Sir, the White Paper is an excellent qualitative document setting out the future corporate vision on land transport. But having said that, I must present to the House candidly the feedback that I have received from my grassroots leaders, residents, trade unionists and other people known to me. The White Paper has not made a significant impact on the general public. There is neither too much praise, nor is there too much of an adverse reaction. On the plus side, people, especially those living along the proposed North-East MRT line as well as other public transport users are very relieved that the Government has revised its definition of operating costs, so that the bulk of the asset replacement would be borne by the Government. It has been stated in the White Paper that for the existing North-South/East-West lines, the operator's share of the replacement cost will be $1.6 billion. Assuming a historical asset inflation of 5%, the balance cost of $5.3 billion would be borne by the Government. This revision to the basis of charging and breaking even will moderate fare increases. Had this not been done, the full replacement cost would have effected an immediate fare increase of 30 cents across the board. Had that 30 cents increase come about, it would have caused too much of a thunderstorm - which we cannot afford as we approach the "harvest" season. On the minus side, I have, as expected, or as is usual, received more feedback. First, it is said that the vision set out in the White Paper would be achieved in 10 to 15 years. Unfortunately, many Singaporeans find this far too long a period to wait. It translates into three to four elections before the vision is accomplished. Generally speaking, Singaporeans are impatient. Maybe it is because of our hectic pace of life or maybe because many of us had little choice but to pay hefty sums of money to get that elusive and expensive COE so that we could have a certain level of comfort and an uninterrupted journey from home to our destination. A car in Singapore is not a nice-to-have item but really a need-to-have item today. Many Singaporeans had little choice on deciding whether or not to buy a car and so they are prepared to stretch themselves and pay a big price for COEs and cars because our public transportation system is not effectively integrated. The conclusion segment of the Executive Summary of the White Paper says, and I quote: `We must start solving tomorrow's transport problems today.' This is a very wise statement indeed. But had we started doing this effectively, say, 10 to 15 years ago to provide a more effective integrated public transport system, then we would have solved many of today's public transport problems yesterday. And this is what the typical Singaporean is saying. Let me quote a comment in today's Straits Times, and I quote Clement Chua, a company executive: `If door-to-door public transport really materialises, then I won't really need to drive a car.' Let us look at Hong Kong. They have a very effective integrated public transport system which includes the MTR, buses, mini-buses, taxis and even ferries. Their inter-connectivity points are very well planned. The all-weather sky bridges may not be aesthetically good, but functional, and the planning and coordination to co-locate bus stops with MTR stations, and key building complexes are superior to our own integration efforts so far. Our integration efforts were not well coordinated overall by any one single agency. The MRTC decides where to put their stations, and the PWD decides where to build the roads, and the bus operators decided where to locate their bus-stops. It is like the story of the seven blind men describing how an elephant looks like. The poor Transit Link Pte Ltd is possibly caught between these giant agencies who are pulling in different directions. It is certainly a sigh of relief, though 10 to 15 years too late, that the LTA has been formed to manage the agencies under one roof. Well, it is better late than never. To be fair, the Government did well to address the problem of road congestion in the Central Business District (CBD) by introducing a string of measures, 10, 15, 20 years ago. These included the ALS (which was introduced, I think, 20 years ago), and others like PARF, ARF and so on. But, in my opinion, the integration of the public transport system was not addressed as adequately as the road congestion problem in CBD. The MRT trains started to roll in November 1987. Had we visualised and implemented a comprehensive, integrated public transport system before the first MRT trains rolled, we would not have needed a Vehicle Quota System (VQS) or a tender system like the COEs. It may be argued that a Vehicle Quota System was necessary because more Singaporeans are wealthier and therefore they had generated a greater demand for cars. While Singaporeans are more wealthier than before, very few Singaporeans can actually pay cash for new cars and COEs. Many of those who buy cars go to the bank for a loan. We read in the papers very often that the quantum of personal loans had increased significantly in the past few years. Last night, at a dinner, a prominent banker confirmed that in his own market segment, which is quite large, the personal savings of Singaporeans had reduced very much because they have either a hefty car or housing loan to pay up. It is the banking industry that benefits from increased loans and the Government, inevitably, accumulates a budget surplus from COEs. But the perceivably wealthier Singaporean who has some reasons for needing to own a car is in effect an urban poor after buying a car. So on hindsight, effective integration of the public transport system could have been yesterday's answer to today's and tomorrow's problems. I am glad that the White Paper spells out a comprehensive plan to integrate the public transportation system. I hope that this is done fast, and I urge the Government to make it so convenient and so affordable that Singaporeans who drive just to work and back home would be made to look like fools who want to part with their money or fools who want to slog and pay their hefty car loan. Sir, I met an old classmate of mine recently. He had read the White Paper and he jokingly, or maybe cynically, made a remark on an acronym used in the White Paper. He was referring to SURS. He said that he had searched the main report quite thoroughly and could not find out what the acronym SURS stood for. So he said, and I quote, "It is possibly an abbreviation for all the surcharges that would come with the world class land transport system." This remark could either be taken as a snipe or as a reflection of the pinch that our society feels due to our over-zealous pursuit of a free market economy. Anyway, to complete my little anecdote, I must add that I went back to check the White Paper and true enough, I could not find the full wording for SURS in the main report. It is not in Chapter 4, but I managed to find it in the Executive Summary where it says that SURS stands for Singapore Underground Road System. So I called my classmate the next day to tell him about it. Sir, the way the Government puts forth its policies, especially sensitive policies, such as the land transport system, is important. Otherwise, very often the good intentions of transport policies are misunderstood and misinterpreted. A case in point is the announcement that the commuters on the proposed North-East MRT line have to pay more for the line because of the lower usage. According to reports, the usage, if the line is completed by the year 2002, is about 240,000 compared to 709,000 on the existing lines. For the North-East line this works out to about 20% of the total MRT commuters, assuming today's commuter size. When the announcement of the fares was made by the Ministry, it did not just upset those 20% of the commuters or, say, 20% of Singaporeans, who live mainly along the North-East line. It upset almost everyone. Even those who may never ever take the North-East line found it fashionable, as always, to criticise this over a cup of coffee with friends. Presently, the bus transport operators, SBS and Trans-Island, are required contractually to operate both profitable and not-so-profitable bus routes so that Singaporeans living in the remotely linked areas can still have access to the buses. But I believe that passengers pay more or less the same rates as those using the profitable bus routes. So, many Singaporeans, especially those living in the North-East line, thought that the rule for the bus operators should apply to the MRT operator. But perhaps this is not a `light to light' comparison because the assets or capital costs for MRT are so much higher. If we apply the present rule for the bus operators to the MRT operator, the rate of increase of MRT fares could be more significant across the board. Perhaps, it could be even 30 cents or more across the board. Given this scenario, perhaps one suggested approach, on hindsight, that should perhaps have been taken when the announcement on fares for the North-East line was made, is that the Ministry could have put two options forward to the people: One is to follow the bus operator's mechanism of cross-subsidy from the profitable routes to the less profitable routes, and the second option is to make the North-East line, as announced, to pay more. If that had been the case, perhaps 80% of the MRT commuters would have possibly said that making people pay for usage of their own lines is better and that the North-East line commuters should pay for the cost of their own line. This may sound selfish but it is a natural human reaction. Of course, I concede that some others could have said either way the Government should pay for it. Now, after the `storm', the Government has now agreed to pay for the asset replacement cost. But it appears somewhat reactionary. I would like to urge the Ministry to rally its machinery of administrative service bureaucrats to better package transport policies so that the policies are prudent and yet palatable to Singaporeans. Sir, I like to now move on to the demand management of private cars and, in particular, to the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS). The ALS was first introduced in 1975 and has been effective in controlling congestion in the CBD, even though the vehicle population has more than doubled. While I fully agree that the morning and evening ALS has been effective, I think that the whole day ALS, introduced in 1994, appears to be ineffective. According to the White Paper, the whole day ALS only helped to reduce the traffic volume in the CBD by only 9.3%, less than 10%. Even if we assume an annual increase of 3% in vehicle population, the reduction in traffic in the CBD during the off-peak period, though has plateaued, is not too significant. Somehow, the end result is that the extra collection of ALS fees inevitably adds up to the budget surpluses, and this somewhat agitates the car owners and others. There is another problem with the whole day ALS. I refer to Chart 5 in the White Paper. While the traffic during the off-peak periods, as I said, plateaued a little, more cars are coming into the CBD during both the morning and evening peak periods. This increase in the peak periods seems to defeat the whole objective of the ALS scheme which was very effective in the last 20 years in cutting down the traffic during the peak periods. And I personally experience this after the implementation in 1994. I find it more difficult to get to work or get home. Of course, there is a counter argument. The ALS fee for the peak period is $3 and the off-peak is $2. So it is possible to argue that because it is only a marginal difference of $1 for the peak period, it is not sufficient to deter motorists from entering the CBD during the peak period. I do not think that we should increase the ALS fee for the peak period. Perhaps the off-peak rate of $2 should be reduced to $1 or be removed completely. In preparation for the ERP, the trends in the peak and off-peak traffic pattern in the CBD would allow the policy makers to determine road pricing at different times of the day at different locations. We must be very careful in the way that we determine prices when ERP is implemented. Already there are symptoms in the White Paper that perhaps the ERP is the world's first system and that there would be limitations. The White Paper goes on to say that the amount charged for using the road space will not be very precise, and that we should not wait indefinitely for an ideal system to evolve. I am very concerned that this reflects a typical bureaucratic thinking. As I have mentioned earlier, we must not create more problems, especially political problems by introducing ERP. In fact, our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, has already pointed out in November last year that the ERP could be more of a political problem than the present Vehicle Quota System. The car owners pay a one-off COE which perhaps agitates them for a year or two, after which it gradually fades away from memory until it is time to buy another car. But with the ERP, the car owner would have to worry about paying and paying every day. So the agitation and the possible political problems would be magnified. So we should study the ERP implementation much more carefully. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to say that the White Paper is a landmark document. I want to reiterate that the plans to integrate the public transport system be accelerated and at least 80% be completed within the next five years. The Government must not be too rigid in its free market policy concept in the case of public transportation. It may be appropriate for me at this juncture to quote Dr Charles Handy, a well-known management philosopher and guru, from his book "The Age of Unreason": `Governments, having discovered that the market, the mechanism of choice, liberates initiative and penalises inefficiency, are tempted to leave all to self-regulating choice. That would be dangerous. Markets do not look much beyond tomorrow, or at least next year. Markets are inherently selfish, disinclined to make investments whose outcomes cannot be predicted or whose benefits cannot be claimed in advance.' So, I urge our Government to spend much more of our budget surpluses on public transportation because of our limited land, unlike what Mr Chng has said. The Government must make the land transport system so good and so affordable that the desire and the propensity to own a car would be drastically diminished not in the long term but in the short term. Sir, I support the motion.