour to meet with such a terrific rate of increase. As stated, the difficulty in meeting this growth was due to the equipment manufacturer not meeting the Singapore Telephone Board orders placed before 1971. A new order has since been placed with another supplier, and a new exchange equipment is now being installed and will be operational in August this year, in other words, five months from now. This will double the capacity of the existing exchange in Jurong, and congestion should then be eliminated. I think the Member for Jurong also mentioned the case of a telephone operator having forgotten to put through a call. I would say, please let us have the name, the time and date when this happened, so that whichever operator was then in charge could be pulled up. I would appreciate it if the Member could supply me the particulars. We will deal with the case only if we have the full facts. As regards Jurong proper, it is true, as he has said, that there are 400 factories in Jurong. The peak period is between 10 and 12 o'clock when everybody wants to talk to everybody; I do not know why. There was acute congestion in the Jurong Exchange during the third quarter of last year, but I understand that this has been eased. The Singapore Telephone Board has replaced the old 2,000-line equipment with new equipment to increase the traffic handling capacity of this exchange. In December 1972, 1,000 lines were added, and in February 1973 another 1,000 lines were added. Additional juncture circuits between Jurong and other exchange areas were also installed to ease the congestion. To cater for traffic growth, there will be another 3,000 lines to be installed and they should be operational by the third quarter of this year. I hope I have given adequate answers to all the points raised by the 10 Members in the opposite Bench.