Sir, a large number of Members have spoken on the land transport policies. I will attempt to give justice by responding to the very many points of criticisms, queries and suggestions and ake them one by one. I hope, Sir, you will bear with me. But, first, let us get our perspective right, because if we don't, we will always be going off at a tangent, because we will miss the essence of what the subject is all about. The subject is about finding ways and means of ensuring that traffic in Singapore flows freely. Why is that important? Because congestion costs. In April 1989, there was in the Straits Times an article "Traffic jams put London in a S$47 billion pickle". It is a measure of how costly traffic congestion can be for an economy. The population of UK is slightly over 50 million people, that works out on the average to a cost of approximately S$1,000 a year levied on every man, woman and child. That is a very heavy cost. That is why we must make every effort to make sure that our traffic is free flowing. Sir, as Dr Augustine Tan has alluded, my Ministry has listened very carefully to the suggestions put forth by the various Members in this House over the past years. I have been talking about this subject since 1983 - this is my sixth year in the Ministry - and a lot of practical useful suggestions have come our way and we have adopted some of them. Other suggestions found not to be practical or difficult to administer, we have put it at the back burner. I want to assure the House that the suggestions put forward today will be carefully considered. But I cannot promise the House that all of them will be implemented, because some of them will, instead of helping the situation, make the situation worse. Sir, our limited roads must carry the greatest possible number of people and goods with the minimum of delay to the smallest number of people. That is the objective. While we are talking about car owners, we must remember that the vast majority of Singaporeans are not car owners. We have only 250,000 cars in Singapore. We have a population of 2.6 million. The majority of people travel by bus. They take the MRT. Together they are responsible for more than 3.1 million passenger trips each day. We have to protect the interest of these people too because they too are our citizens. They should not be made to bear the burden of congestion because when a hundred people travel on a bus during peak hours, they are making practically no contribution to the congestion. So why should they bear the burden in terms of longer time spent on travelling resulting from congestion from other vehicles. Sir, it has been pointed out many times, today and yesterday, that our traffic situation is satisfactory today. Why is that so? It is because for the last 20 years we have been systematically, at regular intervals, bringing in measures to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. There is an increase of less than 100% from about 140,000 cars in 1975 to about 250,000 cars today. What about other countries where there are no such restraints? I was reading an article in a publication "Asia Business Letter". It reported that The number of cars in Taipei has gone up 10 times since 1975. If we had allowed the same situation in Singapore, we will be talking about 1.4 million cars in Singapore. Where are we going to get the roads for 1.4 million cars? So the fact that the situation today is satisfactory is a clear demonstration that the measures applied over the years have worked, it has helped us maintain relatively free flowing traffic. But Sir, with growing affluence, more people are able to afford a car and so we are seeing congestion growing again. Yes, at the moment only in isolated locations. Sir, I will distribute a map to Members to give them an idea of the congestion that we are experiencing at the moment. [Copies of map distributed to hon. Members]. Sir, I have marked out just the major roads that are presently experiencing congestion: some of them giving traffic flow of less than 20 km an hour, some less than 15 km an hour. There are even some roads where the flow is as low as 11 km an hour. That is the situation at peak hours as ascertained by surveys at the end of last year and early this year, December 1988 and January 1989. This is May 1989. The present situation is worse than that. Because over the last 12 months the number of cars in Singapore has grown by another 9.8%. April 1989 versus April 1988. Sir, can we just allow the growgh to go on? If we do, what are the consequences? Are we over-reacting? Sir, I submit that we are not, and I want to distribute a second map to let Members have an idea of what the situation will be like if we do nothing. The first map, is based on actual surveys. The second map gives computer projections as to the extent of traffic congestion in Singapore with continued growth in cars. [Copies of map distributed to hon. Members]. Members have on a number of occasions asked for a specific number for the limit of cars allowable on our roads and I indicated that it was notpossible to give a specific number because there were so many factors to consider. Nevertheless, in view of the Members' regular call for a number, we have looked at certain computer projections which may give an indication. Sir, I want to emphasize that this can only give an indication, because this is a computer projection. If Members will look at the top of the map, the title is "Areas of congestion with car population of 350,000", they will see the bottom half of Singapore shaded. Almost all the housing estates in Singapore are within the shaded area. In other words, with 350,000 cars in Singapore, we will have congestion from the Central Business District all the way to all the major housing estates. Practically every one of the major housing estates will be in. The assumption, Sir, is that the traffic flow will be what it is today and that there will be no modifications to the ALS, then, with 350,000 cars practically the entire commercial and residential areas of Singapore will be under severe congestion. Sir, 350,000 sounds like a lot relative to our present situation of 250,000. But is it? At the end of April 1989, this is the latest figure I have, we grew at the rate of 9.8%, round it off to 10%. If we continue to grow at that same rate, in less than 3(r) years we would exceed 350,000 cars. That explains the urgency. Dr Lee asked: "Why is it so urgent?" Why do we need to do this? Sir, good doctors, I am sure, know that prevention is better than cure. Prevention is better than procrastination. The situation is similar to a medical situation. Since so many Members have given medical analogies this afternoon I would add one more. Our traffic situation is like a patient. The doctor has discovered certain blockages in the certain arteries leading out from his heart. What does the doctor tell the patient? "Carry on. Do whatever it is you are doing. Carry on with your fatty foods, with your high cholesterol diet, your destructive lifestyle, with your smoking, with your drinking." Is that a responsible approach? Or should the doctor not tell the patient how serious the situation can get if he were to continue to do exactly what he has been doing before? Of course, Sir, not all patients are happy to receive such advice because it is painful. The doctor is asking him to change his lifestyle, maybe do some exercises and, maybe in extreme cases, take a certain number of bitter pills. It is not welcome but a responsible doctor has to do what is necessary. Sir, non-action, when the situation is getting progressively worse, is action in itself. The situation to get out of hand and that is very costly. Dr Lee mentioned a moment ago that once, a trip took an hour. Now it takes half an hour. True, but does he want a situation when a trip which takes half an hour today will take an hour or more in future? Let us think about what that means. Let me give a simple illustration of a goods vehicle having to make delivery for a factory. With travelling time double to carry out the same level of service of delivering the same amount of goods in the same amount of time, the company will have to employ twice as many goods vehicles and twice as many drivers plus attendants. The result will be twice as many vehicles carrying out the same function which will only add to the congestion and make what is already a bad situation worse. In other words, congestion feeds upon itself. Everybody will be spending more time on the roads and therefore our roads will be more congested. We are all looking forward to the availability of the electronic road pricing system. Many Members have urged that we work on it quickly. We have been working on it actively. But unfortunately the technology is at the edge of development. We have looked around for a city that has an Electronic Road Pricing system operating. There is no such city. A few cities are carrying out pilot trials. There are others doing it on an extremeley small scale, but no city with a population similar to ours or bigger has ever tried it. We are working on it, and PWD has been actively scouting the world to look for ERP systems that may be applicable to us. At the moment there are three models that may have the potential - here I want to underline, that may have the potential - of being adapted to Singapore's circumstances and can be used. This is what a typical electronic number plate looks like [indicating]. It is just a black box. It can be stuck onto the windscreen and detector systems overhead will detect a vehicle passing. Obviously there are different black boxes [indicating] from different companies. What is inside the black box is very different with different capabilities with different functions. We are actively looking at the different systems. But our best estimate is five to seven years. Nobody has got a ready-made system. Nobody has tried it out. We will be among the first, if not the first. Hench we will have to look at them very carefully. Sir, the restraint measures that we have put out earlier this month, I believe, are fair and equitable. As I explained a moment ago, it gives people the option to decide whether they want to go into the ALS or not. If you want to go into the ALS, you pay $3 if you are going in once. You pay about $2.40 if you average it out over the entire month. Far from discouraging people from having car pools, this approach will encourage people to have genuine car pools. Previously, many cases of car pools were just drivers in cars picking up three passengers. Now that the driver has to pay $2.40 if he goes in regularly. If he finds three or four other car owners, the cost of $2.40 will be divided by four or by five. Now with the higher car park charges in the CBD, there is an even greater incentive for them not to bring in their car. With the higher petrol duty on petrol there is an even greater incentive not to drive unnecessarily. So, far from discouraging car pools, we will be encouraging genuine car pools. Sir, I now move on to deal with the questions of the different groups of people who have appealed directly to the Ministry and also through the Members of Parliament for exemption from the ALS scheme. The underlying principle, Sir, is to have every vehicle which who contributes to the congestion pay, so that the owner makes a decision to go in or not to go in - to go in by bus, by MRT, by car pools or all by himself. A key question which Members of Parliament should have asked is: why did we exempt the scheduled buses - SBS, TIBS and CSS? Because that is a fundamental deviation from the general principle of all who contribute to congestion - having to pay. It was a difficult decision for the Ministry to make, We have decided to breach the principle. Why? Scheduled buses, unlike all other vehicles, are required to go into the CBD during peak hours under the terms of licence. Why do we want scheduled buses to go in during peak hours? Because they carry the largest number of people, so the more scheduled buses there are going into the CBD during the restricted hours the better the service they provide to the 1.2 million to 1.3 million commuters every day. That is why we have made a special exemption for the scheduled buses. I know, Sir, that once we allow one group, where do we draw the line? What about group No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, ad infinitum? That is really the crux. We have decided to draw the line and allow only scheduled buses to go in. The other vehicles, because all of them in their own ways contribute congestion, have got to be subjected to the same extend of discouragement from entry into the CBD during peak hours. Sir, some Members have asked, why is it so important to have the CBD free flowing? Why do we need evening ALS? Indeed, why do we need the morning ALS at all? The Central Business District is the nerve centre of our economy. It provides employment for the largest number of people. Within that very small, very compact area. If we allow that area to seize up, it will have severe impact on our economy, with serious negative consequences for all Singaporeans. We have had the morning ALS, we had the same level of unhappiness, if not much more. Today, nobody doubts that the morning ALS has worked and works very well and has helped us. I want to remaind Members that when we introduced the morning ALS, we had to fine tune, we had to make adjustments to the ALS, adjusting both the fees and the restricted hours. My Ministry has stressed the same need for the evening ALS, because we are introducing it for the first time. We will be watching and monitoring the situation very closely, and we will have no hesitation making adjustments if necessary. If the volume of traffic is too low, and we want to optimize the use of our roads, my Ministry will have no hesitation lowering it from $3 down to $2. Conversely, if $3 turns out to be too low a figure, we will have to adjust it upwards, to $4. It is not likely that we will have to adjust to $5 on the basis of our studies. We have to be realistic. We cannot forecast the behaviour of all consumers and their response to a measure of this type. The new ALS will definetely reduce the number of cars into the CBD. By how much, we will have to monitor very carefully. So why do we have to include all vehicles for the morning and evening ALS? At the moment, of all the vehicles going into the CBD in the morning, only one-third of the vehicles pay the ALS fee. Indeed, only 22% of the vehicles are cars which pay the ALS fee of $5, and another 12% of the vehicles are taxis, paying an ALS fee of $2. If we do not adopt the equitable principle of all contributing to the congestion having to bear part of the burden, then to reduce the traffic flow a heavier and heavier burden on the small group of people presently paying the ALS fee will have to pay much more. And the 66% of vehicles which are not paying ALS will mushroom in proportion to the overall increase in vehicles and also in response to the demand of the economy, Then we will have severe congesttion in the CBD. That is why we have to include all vehicles. The same principle applies for the evening. Why do we need an evening ALS? Presently, the traffic flow in the evening is worse than in the morning. Can we improve it a little? Yes. Is it worth the price we pay? We believe so. Because we must remember that congestion takes up people's time, and in an economy like ours, time is money. Those who contribute to congestion are making others take longer time in going home from work. A large number of people who do not own cars have got to bear that burden. So to be fair, all who contribute to congestion should bear part of the burden. Many Members have asked for the hours to be reduced. I think different Members ask for slightly different reductions in different directions. Some have asked for it to be imposed for only an hour; others a little more - 4.30 pm to 6.00 pm, some 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm, some 5.00 pm to 6.00 pm. Sir, 6.00 pm is really a critical point. At the moment 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm is when the traffic is heaviest. For the time being, I want to leave it at 4.30 pm to 7.00 pm. But we will monitor the situation. I appreciate the concerns of Members wanting to be helpful to their residents, to shoppers, to parents wanting to go pick up their children, and have therefore appealed for a reduction from 7.00 pm to 6.00 pm. Our experience with the morning ALS is the first hour after the ALS is the worst of all hours. So if we stop the restricted hours up to 6.00 pm, then the so-called post-ALS traffic would add to the already existing congestion which is the worst of all possible times. Then we would be making the situation from bad to worse. I want to explain this because this may not be obvious to everybody. Sir, the ALS works in two different ways. Firstly, it spreads out traffic in space. Those who do not need to go into the ALS can take other roads and avoid having to pay. So the traffic is spread out. Secondly, the ALS works by spreading out the traffic in terms of time. Since the restricted hours are from 4.30 pm to 7.00 pm, those who do not need to go in during that period can either delay a little or go in a little earlier. Those going in after 7.00 pm, you don't pay. Similarly those who go in before 4.30 pm, don't pay also. So the traffic is spread out in two different ways. Will it lead to additional congestion along our ring roads? Possibly, initially, just as it did way back in 1975 when we introduced the morning ALS. We will have to give it time. People will make their own choices. The traffic will make its own adjustment. And over a period of time, we can review the situation. I am poen-minded on this. The object is simple - keep the CBD free flowing. the instruments in our hands are not perfect. These are all proxy instruments. They are not direct instruments. We will have to watch the situation, monitor it closely and, if necessary, make adjustments. Sir, if we want to keep the CBD relatively free flowing of traffic, do we not also want to do the same for the ring roads, for other roads outside the CBD? The answer obviously is yes. Hence, we want to discourage usage as much as possible. That is why we have introduced a small restraint measure, a 10 cents increase in the petrol duty, to discourage in a small way unnecessary trips made. It will be marginal. But every bit helps. Also the increased car park charges, particularly day time car park charges, will support this policy of discouraging unnecessary travel. Sir, the present package of measures represents a watershed in our overall land transport management. We have by and large stayed mostly, not completely, but mostly with restraint on ownership. We have now moved over to increased use of restraint measures on usage. But we cannot do it exclusively. We can only change the emphasis. Members have appealed to the Ministry to allow more people to own cars and not to keep the number of cars growing at the rate of 1% a year which was what the Ministry was hoping to target at. Now, if we allow a 5% increase in growth of vehicles, then unless we are able to achieve a 5% reduction in traffic usage overall, then our traffic conditions must inevitably get worse. We are hoping, Sir, that if these measures work, then ownership restraint measures can be used more sparingly. A number of Members have asked about the possibility of removal of PARF. As Dr Wang Kai Yuen has mentioned, it is a very painful process. If we do not have to, we may not want to do it. But we may have no choice. That option must be kept open. We will watch the situation carefully. Sir, I believe most of the Members of this House who spoke yesterday and today, supported the principles ofusing restraint on usage. But quite obviously, as I indicated in my speech in the Committee of Supply in March, every individual affected in a particular way by a particular measure will find that particular measure onerous and obviously attack that policy. Members have done their jobs well. They have reflected those sentiments - different groups ofpeople unhappy with different aspects of our measures. This is to be expected. I hope that after Members have listened to the explanation, they will be in a better position to explain to their constituents. Sir, many Members have asked for more explanation. This we will continue to give. But these measures are not new. Petrol duty is not new, the ALS is not new. Yes, applying it to all vehicles is new, but the principle is a simple and an old one. Car park increases, increases, these are not new. These are on-going measures used for the last 20 years. Yes, we use it less frequently previously, when we are trying to discourage ownership. But they are not new measures as such. Nevertheless, we will have to continue to explain. I welcome the suggestion put forward by the Chairman of the GPC for the Ministry of Communications and Information. I welcome his desire to have open hearings, to collect views. I hope he will look at them carefully and in due course submit his recommendations and the recommendations of other members of his GPC to the Ministry for possible consideration. If the recommendations are practical, if they can help us achieve better, freer flowing traffic in the CBD and in the rest of Singapore, I can assure him and his GPC that we will use his measures. Sir, I now come to specifics. Scheme B buses - I explained a moment ago why we drew the line at scheduled buses. Scheme B buses, by and large, do not operate as scheduled buses. In fact, our records show that only 16 buses out of 356 Scheme B buses are operating scheduled services. Scheme B buses are buses which are licensed to carry children and workers en masse, transporting them from a few points to a school or a factory. And because they transport children, because they transport workers, the Government has given them a low taxation regime. A Scheme B bus may pay as low as one-sixth the tax of an ordinary scheduled bus. At the upper end, buses for workers may pay as low as half the tax of the scheduled buses. Some of these buses do not have to go into the CBD at all. I shall ask my Ministry officials to look into the details of these 16 buses hat are operating scheduled services to see whether we could include them for exemptions. I can see administrative difficulties. But we shall look at them and give our consideration to these 16 buses, not the remainder of the 356. Sir, Dr Hong Hai has called for a better public transport system. I support that. Indeed that has been the policy of the Government, to have the best possible public transport system in Singapore. Is our present system perfect? No. Can it be improved upon? Yes, we are working on it. Are there other cities with much better transport systems? We are not aware of them. I spoke to the experts on public transport systems when they were in Singapore earlier this year for the Conference on the International Union of Public Transport. These are the world's experts on public transport. I asked them, "Is there anything that we can do to improve our system? What is it that you are doing in your cities that you think can improve the purblic transport system in Singapore? They laughed. They told me there are very few cities, none that they were able to tell us, that had better public transport systems than ours. And they know because they went on a ride on our MRT trains and on our buses. But we will spare no effort at further improving our public transport system. We are presently working at seeking improveing our public transport system by way of an integrated ticketing system, a through ticketing system, where a ticket can be used both for buses and for trains. "Why does the project take so long?", some Members asked. Again we are once more at the edge of the technology. We have been acouting for system that can be applicable to Singapore. I believe the three public transport companies, namely, SBS, TIBS and SMRT, shall be announcing the award of the tender for the equipment very soon. Sir, Dr Hong Hai has asked why not have buses that will service the private housing estates, bring them to the MRT stations. I support that proposal. Indeed we have been encouraging the bus companies to do that. But we must remember that the routes for the MRT are designed such that when the MRT system is completed, it will be serving about 80% of the population of Singapore, namely, those in the HDB housing estates. And the volume of people from outside of these housing estates, in other words, in the private housing estates, the number of people wanting to use the MRT will be small. The SMRT is headed by the president and chief executive officer of a local bank. SBS is headed by a senior managing partner of a multi-national accounting company. And TIBS have got a Chief Executive Officer who is a business graduate and runs a number of companies. They have all looked at the situation. They have concluded that there is no real demand for such a service. But we have not given up, Sir. We are now trying to encourage other operators. Indeed any bus operator who wants to provide this service will get my endorsement and support, with their application to the Public Transport Council. But if all the operators, after having looked at it carefully, were to conclude that there isn't sufficient demand that will make it viable for them, should Government rush in when practical businessmen fear to tread? Sir, Dr Lee Siew-Choh said that the measures have got nothing to do with land transportation. It is just a device to generate revenue for the Government. The Government can find no worst way, no more painful way, of raising revenue than by way of land transportation. The allegation is completely untrue. If the Government were to do nothing and just allow the number of cars to grow by 10%, every year the revenue obtained would be about the same or maybe even more than what the various measures will bring in. It would have been perfectly painless. But it will be at a great cost to the economy, a great detriment to the population, as our traffic seize up. Sir, I have touched very briefly on why all vehicles should not be exempted. Now I will talk about motocycles because many Members have raised it. Members believe or perceive that a motorcycle does not add to the congestion. Let me suggest that we think about the problem a little. If we have a car in front of us on a road, we keep a certain distance when driving, for reasons of safety. If there is a motorcycle in between the two cars, do we not also keep a certain disance from the motorcycle? We do, don't we? We all so, Sir. That simple picture demonstrates very clearly that on the move, a motorcycle is like a car. It takes up space and therefore contributes to overal congestion. And indeed transport planners have got to make allowance for that. For purposes of calculation, a motorcycle is treated as 0.7 passenger car equivalent. In other workd, for purposes of transport planning a motorcycle is treated as if it is three-quarters of a car. That is its contribution to the congestion. Of course, when a motorcycle is parked, it takes up less space. We have decided, because we are aware that motorcyclists, with some exceptions are low-income earners to keep the ALS fee for motorcycles low. A dollar a day or $20 a month. We need to apply some measure of restraint for motorcycles also. We cannot allow the motorcycles to be different. Because if we do, then we may possibly end up like some other cities. Again, I use the example of Taipei. The number of motorcycles in 130% that of the number of cars. Those who cannot afford a car will movbe on to a motorcycle, and add to the congestion. Our situation in Singapore at the moment, the number of motorcycles is approximately half of that of cars. A $1 ALS is reasonable. Some of the motorcyclists will go into the CBD some of them will not. Only those who go in are affected. Some Members have taken up the appeal on behalf of residents living inside the CBD. Again, I appreciate the unhappiness that residents in the CBD feel in having to pay $3 when they are going home from work outside the CBD. Sir, I think the principle of equity is very clear. Those who live outside and go in to work in the CBD in the morning have got to pay. So those who live inside and have to return home in the evening, they too have to pay. And in the long term, measures of this sort wil encourage Singaporeans, whereever possible, to live close to where they work. I know, Sir, it is not always easy, it is not always possible, but we help encourage that trend; for example, you have fewer people in the CBD going to work in Jurong and fewer people living in Jurong going to work in the CBD, then we reduce some unnecessary flow. I am not saying that it is easy. I am saying that we should encourage that trend. Then if those who work in Jurong live in Jurong and those who live in the CBD work in the CBD, we will find our traffic conditions much less problematic. Why decrease the ALS fees? Sir, if we keep it at $5 then few cars will go into the CBD during restricted hours. We will be under-utilizing our roads. Is that a good thing? No. Land is scarce; we must use it optimally. We want to have a free-flowing traffic. We do not want to have empty roads. That will be contrary to the objectives of the Ministry. Sir, let me conclude. Land transport is a national problem. Everybody is affected by it. If we do not manage it carefully, all of us pay a price, maybe imperceptibly. Trips taking 30 minutes will increase to 35, to 40, to 45 minutes and so on, to one hour eventually. I would like to urge Members of this House to continue with giving the Ministry their suggestions, their feedback, so that we can manage the traffic in a manner that will give the least burden to vehicle owners and yet at the same time maintain a reasonably free flow of traffic. We are prepared to learn from any Member of Parliament. We are prepared to learn from any Singaporean. We are prepared to learn from any city that has got a better system than ours, that has ot a system that we can use. If Members of the House know of any city with a better transport system, please let me know. I give my assurance to the House that we will send our officers to get all the details and study it for possible implementation in Singapore. Sir, I want to round up just on one point, namely, there is no desire at all on the part of the Government to use land transport policies to generate revenue. I cannot over-emphasize that point. My job in the Ministry of Communications and Information is not to raise revenue for the Government. No, not at all. My job is to manage the airport, the seaport, telecommunications services, our land transport system, in a manner that will give Singapore the best possible international competitiveness so that it will boost our conomy, so that it will bring in investments, preferably investments that will give high value added jobs to Singaporeans. And in the process, give Singaporeans higher pay and better lives. Contrary to what has been said, the Ministry of Communications and Information has over the years via Telecoms, via the airport and via the port, been giving money back to Singaporeans by way of lower rates, with a cumulative total of more than a billion dollars over the years. Indeed, next month Telecoms will be making announcements of some adjustments in charges that will have a net result of giving more than $10 million a year back to the economy. At MCI our objective is to give Singaporeans and Singapore the best possible airport, the best possible port, the best possible telecommunications systems and also the best possible land transport system. I believe, Sir, Singapore's efforts in these areas have not been in vain. I have no doubt that the overall effect of this package of restraint measures will in the long term help give us the highest possible quality of life for the largest number of Singaporeans. On that firm belief I commend the land transport measures to this House. (Applause].