Hansard, 1996-01-19

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr S. Chandra Das - from 24th to 26th January, 1996. Mr R. Sinnakaruppan - from 24th to 27th January, 1996. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 18th to 25th February, 1996.

asked the Minister for Community Development whether his Ministry has accepted the Report on the Social Service Master Plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Social Service Master Plan is a confidential and internal report submitted by a Work Group comprising representatives from the Ministries of Community Development, Health, Education and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). The Work Group was set up by MCD and the NCSS to look at the extent of and possible directions for the delivery of social service in Singapore. The findings and recommendations were strictly meant to serve as internal references for both MCD and NCSS in their planning. Nevertheless, as the Member for Hougang has enquired about the report, I will briefly respond to his question. One of the recommendations in the Master Plan was the formation of an inter-ministry committee to look into: a) compiling data to obtain a comprehensive picture of the various types of social welfare services; b) determining their total expenditure, both from the Government and the community; and c) the extent of overlaps in welfare effort by the Government and VWOs (voluntary welfare organisations). Both MCD and NCSS agreed that a computerisation programme should be put in place in the voluntary sector to obtain the required data. Such a computerisation programme is being implemented and is jointly funded by the Government and the NCSS. Other recommendations of the Work Group touch on issues which are already being addressed by both MCD and NCSS. These include: a) the setting of standards and the development of resource management for various social service programmes to ensure more efficient and cost-effective service delivery; and b) the review of existing services and programmes to ensure their relevance to meet changing needs. The Government and NCSS have and will continue to assist VWOs to extend their reach and enhance their service delivery to individuals and families in need. The formation of work groups or task forces to look at various issues such as the one mentioned by the Member is therefore not uncommon.

Sir, has MCD accepted all the recommendations in the Social Service Master Plan submitted to the Ministry?

As I have answered earlier, this is a confidential report and is meant for internal reference. All the recommendations in the Report of the Master Plan are already being implemented. What we are doing first is to implement the recommendation in the Report on the computerisation programme which I have already mentioned just now. The others are already on-going.

From the Senior Minister of State's answer, can I take it that MCD has accepted all the recommendations in the Social Service Master Plan? Secondly, it was mentioned that it is a confidential report. Why is it confidential in the first place? This is a Social Service Master Plan. It is not something to do with national defence.

Sir, it is actually an internal working paper and it is confidential in nature.

Why is it confidential in nature and cannot be released since MCD has accepted the recommendations?

It is a matter agreed to between the Government and NCSS.

Does the Senior Minister of State agree that it would be good for public information to know the future and the Master Plan that we have for Singapore in terms of social service and whether it would be good for Singaporeans to know how the Government would tackle future social service issues in view of the fact that our population is aging? Therefore, I think it is important that the Social Service Master Plan be made known so that we know what are the future plans and what are the commitments of the Government in social service.

Sir, I cannot see the usefulness of releasing this working paper to others. It has already been released to the relevant ministries and NCSS for planning and delivery of social service. NCSS also uses it to monitor follow-up action on the recommendations.

Sir, I would like to declare my interest. I am a board member of NCSS. Would the Minister agree that the reason why the paper has remained as a working paper is that there has been some difficulty in obtaining statistics from other ministries and that is the reason why it has not become a full-fledged master plan but has remained as a working paper?

Sir, as Dr Soin is a board member of NCSS, I suggest that she bring up this matter and discuss it within NCSS.

Sir, I wonder why Dr Soin should bring it up and discuss it within NCSS since the question has been put in Parliament. I would appreciate it if the Senior Minister of State could clarify whether it is true that certain statistics requested by NCSS which are necessary to map out the Master Plan for social service in Singapore could not be obtained from the various Government ministries and I believe part of the data concerns the future Government's commitment in terms of funding social services in Singapore and its development.

Sir, the Member wants to know the future commitment of the Government. I can assure him that the Government and NCSS have and will continue to assist all the VWOs to extend their reach and enhance their service delivery to individuals and families in need. The Member asked why the report cannot be disclosed. I think there is no need to do so. As I said earlier, the report is confidential and it is an internal document. I do not have my Minister's clearance to release it.

asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry has plans to redevelop the area at Hougang Avenue 3 in the Old Punggol Estate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are currently no plans to redevelop the area at Hougang Avenue 3 in the Old Punggol Estate.

Sir, is the Minister aware that there is an existing industrial area in the site in question? Is he further aware that in the URA's planning report 1995 for Hougang, the industrial area seems to be rezoned as a residential area?

Sir, the Development Guide Plan designates the land use that we want to earmark for different locations and sites in the medium and long term. So it is a planning intention that the industrial workshops that the Member mentioned will eventually be redeveloped for residential use. But, as I said, right now, we do not have immediate plans to redevelop the area. But if the Member raises it and wants them to be demolished, I am quite prepared to demolish them.

My query is what is the time-frame, since the Minister says it is a guide plan. But I am sure there is some time-frame as to when it will be developed.

We have to understand the overall planning process. The URA, as the planning authority, looks at Singapore and tries to fit the various land uses in the various areas. On the Development Guide Plan for this area, for example, looking at the physical attributes of the area, they feel that the land presently occupied by the terrace workshops should be better optimised for residential use. This is the planning intention. HDB, as the landlord of the terrace workshops, knows the planning intention. As the landlord, whether it redevelops in accordance with the planning intention or it continues with its present land use which is also approved by URA, is something for HDB to decide. As he knows, some time last year, I announced that the Government is looking at the overall provision of industrial premises by HDB. We are looking at how some of these industrial premises can be sold to the tenants. At the same time, those industrial premises which are not optimising the land properly would be redeveloped. HDB is still studying the overall redevelopment plans of these industrial premises. Essentially, those which are in high density premises make good use of the land. Industrial shops in multi-storey premises would be retained. As for single-storey terrace workshops, some would be retained because we need terrace workshops to repair cars, etc, and some would be redeveloped. So HDB has not decided whether the particular terrace workshops he is referring to will be redeveloped or not.

The Minister mentioned about the future of terrace workshops. Would he clarify further what would be the guidelines in terms of HDB deciding whether or not a particular terrace workshop would be redeveloped or sold to the sitting tenants?

As I have explained, the key consideration is optimal use of the land. So industrial premises that are in high density premises, such as multi-storey industrial shops and which are relevant to present day needs in terms of floor loading, car parking requirements, electrical loads, etc., HDB will retain them. Then HDB will decide whether or not it would continue renting them or sell them to sitting tenants along the same line as the sale of shops to sitting tenants. This is the policy which the Government announced last year. On the other hand, there are industrial workshops now which are not optimising the use of the land, particularly the single storey terrace workshops. We cannot completely dismantle all of them because some of them do serve an important purpose. For example, they provide car maintenance and servicing and we want to make sure that these are geographically spread throughout the island to provide the service until alternative premises can be built. So HDB has not decided right now whether or not these particular terrace workshops will be relocated or will continue for some time. But since the Member has raised it, I will ask HDB to take a look. We can always relocate the tenants if they so wish.

The Minister in his answer mentioned about the optimal use of land. I will come back to the site in question. I also note from the same planning report that for the existing area, which is a low-rise commercial and residential area, the plot ratio was increased to 2.

8. So I would like to know from the Minister whether there is any plan to redevelop or sell the shophouses to the sitting tenants.

This is the same approach. The URA, looking at the attributes of the land, feels that in this particular location, the neighbourhood centre ought to be put to better use with a higher plot ratio. As Mr Low Thia Khiang knows, the current neighbourhood centre consists of low-rise shops which are very poor utilisation of the land. So when land is poorly utilised, we are not likely to sell the shops to the shopkeepers because it would perpetuate the poor use of the land. HDB has not decided what to do with the neighbourhood centre. But since Mr Low has raised it, I would ask HDB to take a look. If really there is no real need for a neighbourhood centre, we might as well relocate the shops.

Since the Minister says that they might as well relocate the shops, is he saying that the URA has intention to rezone the area into a completely residential area without shops?

I am not familiar with the zoning. He is the one who raised the question of zoning. But the DGP for the area is as published by the URA. Whether it is a commercial or residential area with a higher plot ratio, that is left to URA as professional planners to determine. I am just responding to his point about putting the land to higher intensive use in the DGP. My point is, yes, from the planning point of view, URA wants to put this land to better use, both the terrace workshops as well as the neighbourhood centre. These are in the DGP. It is public information. HDB, as the landlord, has to respond to these planning intentions and they have to determine whether they continue operating as they are or they relocate everybody and make better use of the land. Very frankly, we have not put our minds to it. But since the Member has raised it, I would ask HDB to take a look. If the case warrants, we will relocate the terrace workshops and the shopkeepers in line with the DGP intentions.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question (18th January, 1996), "That this House endorses the Paper Cmd 1 of 1996 on "A World Class Land Transport System" as the basis for developing an outstanding and affordable transport system for Singaporeans.". - [Minister for Communications]. Question again proposed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak. May I, first of all, congratulate the Land Transport Authority (LTA) for coming out with this very comprehensive report in spite of the fact that it has only been set up in September last year, and in three months, it was able to do this wonderful job. I am sure that under the management of LTA we can achieve our objective of having a world class transport system within the next 10-15 years. As my parliamentary colleagues yesterday have already covered a lot of the points, I would like just to cover a few points to complement what has been said yesterday. First and foremost on improving the service in MRT stations. Those Members who have travelled in London, Tokyo, and use the Metro stations and MRT stations, will find it very convenient because at every station there is a time indicating when the next train will be coming. I believe in Singapore this is something that can be introduced to all the MRT stations as a first step for the LTA to improve their services. The second point I want to bring up is the use of MRT stations for development purposes. In the Cairnhill Constituency, for example, we have three very good MRT stations at Dhoby Ghaut, Somerset and Orchard Road. Unfortunately, these MRT stations have not been developed. From what I understand, it is because of the stringent conditions laid down by the LTA when it comes to bidding for development purposes. For example, developers may be required to give warranties of up to 30 years that the MRT station will not be damaged. This kind of stringent conditions have discouraged many developers from coming to make their bids and develop these stations. May I suggest that the LTA take up this challenge of being a developer and develop these stations either on their own or in joint venture with one of our developers and set the example and show our developers how such stations can be developed in a manner that can ensure the safety of our trains. The next point which I want to bring up is that the LTA in designing new lines, especially the North-East line, should make a proper study of the location of MRT stations. I have also discussed this with my residents in Cairnhill, especially my Residents' Committees at the Tekka Market, and they strongly suggest that the MRT stations should be located somewhere near Tekka Market for the simple reason that every weekend the Tekka Market has a big problem with the foreign workers and one way to solve this problem is to keep these foreign workers, if possible, in the air-conditioned comfort of the MRT station rather than around Tekka Market. I hope the LTA would take these into consideration when they are planning their new MRT stations along the North-East line. Another point which I want to bring up is the bus service. At the moment, the bus commuters wait for long periods of time at certain bus stops. As in Tokyo, when we come out of the Narita Airport to take the airport bus, we always know exactly when the next bus is coming because there is always a clear time indication of the next bus going to which destination and I hope the LTA can use this as an example to have a clear time indicator at all the bus stops, especially the key bus stops along Orchard Road. Finally, the LTA, with all its efficiency, could perhaps spend some time immediately to solve some of the transport problems that are causing a lot of concern to our residents, especially along Dorset Road. I have brought this up several times. There is only one bus service No. 131 serving a large area of Farrer Park. Of course, the question of profitability is always there, but I hope the LTA could address this problem and help our residents. Sometimes they have to wait up to an hour for the next bus, and would like to have a better bus service along this route.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the LTA for a comprehensive, integrated White Paper on our land transport system. It is an integration of existing stated policies and measures, a reconsideration of some old ideas and suggestions, and further development of new ideas in greater depth, such as the ERP system, the integration of bus interchanges with taxi stands and MRT stations, and the more intensive developments around such MRT stations. The newest proposal which will probably have the greatest impact on all of us is the new financing framework and it is on this section that I will focus the bulk of my attention. Firstly, I support the concept of partnership in the financing policy of transport. The White Paper says that the Government provides the transport infrastructure, the commuters pay for the operating cost, while the operators extract efficiency dividends within the service standards and fare structure approved by the PTC. It is not very clear what is included under "transport infrastructure". The obvious items would be roads, MRT lines, tunnels, bus stops and taxi stands, and so on. In the White Paper on page 43, it is stated that the LTA will provide covered linkways and overhead pedestrian bridges between MRT stations and bus stops to the nearest building. This, I am sure, is good news for the Town Councils in HDB estates as most covered linkways are now built and paid for by Town Councils, or the CCCs with the support of the CIPC. My question is: what about the bus stops in private housing estates? Will linkways be built to connect them to the nearest common area? I also agree with the proposed principles of financing. Here again, I have a few clarifications to seek. On page 63, it is stated that the PTC will approve fares based on a few principles, one of which is that the fare revision will be based on what PTC considers to be an acceptable rate of return to the public transport companies. I wonder how the PTC will be able to ascertain what this rate of return should be. Will the PTC make this public? What will they use? Return on assets or return on equity? What will be the rate of return? Is it 10% or 15%? Will these rates of return be different for different transport companies like taxi companies, bus companies or the MRT? Many transport operators, as we know today, are already public-listed and I am sure shareholders would be very interested to know. Next, I agree that public transport projects must at least cover operating cost. However, this should be taken at the level of the whole entity, and not route by route, for instance. Without requiring some cross-subsidy between routes, bus companies would abandon loss-making routes to lesser populated outlying areas and private housing estates and compete only along the major corridors. Hence, although I support the policy of minimum cross-subsidy in general, in some instances, economic hurdle rates should not be the only criterion. Other considerations should be taken into account. As far as I can see, and I stand corrected on this, there are few transport policies that have evolved purely out of economic consideration - many include a wealth tax or wealth redistribution element. For example, in the COE policy, we categorise COEs and we allocate less COEs for the luxury cars so that the lower and middle income will end up paying less for the COEs for small cars. If we were to charge purely for car ownership or road usage, there should be only one type of COE and one price. The same thing for the ARF which is 150%. This is also partly a wealth tax as purchasers of big cars end up paying more taxes even though they use the same road space. The ALS and the ERP will be a pure usage tax, as long as we do not make bigger capacity cars pay more for using the roads. The point I am making here is that since most of our transport policies are not based on pure economics, is there any need to be puritanical in the formulation of other transport polices? Hence, in my view, the decision to build the North-East MRT line should not be based purely on economics. Thirdly, I agree with the new sustainable policy on asset replacement, that is, for each generation to pay for the services and assets it consumes. With co-financing from the Government for the purchase of the second set of operating assets, fares can be kept lower for the commuters for a longer period of time. Here, again, this is an indirect decision of the Government to cross-subsidise MRT commuters because the Government revenue is really tax revenue, and the bulk of which, as we know, are paid by people who own cars and seldom use the MRT. Having said that, I am not suggesting that these higher income taxpayers begrudge those who enjoy the subsidy. On the contrary, the challenge for the Government would be to induce such car owners to leave their cars at home, or at/near MRT stations, and take the MRT to the city. The Government should seriously consider building multi-storey car parks at MRT stations, like the Newton Station, Buona Vista or Thomson/Novena stations and other suitable locations, to make it convenient for motorists to do so. For non-motorists living in private housing estates (and there are quite a few, for example, the wives, school-going children and aged parents who do not have cars), their main problem is how to get to the nearest MRT station or the bus stop without working up too much of a sweat under the heat, or getting drenched from the rain. I have no easy immediate solution that is economically viable on its own to offer right now, but I would like to suggest that the LTA study this issue in greater detail. Perhaps, to begin with, the LTA could identify a central bus stop in every private housing estate to develop into a mini-hub and bicycle sheds could be constructed next to this bus stop, together with a taxi stand, to help provide some form of a seamless journey. Amenities like vending machines and public telephones should be installed to make waiting more comfortable. Proper waiting areas for cars could also be added for drivers to pick up their loved ones. Finally, before I close, a few words on taxis. Taxis are at the high end of the public transport spectrum, and like private cars, would be the most severely hit by the electronic road pricing system. I am grateful to note that the Government will phase in the ERP charges for taxis gradually over several years. In the White Paper, it is not very clear how this will be done. But in my view, for the system to work well, we have to find a way to have the ERP charges transmitted to the taxi meters straightaway so that taxi commuters can pay for them at the end of their journeys without dispute with the taxi drivers. ERP charges should rightfully be paid by commuters and not by taxi drivers, as for the ALS right now. With ERP, taxis should cruise less and be encouraged to wait at stands. However, to make this more convenient, there should be more taxi stands and the stands should be larger. Today, most taxi stands, as you can see in the city, cannot accommodate more than three taxis. These stands should also be sheltered and covered linkways should be built to connect them to the nearest building. With about 14,000 to 15,000 taxis plying on the roads today, perhaps even bigger waiting areas or holding areas may have to be built in strategic areas of the island if empty cruising becomes too expensive with the ERP. I am happy to note LTA's support for differential pricing of taxis to address the problem of supply-demand imbalance during peak hours, and also more flexibility for taxi operators to offer a variety of differentiated services to give commuters more choice according to their needs and pockets. In fact, I had suggested this several times before when I was with NTUC Comfort, but, unfortunately, I could not find support from the PTC then. I am glad the LTA understands the need for this now to meet the different needs of commuters. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the White Paper.

Mr Speaker, Sir, transportation in urban centres has become a global problem. Hence, much credit must go to the Government, and the Land Transport Authority in particular, for having this strategic mindset to think long term and to think big. Transportation infrastructure very properly belongs in the domain of the public sector, and the entrepreneurial approach adopted by the Government, as demonstrated by this White Paper, is precisely one of those key success factors which has contributed towards Singapore's economic success. Also, knowing the Government, the White Paper is not going to be all words and no action. I am confident that, if approved, this vision will be promptly and efficiently implemented. My main comment about the White Paper is regarding financing. In this area, the White Paper leaves a number of questions unanswered. Before I raise these questions, it is useful to summarise four financing principles which have been used in the provision of public services by the Government. First, we all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. A price tag is put on almost everything in Singapore by the Government. The second principle is: "you get what you pay for". Take hospitals, for example. If you want the comfort and privacy of an "A" class ward, well, you pay hotel prices. The third principle, which applies to the provision of three public goods - health, education and housing - is that of progressive subsidisation. In health, the long-term subsidy targets are: 80% subsidy for "C" class wards; 65% for "B2"; 20% for "B1", and no subsidy for "A" class wards. This is to ensure that even the very low-income can have medical treatment, and that basic health care remains affordable for all. In education, the Government subsidises all development costs of schools and other educational institutions. It also subsidises operating costs to the tune of 98-100% for primary, secondary and junior colleges; 94% for the Institute of Technical Education; 83% for polytechnics; and 75% for universities. I would like to reiterate that this is for operating costs. Similarly for public housing. The Government subsidises about 30% of the total development cost of 3- and 4-room flats, and about 10% for 5-room and Executive flats. This is in order to ensure that HDB flats are affordable to the average income household. To reiterate, the third financing principle, which has been used by the Government, is that in health, education and housing, subsidies are provided in a progressive manner in order to maintain basic affordability of these public goods. While the Government eschews welfarism, it does subsidise the provision of certain public goods. The fourth financing principle of the Government is that all Government revenues go into a consolidated revenue account. How do these financing principles jibe with the financing principles laid out in the White Paper? First, there is no such thing as a free lunch where public transport is concerned. Commuters pay for bus and MRT trips. This has always been the case, and has been well accepted. Second, you do get what you pay for in public transport. Taxis and cars cost much more than the bus and the MRT. However, the question left unanswered by the White Paper is: will the vision of a world class transport system mean that transportation will become more costly for the ordinary user? How much more will the man-in-the-street have to pay for the comfortable, safe, speedy and seamless transport? Yes, fares have to be regularly revised to account for justifiable cost increases. But how much more? Is there going to be a cap to the percentage increase per year? The White Paper remains silent on these issues. The question of how much more the public has to pay is inter-related with the third principle, that of Government subsidy. The White Paper has stated that the Government will subsidise capital costs plus asset replacement costs, over and above historical costs, and has re-defined operating expenditure to exclude this item. The context of this is capital-intensive projects such as the MRT and light rail transport. But what about bus transport? Will the Government also subsidise the increase in asset replacement costs? I am fully aware that bus services are run by the private sector, so there appears to be no good reason for any Government subsidy. After all, one perception is why should the Government subsidise private corporations? However, the same argument which applies to rail transport can also apply to bus transport. Let me explain why. If bus fares have to cover operating costs, what fare increases will be in future depend on the definition of operating costs. Even though operating assets for bus transport are not as high a proportion of operating costs as for rail transport, fare increases can still be moderated for bus transport if the same financing principle is used for bus transport as for rail transport. Furthermore, the Public Transport Council can ensure that this Government subsidy is passed on directly to the user, and not result in higher profits for the bus operators. There is in addition another argument for applying this principle to bus transport. Bus transport will continue to be the backbone of the public transportation system. There are three million bus trips per day compared to only 700,000 by the MRT. At present, commuters, especially those along less-populated corridors, have to suffer longer waiting times or longer bus journeys because operating these bus routes are not profitable, so the frequency of service can be cut down. Why not make bus transport not only world class but also world class and very affordable to the low-and average-income household? Why not moderate price increases for bus transport? If the Government can progressively subsidise health, education and housing, can the Government also not progressively subsidise all areas of public transport, including bus transport? After all, I think that there is a valid argument for saying that public transport is as equal a necessity as is housing. It does affect productivity in terms of time, as do education and health. I turn next to cars, the "A" class of the transportation system in Singapore. The Government has set the target of 3% growth in the number of cars, and has devised the COE system as a means of allocation of these cars. With the introduction of Electronic Road Pricing, the cost of using road space will be spread between ownership and usage. My question here is, what is the scenario which lies ahead for car owners? There will be more cars. But will congestion worsen and the total cost of owning and using a car increase, which is the worst case scenario? Or will congestion improve, and the cost of owning and using a car decrease, the best case scenario? What will be the usage charges for the underground road system? It is useful to examine the sums that are involved. In terms of capital costs: the North-East MRT line will cost about $5 billion; the Singapore Underground Road System is estimated to cost $4.8 billion; the LRT, up to $1 billion; expansion of the road network, $1.1 billion. All of these costs would be spread over a number of years. For example, the Underground Road System over 15 years; road network expansion, five years, and so on. The gross revenue collected by the Registry of Vehicles in 1994 alone was $4.2 billion, of which the quota premium or COE collection comprised $1.9 billion. In 1993, gross revenue of the ROV was $3.4 billion, and COE collection, $1.3 billion. Between 1992 and 1994, gross ROV revenues amounted to $10 billion. Add another $3.5 billion for fiscal year 1995 - a very conservative estimate - and this makes a total of $13.5 billion in ROV revenue collections between 1992 and 1995. This alone can pay for the capital cost of the North-East MRT line, SURS, LRT and road expansion as well as cover part of operating costs. In light of these sums, the operating cost of, say, even the Singapore Underground Road System of $80 million a year is really not large at all. It is also not as if the Government budget is in deficit. Far from it. The budget surplus in fiscal year 1994 was $6 billion. The estimate for 1995 is $4.8 billion. If one were to add net capital receipts, the excess of receipts over outlays was $11.9 billion in 1994 and an estimated $9.3 billion in 1995. I mentioned that the fourth principle of the Government is not to tie revenue to specific expenditure items. Many have asked why does the Government not use the COE collections to improve the transportation system. After all, COEs were not meant to be revenue-generating; they were meant to limit demand and as an allocation mechanism. My view is that the Government need not sacrifice this principle if it does not want to. The point is that revenues generated from transport taxes and fees alone could cover the capital costs plus a proportion of operating costs of these transport projects. In conclusion, I am not suggesting that the Government subsidises everything. Nor am I suggesting that the Government spend every cent that it has in surplus. But I am suggesting that there are valid areas where Government subsidies are justified, particularly where they do not reduce the incentives to work hard and to save. Unlike some other Members of this House, I beg to disagree that financing of asset replacement in addition to historical cost opens the floodgates for pressures to do so in other areas other than public transport. As I mentioned earlier, education, health and housing have, from the very beginning of the PAP Government, been treated differently. To me, subsidy is not a dirty word. Making basic health, education and housing affordable is, and always has been, the social compact between this Government and the people. I am suggesting that, if the Government is asking that there be a social compact in the area of transportation, then, first, let the Government extend its subsidy to bus transport, the backbone of the public transportation system, and, second, let the Government spell out how much more the public has to pay. With that, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are glad to have bold and astute leaders who could see beyond the finite limits and implement visions for the betterment of Singapore. And history has, time and again, credited our leaders with such tangible and intangible rewards of success as can be seen in the high quality of life Singaporeans are enjoying. Sir, although a small island nation which we sometimes cannot even find ourselves in a global map, we pride ourselves as having scored many first. Our airport, our seaport and our living standards are among the best in the world. Our Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) is the first of its kind ever and has succeeded in ensuring a smoother traffic flow even at peak hours. Many countries are now studying our ALS to try to solve their traffic woes. Thanks to the vision of our leaders and thanks to our people who together have worked hand-in-hand to ensure that our economy continues to thrive and generate the income necessary to sustain and improve on its modern infrastructure. Sir, the White Paper has promised Singaporeans yet another best, a world class land transportation system, that will not only be another envy to others but a long-term solution to road congestion which, if left unchecked, could erode our competitive edge. The formation of the Land Transport Authority by the Government, some months ago, to look into providing a comprehensive, convenient, reliable and affordable land transport system is indeed timely. And I am sure Singaporeans will once again rise to the occasion to meet this challenge and pledge their full support to ensure that the proposed land transport system will be another success which will further improve our quality of life. Sir, I would like to briefly touch on the financing aspect of the proposed world class land transport system and to offer suggestions to improve the flow of public transport at the constituency level. Sir, the cost for the construction, operation and asset replacement of this exciting land transportation system will run into billions of dollars. And this is big money. Many Singaporeans, including my grassroots leaders, who had read the White Paper found sentences like, "commuters will pay fares which cover operating costs including depreciation" and "the second set of operating asset will be financed by fare revenue covering only the historical cost of the first set of operating asset", a mouthful, if not quite confounding to them. Many of them are non-accountants. Many of them are just grassroots leaders and laymen. So they asked me point blank: What does all this mean? Will fares be increased in small amounts but more regularly? Will the funding come from current surplus and current tax revenue, or will it come from the reserves? They would like to know. Will future generations be made to pay for this system in the form of higher income tax and will GST be increased in the future? Some of our grassroots leaders are concerned and many are wary. Sir, this is understandable as nothing pinches a person's heart more than a tug of his purse-string. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister, in his reply afterwards, would clarify these misconceptions and doubts regarding where the funding for a world class transportation system will come from and, perhaps, also allay the fears that many may have about world class fares. Sir, the proposed financing framework for a world class land transportation system implies that the Government will increase its subsidies for public transport services. I think this is a laudable move as it will help make such services more affordable. This move is also prudent as more and more of our public sector services will be privatised in the future. Assuming we continue to have economic growth, albeit moderate ones, the Government could well afford to increase its subsidies for such essential services, like public transportation, besides housing, health and education. Already budget surpluses have enabled the Government to step up HDB upgrading programmes, implement Edusave and various CPF and Medisave Top-up schemes. Transportation is certainly another area which deserves a share of the budget surplus cake. But, Sir, increasing Government's subsidy is not enough as the public transport operators must themselves ensure that they remain efficient and productive in order to keep fares low. I therefore propose that the LTA look into adopting a "carrot and stick" approach towards these public transport operators to ensure that they remain efficient and keep fares affordable. Sir, continuing on the subject of costs, residents in my constituency, and they are mostly 3-roomers and 4-roomers, like all Singaporeans, aspire to own cars in the future. Many, however, will still have to depend on public transport to move around. Their priority, they told me, is affordability first, followed by convenience a close second, and, lastly, comfort in that order. For instance, they would still like to have a choice between cheaper, non-airconditioned bus ride and, say, the more expensive and comfortable BusPlus. It is no use having a world class transportation system if Singaporeans have to allocate the bulk of their salary to pay for this system at the expense of, say, education, health, food and lodging. In other words, Sir, uppermost in the minds of Singaporeans is affordability, not "world class" price when we implement this system. So would the LTA please bear this in mind. Sir, on the question of convenience, I would like to propose that the Government consider having designated taxi stands in HDB estates. I say this because I notice more rampant taxi snatching in the constituency. By that, I mean one who stands closer to on-coming traffic ahead of another gets a taxi first. So it is not uncommon in the constituency to see taxi commuters trying to out-walk each other. Thus, Sir, until the day when some relatively affluent but ugly Singaporeans could imbibe gracious social manners, we should consider having taxi stands built in HDB estates so that priority would be accorded to a passenger first in the queue. Like queuing for a bus, we must instil orderliness in queuing for a taxi in our constituency. Sir, on the question of providing a comfortable public transportation system, one way to augment this is to have more linkways connecting the blocks in HDB estates to bus stops. I know this subject has been brought up by other Members but I would also like to raise this because this is a feedback from the grassroots leaders and they have asked the LTA to consider funding the construction of linkways from HDB blocks to bus stops. Currently, the Town Council has to pay 10% for the construction of such linkways, with the remaining 90% being borne by the Government through the CIPC funds applied through the constituency CCC. In meeting this objective of a comfortable public transport system, it would be good if the Government could bear 100% of the costs of the construction of such linkways so that Town Councils would have more money left to fund other necessary amenities and improve the living environment in the constituency. Would the Minister please discuss this suggestion with the Minister for National Development? Sir, whilst Singaporeans look forward eagerly to the implementation of this new transportation system, would it not be of immediate service to Singaporeans even as they are persuaded to travel more on the MRT and, subsequently, the Light Rail Transit (LRT) system and other forms of public transport, to have parts of our existing roads demarcated as cycling tracks linking MRT stations and bus interchanges to blocks within the constituency so that residents could cycle safely to these stations and have better control of their time? And a corollary, would it not be practical and a safe idea if motorcyclists and scooterists would have their own lanes, like bus lanes, on our highways? I urge the LTA to give serious thought to these ideas. Sir, I also note in the White Paper that the proposed Light Rail Transit system will serve as feeders to the MRT network. The LRT will run through residential estates where there is sufficient ridership. Sir, Eunos GRC is a very big constituency indeed with a population of at least a quarter million people today. The MRT currently cuts through my neighbouring GRCs, like Bedok GRC and Tampines GRC. Except for the Pasir Ris sector, the other parts of Eunos GRC are a distance away from the existing MRT line. May I therefore propose to the Minister to plan the LRT system to cut through the other parts of Eunos GRC, such as Bedok Reservoir, Bedok North and Tampines North, so that my constituents in Eunos GRC will be adequately served in the future. Finally, Sir, I wish to remind Singaporeans that a world class land transport system does not come by easy. It will only be realised if we continue to work hard, foster and uphold the importance of national unity and political stability, and generate economic growth. For without growth, we will not have the money to build this system.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on 2nd January, 1996 the Government released the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System". The two points in the White Paper which are most innovative and outstanding are: (1) Integrating land use and town planning to form an overall development plan, during the planning of the transport system; (2) Proposing a new formula for financial costing arrangement, particularly in the MRT extension lines, to lighten the burden of commuters. Let me first deal with the first point. All along, town planning in Singapore is centred on the development of satellite towns whereby the population and the industrial and commercial activities are decentralised to the city outskirts and suburban areas. These satellite towns are then linked up to the city area by the transport system. Although the transport system is planned in line with the needs of the development of the towns, they come under two different Ministries and there seems to be a lack of overall integrated planning, resulting in the potential of the surrounding areas of the MRT stations not being fully developed, and the residents and commuters are deprived of the convenience which they would have otherwise enjoyed. The White Paper states that town planning and transport system planning must be closely integrated. This is a step in the right direction. At the same time, the Land Transport Authority recommends that the MRT station be the centre of development and the surrounding area be allowed to be used for high-density residential, industrial and commercial, and public institution development. The Land Transport Authority also proposes that the Authority itself be given the right to develop the land above and around the MRT stations for residential and industrial and commercial purposes. This will change the existing method of the MRT developing passively in line with the development of satellite towns. It can then actively link up the MRT stations with the surrounding areas to develop it into a town centre, bustling with activities. The positive and proactive approach of the Land Transport Authority is worthy of our support and commendation. The other significant point in the White Paper is the new formula for cost-sharing among the Government, the LTA and the commuters for the capital cost of constructing the MRT extension lines, including the proposed Light Rail Transit system. The cost of construction and operation of the MRT is extremely high. If the entire cost is to be borne by the commuters, the fares will be exorbitant. For this reason, the White Paper recommends that the Government bear the infrastructure cost such as tunnelling, construction of MRT stations, and the cost for supply of the trains and other facilities. The commuters need to bear only the operational cost, including depreciation. For example, the construction and equipment cost of the North-East Line is estimated to be in the region of $5 billion, and it will be borne entirely by the Government. The fares to be paid by the commuters shall be sufficient to cover only the operating cost and future replacement of trains and equipment. The LTA goes further to recommend that the commuters bear only the cost of the current generation of trains and equipment, but not for the future generation because future cost will certainly be higher. The shortfall will have to be paid for by the Government. I think this new formula of cost-sharing will lighten the burden of commuters and increase the feasibility of the new MRT line. This again is a proposal which warrants our support. However, this cost-sharing formula can be further improved. In dealing with the underground road system, the White Paper points out that the cost of construction is about $4.8 billion which is not far from the $5 billion for the construction of the North-East Line. Because of the construction of an underground road system, the Government can allow an increase in the car population. As such, the increased revenue from road tax and COEs can be used to pay for the construction and operating cost of the underground road network. If we apply this same principle, the LTA can also build above or around the MRT stations and make more profits because of the premium. All these extra profits and revenue can also be used for the financing of operating new MRT lines. In this way, the burden on the commuters will be further lightened. I hope that the LTA will consider applying this principle to other public transport facilities, to ensure that the fares paid by the commuters are affordable. As the Member for Aljunied GRC, I am somewhat disappointed that the White Paper has not recommended that the construction of the North-East Line be commenced immediately. The Government's reason for the delay is that the capital cost involved is too heavy. According to their estimates and forecast, the passenger load is inadequate to cover the operating cost in the initial years, even though the passenger number is large. This will result in losses on the part of the operator. The Government has now agreed to undertake the construction cost of $5 billion. However, the commuters will still have to bear the high operating cost for the North-East Line to ensure that the LTA will not suffer any losses. Even with the proposed new formula of cost-sharing, the fares to be charged for the North-East Line will still be high. In order to lighten the burden of the commuters and to bring about earlier realisation of the North-East Line, I would suggest that the LTA be allowed to develop commercial, industrial and residential properties above and around the MRT stations, so that these areas will be turned into mini hubs. On the one hand, this will increase the passenger-load when more people are attracted to live and work there, thereby sharing in the operating cost of the North-East Line. On the other hand, because of the convenience of MRT, the properties around the stations will yield higher rentals and higher sale prices. All these extra premiums earned can be used to subsidise the operation cost of the MRT lines, so that it will not run into losses in the long-term. In this way, it will be possible to bring about the earlier realisation of the North-East Line and the people living there will be able to enjoy the benefits of the new modern system of mass rapid public transport. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on this motion. The vision of a world class land transport system as painted by the White Paper cannot but excite all of us to what is in store for us in the future. I support the vision of the White Paper and the objectives that the Land Transport Authority wishes to achieve. They are indeed laudable goals. Having said so, however, there are some missing areas which, if included, would make the White Paper more comprehensive and perhaps a little better. I would like to touch on some of these areas. The triangular relationship between the commuters, ie, the people, the transport operators and the Government is equivalent to the concept of a 3-way partnership. To me, a partnership should be one of equality. Only then would such a partnership be enduring. Unfortunately, the partnership in the land transport enterprise is not one of equality, but one of inequality. Sir, permit me to explain. If we look at the total expenditure spent on land transport, ie, expenditure such as the cost of building roads, the land costs, the prices of vehicles, including taxes, the operating costs and so forth, we can liken it as the total revenue to the system. This is quite obvious, as from a systems viewpoint, somebody's expenditure is another body's revenue. It is like saying that when I buy a bag of rice, what is my expenditure is the shopkeeper's revenue. Sir, such revenue goes towards the various parties for the import cost of vehicles, the cost of materials to build the roads, manpower cost, cost incurred by transport operators, including their profits, the Government in transfer payments such as taxes and levies, etc. I do not have the means of calculating the magnitude of individual items. But from a gut feel, I am pretty sure that the lion's share of the revenue accrues to the Government in the form of COE premia and various types of taxes, levies and fees. Sir, let me state here that there is nothing wrong with a government raising its revenues by way of taxes, levies and fees for its needs. However, when the reasons for levies and fees are for the purposes of control and management, then as much as possible of such revenues should be returned to the system. In other words, up to now, the Government has been taking a lot from the system and not putting back enough, ie, until now. With the new financial framework in which the Government will finance the inflation of SMRT's operating assets, the Government has decided to put a bit more into the system. I have been advocating for such a step; in substance, if not in the manner which the Government has proposed. I thus very much support this proposal to ensure that MRT rides, in spite of the high levels of comfort and convenience, will remain affordable to the majority of Singapore's commuters. The next obvious question thus would be: What about the affordability of the other modes of public transport? Already, SBS has called for the Government to finance the price inflation of its buses. Should the Government do so? Sir, I think not, at least not at this point; not because it is, in principle, wrong but because the bus operators do not need such help at present. But if one day the bus operators need to increase the convenience and comfort levels of bus travel to the point where the fares become unaffordable to the commuters, then LTA will have to do something. This could mean some form of financial help, because I shall not use that dirty word beginning with the letter "s". Sir, in such a case, a financial framework similar to that for the trains could be used. Alternatively, the Government could reduce the taxes, duties, fees or levies paid by the bus operators. Such taxes are transfer payments to the Government and do not add any value to the improvement of the transport system. So, are these forms of transfer payments by the operators really necessary? If not needed for revenue purposes, surely the Government could abolish all these transfer payments and thus reduce the operating cost of the transport operators. Such a policy would definitely help to make public transport more affordable to the public. Sir, am I asking too much? Let us look at what I am asking. All that I am asking is for the Government to take a look at its financial requirements, decide on the class of land transport it wants its citizens to have, whether world class, Singapore class, lousy class, bad class, good class, see how much the people can afford to pay and then act accordingly. Since it has stated that it wants a world class land transport system, ie, a land transport system including all modes of public transport, and that it wants such a system to be affordable to the people, then surely it must be prepared to do the necessary to make its own vision come true. Would such a policy then mean abandoning its financial prudence? Sir, again I do not think so. The White Paper does not mention the details of how the inflation financing would be funded. I would therefore like to suggest that the Government set up a sinking fund for this purpose. For example, based on the estimated $5.3 billion needed to replace the projected price increase of assets for the existing line, the Government could easily put aside $265 million each year in a sinking fund. This would add up to $5.3 billion in 20 years' time, assuming no income is earned from these funds in the meantime. We know that this is not realistic. If we assume a 5% return on the funds put into the sinking fund, the amount needed would only be $160 million. At a compounded interest rate of 5%, this would add up to $5.3 billion in 20 years' time. This amount is much lesser than one-tenth of what is collected annually from COEs, ARF and the taxes on petrol. Further, the Government cannot look at these expenditures in isolation. The increases in the value that better transport brings to the land around an MRT station are not small. The high prices paid by private developers in Government land tenders for land near MRT stations, whether in Choa Chua Kang or Woodlands, are testimony of this factor. Surely, the Government cannot say that they receive no financial benefit from the MRT system when the higher revenue received from these sales is there for all to see. Even if the land is privately owned, that means the Government cannot put the land up for sale, the Government still will get its due share in the form of higher property taxes. And mind you, Sir, property taxes are in perpetuity. Coming back to the issue of the sinking fund, I would also like the Government to do the same for the funds put aside for depreciation by the SMRT. The rationale is simple. Depreciation is based on the historical costs of the assets. It is considered as expenses, affects the profits, but does not constitute a cash outflow. In other words, unlike other types of expenses, the money still remains in the company, and the company puts it to good use to earn more money, even if it meant only putting it in the bank to earn interest. Sir, normally, the earnings from this money are part and parcel of a company's future profits and available for distribution to the shareholders. However, as the Government will be paying for the price increase of the operating assets of SMRT, then logically the earnings from the depreciation money should also go towards the payment of asset replacement. SMRT should thus be required to set up an asset replacement sinking fund where the earnings from this sinking fund accrue to the fund to be used for asset replacement, and not to its bottom line profits. It would be better to have the depreciated money transferred to the sinking fund to be set up by the Government as mentioned earlier. Then, the total funds needed for asset replacement could be managed as one, and transparent to all. If this proposal is accepted, the amount of Government financing needed for asset inflation would be much lower. Sir, I do apologise for taking up so much time on the financial aspect of the White Paper. However, I am sure that you will agree with me that this is probably the most important part of the White Paper. After all, the financial framework will determine the ultimate issue of how this White Paper would affect the lives of ordinary citizens. Convenience and comfort come at a price. Can the people afford this price? That is the question. To me, this is the essence of the White Paper, the litmus test of whether or not the vision contained in the White Paper is really for the people. From the White Paper, it is now quite evident that the Government no longer considers the money collected from the COEs as a by-product of its traffic management policies, but as cold hard cash for its coffers. There is nothing wrong with this as long as the Government realises that there is a point beyond which people will refuse to be taxed. The fact that it has now agreed to finance asset inflation in the rail system shows that we may be approaching that point. I am glad that the Government will be putting back more into the system to encourage greater use of public transport. My next hope, Sir, is that with the huge revenue from this area, mainly voluntary taxes, mind you, the Government will now see it fit to further reduce the mandatory taxes on income. The White Paper has stated that in trying to build a world class land transport system, nothing is too tiny to ignore. I agree. Individual transport-related measures may appear trivial but added up together, they can contribute much to improve the quality of our transportation. I am glad the White Paper devoted a whole chapter to such supporting measures. I would have thought, however, that the most evident measure would be on how we can better utilise the current system of roads and rail. By this, I mean that these public assets built at great cost are only utilised slightly more than half of a 24-hour day. For the rest of the time, these assets are much under-utilised. Surely, the Government can come up with measures to fully utilise these assets throughout the 24-hour day. Some of this type of measures could include staggering the school hours and office hours of the public sector, encouraging lesser travelling by having more work places and schools nearer the homes, encouraging greater use of tele-commuting or even allowing residential homes to double up as offices. Tax incentives could be used to encourage night shift work, both for the employers as well as employees. Other assets, such as office buildings and factories would then also be better utilised. Tax incentives could also be used to encourage more to work from their homes, using computers and telecommunications. There are many more. I am very sure that if the Government were to ask Singaporeans, it would have more suggestions than required. There is no lack of ideas; only the will. The amount of money needed to build more roads and train lines mentioned in the White Paper is enormous. Perhaps the Government need not spend so much if it is able to reduce the need to travel. I am sure such savings would be much more than the tax incentives given. I welcome the clear policy statement that taxis are now part of the spectrum of public transport, albeit at its high end. Taxi commuters and taxi drivers and operators will benefit from a transparency of this policy. I hope that if the day comes when the earnings of taxi drivers are inadequate and the fares cannot be increased because they are not consistent with the public transport equation of cost versus comfort and convenience, the Government will reduce some of the taxes on taxi operators. I must add also that I am most heartened with the stand taken by the LTA with respect to motor cars. With the measures to discourage double transfers still current and the stated willingness to implement the pay-as-you-bid method of tendering, if needed, the LTA has clearly shown that it wants to provide Singaporeans with the cheapest COEs possible, of course, within the constraints of the number of vehicle quotas available. More importantly, I believe that most car owners would be happy to see more of their voluntary tax payments go towards achieving a world class land transport system. Finally, Sir, I would like to remind the Minister that there are still parts of Singapore not enjoying a Singapore-class system, let alone a world class system. We have heard many of my fellow colleagues saying the same thing. These parts are not covered by the MRT system. Bus services are still inadequate. One such area is in my own constituency, the part of Hougang New Town in Cheng San GRC. The SBS may deny this. The PTC may be hoodwinked by the overflow of data provided by SBS to show the inadequacy, I mean the adequacy, of its services in the area. But, Sir, the residents there, my constituents, know the truth. The truth is that they are the forgotten, long suffering commuters not even able to enjoy the current quality of public transport services enjoyed by many in Singapore. If the PTC does not believe this, I would like them to compare the public transport services in Ang Mo Kio New Town with those of Hougang New Town. The two towns are adjacent to one another but the difference in the levels of services is like night and day. With the publication of the White Paper, they look forward to the early building of the North-East line. They look forward to the type of bus services they can now only dream of. In the meanwhile, I plead with the Minister to provide them with a Singapore-class land transport system now. Show them that they may be forgotten but not forsaken. With this plea, I support the Government's plan as proposed in the White Paper.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has presented a White Paper entitled "A World Class Land Transport System". I am very pleased to note that our people have reacted very positively towards the recommendations made in the White Paper. On the whole, Singapore has been able to achieve excellent economic growth, for which public transport plays a very important role. Land transport has made considerable contribution to our economic growth. In reviewing our White Paper we have to consider the respective responsibilities of the Government, the transport operators and the people. What will be the role of the Government? What kind of revenue will be collected to pay for such transport? How do we ensure that the service standard is constantly improved? How do we ensure that the fares will remain affordable and, at the same time, ensure the operators of a reasonable rate of return? Under these general principles, let us examine the White Paper. Our economy is a market economy. However, we should not be mesmerised by the principles of market economy because I do not agree with certain anxieties and fears expressed by some Members of Parliament that it would be wrong for the Government to subsidise the construction and operation of the MRT. We have to look at the surplus of the State, whether we can afford to pay for the subsidy. It would depend on our budget surpluses and our economic growth. If such subsidy and assistance can be linked to our surpluses, we believe that we will be able to achieve a balanced policy. So we need not be unduly worried by such subsidies. Of course, we would not be going on the social welfare path because we have seen the plight of France and other western countries. Now, let me talk about the recommendations in the White Paper. The White Paper seems to place too much emphasis on the MRT and the Government's subsidy for MRT. There is no doubt that this is very important. However, we have also to look at the important link between our land transport system and the bus transport system. We have to be concerned about the challenges faced by the bus transport system. Many of the profitable bus routes have been replaced by MRT lines and shortened. In some cases, the bus service seems to have been relegated to that of a feeder service for the MRT. Many workers have reflected their views on the matter, and there seems to be a lack of choice for the commuters. Previously, they had to take only one bus, but now they have to change buses two or three times in order to get to their destination. Many people living in the rural areas have to take a bus from Jurong East to Boon Lay MRT station and then take a bus from there to the industrial estate. To those who stay near to the MRT station, of course, MRT is comfortable, fast, but for those who are living on the fringe, they have not experienced such excellent or fast service because bus operators have abolished routes which are not lucrative, in order to increase their profits. Therefore, they have cut down on these unlucrative routes or merged some of these routes to form a longer route. So now many workers have to spend longer time on travelling. They used to take 15 minutes, now they have to take half an hour to reach their destination. For those who live in the West Coast to go to Buona Vista MRT station, they have to spend half an hour. This is certainly not conducive to the improvement of productivity of these workers, a factor which is of great concern to the companies who employ these workers. Workers are also worried that some unpopular routes will be scrapped by the bus operators. If all bus routes are devised according to market economy, then these routes will be abolished. Or do we have to ask them to pay double the amount of bus fares, in order to ensure "reasonable returns" for the bus operators? They are also worried that after such routes have been scrapped, the company may even raise the bus fares for the feeder service. According to the Land Transport Authority, there are an average of 3 million passenger-trips made on buses each day, and only 700,000 passenger-trips on MRT. This shows that many people are still relying on bus as their mode of public transport. Therefore, I would like to reiterate that, with the extension of MRT lines, many profitable bus routes have been replaced or taken over by MRT. How are we going to continue to provide for our people efficient bus services which are fast, comfortable and accessible? The White Paper also mentions the possibility of more bus lanes for the buses to improve the regularity of the schedule of buses, particularly during the peak hours. I think this is a very important measure in order to discourage people from driving into the town. Therefore, we should have a special bus lane throughout the island during peak hours, so that buses can move speedily from one point to another without congestion. If we want to improve their services, we should also look into the problems of the bus workers. As far as I know, certain bus companies have as many as 400 vacancies for bus drivers and the average age of the existing bus drivers is above 45 years old. These people have to work under tremendous pressure. They do not even have enough time for lunch. Many are having gastric problem. They have to collect fares and make sure that no commuters litter on the bus. They have to work under very trying condition. They have to work over time. Therefore, I would like to know whether the Government would consider approving the employment of people from China, Indonesia to become drivers and to increase the quota for foreign workers in the bus service. Another point I would like the Minister to look at is whether it is possible to review the profit of the bus operators and MRTC, because the bus operators feel that their main purpose is to bring people to the MRT stations. Therefore, should the profit be equitably allocated between the bus operators and MRTC? The Government also promises to assist MRT in its asset replacement. In order to do away with such discrimination, we should look into the feasibility of merging the bus and the MRT operations, so that there will be one operator for all the modes of public transport. Under such a situation, resources could be fully utilised. More important is how they are going to coordinate their routes in order to bring about a better public transport service for the people. Some may fear that the proposal will create a monopoly in our public transport service. The Land Transport Authority could address this fear by putting in place regulatory measures to curb monopolistic abuses arising from the merger. Another alternative will be for the Government to make sure that bus operators and the MRTC consult each other, look into their bus routes and the allocation of profits. With fair competition, they will be able to provide better public transport service for the people. The LTA should play a more important role. They should allow bus operators to have more flexibility. The LTA should ensure that when bus routes are adjusted, the interest of the commuters should be considered. I support the motion. 2.07 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has unveiled its state-of-the-art plans for a land transport system for the next century. The vision is exciting and enticing. We will have the world's first ERP system, bus time tables on the Internet and satellite traffic management. Some of us can see all these in our mind's eye while the rest of us find the scenario of seamless journeys more difficult to imagine since we are confronted daily with crowded buses, long waits and bad traffic jams. However, Sir, there is one concern that is in all our minds, and this is the financing framework for this massive venture. The partnership between Government, operators and commuters sounds great but not in the terms laid out in the White Paper. However, before coming to this part, I would like to talk about the relationship of a good land transport system and the economy. Land transport is the life blood of the economy - it must function well for the economic well-being of Singapore. A good public transport system will help to boost the productivity of everyone, especially the labour force. The convenient, comfortable, hassle-free and quicker trips to and from the workplace will decrease the stress of workers and save us more time to devote to work and family. This also applies to students and other segments of the population. In the White Paper it is stated that traffic jams on the PIE and Central Expressway cost $45 million a year in lost productivity. I wonder what the figure would be if we could calculate the total cost in lost productivity due to traffic jams on all other roads. A developed country with a shortage of labour cannot afford to have its workforce spend an inordinately long unproductive time on the road to get to work and be worn out on reaching the workplace. Efficiency has to be the name of the game. We, therefore, have no choice but to invest heavily in land transport but this is not a one-way traffic. There are both direct and indirect returns for this investment. During the 15 to 20 years that it will take us to put our land transport system into place, there will be a big boost to industry, especially in construction. This will, in turn, boost the general economic growth of the country. And this is timely as some of the economic growth due to the manufacturing sector is slowing. When the plans for the land transport system are in full swing, it is estimated by some economists that the boost to the economic growth of the country will be by as much as 1 1/2 percent per annum. After the system is fully in place, the contribution to the economy should continue to be at least by half percent per annum. This increased economic growth during the building of the land transportation system and after its implementation will enlarge the financial pie for everyone and will also increase Government revenue. Thus, a good land transport system will not only satisfy the transport needs and aspirations of our population but it will also increase economic growth and boost productivity. This is how we must look at this whole venture of a world class transport system - as an investment in our economic growth and productivity. It is therefore appropriate and economically logical for the Government to become a much bigger partner in the venture, as the end result will be a win-win situation. The economy will grow, Government revenues will increase, productivity will go up and people will have a better quality of life. The financing arrangement suggested so far is that the Government builds all the infrastructure, the commuters pay for the capital cost of trains and the day-to-day operating costs and then a few years down the line, the Government will pay for the replacement cost of trains. So this is not factored into what the commuters have to pay now. This sounds equitable, but undoubtedly with such an arrangement, the cost of future public transport is bound to be higher than what the average worker pays now, which is already 14% of his or her disposable income. Any further increase in the fares will be a regressive step as it will affect the economically bottom 20% of the population more than the rest. Also, if we really wish to upgrade to a world class transport system, then the real bottom end choice of cheap transportation will not be available for the poor of our country. For a world class system, the general standard has to be high and no part can really be sub-standard. But our fares cannot be world class because a certain proportion of the workforce even finds the present fares a financial burden. Future fares have to be affordable to all sectors of the population. This is not such a bad thing as it will allow some redistribution of wealth. The principle of re-distribution is the reason why we have embarked on the HDB upgrading programme, the Edusave programme for the top 25% of students from poorer families, and the Medisave Top-up scheme for the elderly. Implementation of fares that are affordable for even the bottom 20% should not therefore be considered as an act of charity but yet another means of re-distributing wealth. Good governance, Sir, does not just consist of creating wealth but also involves equitable and prudent re-distribution. In the case of the land transport system, there are added benefits of boosting economic growth for the whole country and increasing national productivity. I would therefore like to ask the Government to reconsider its position on financing and pay also for the capital cost or the initial cost of trains besides the replacement cost. This new commitment should apply not only to MRT and LRT but also to the buses. The Government may consider this as asking for too much and liken it to a welfare subsidy or a handout, but I would like the Government to think of this arrangement as an investment in the economy and people of Singapore. An economist has stated, and it was reported in the Straits Times, that "there is the recognition that transport is not a pure consumption item, but is an investment in human capital, like education and health." Unlike other subsidy schemes, major Government financing for transport, in the way that I am suggesting, will not take away the incentive for hard work or create a culture of dependency, as there is little likelihood of the transport system being abused for personal gain. People travel for necessity and not for the fun of it except in the initial novelty stage. For the year 1994/95, the Singapore Government spent 9% of GDP for financing operating expenditure and 4% of GDP for development expenditure. The remaining 10% or so of GDP that was collected by the Government as revenue was saved. Financing the capital and replacement costs of trains, buses and other transport equipment by the Government will bring the figure for development expenditure up a little and will lower the savings a bit. But the total amount spent by the Government will not exceed 16% or so of GDP. In comparison, governments in welfare states spend 40% to 60% of GDP. Thus, by advocating that our Government becomes a bigger partner in the land transport system, there is no need to sound alarm bells and get into a flap on the dire consequences of a welfare state. At 15% to 16% of GDP as Government expenditure, we are far, far away from the proverbial precipice or the slippery slope of welfare spending. Sir, if spending $20 billion on the HDB upgrading programme without expecting much return in productivity is considered prudent financial management by the Government, then there can be no question that spending about the same amount on achieving a world class transport system is an even more worthwhile and prudent enterprise. Furthermore, the total amount of revenue collected from vehicular and road taxes, fees and fines was just short of $14 billion for the four years 1992 to 1995. Thus, the amount that will accrue from this vehicular related revenue for the 10 to 15 years that it will take us to complete the land transport system will be more than enough to pay for the total cost of our world class transport system. How can then there be any reluctance on the part of the Government or talk of subsidy in paying for the infrastructure and also for the capital and replacement costs of trains and buses? Sir, the Minister will have to concede to this economic logic. Let me now come to one important omission in the White Paper. Amongst its many proposals, it seeks also to provide a seamless journey for commuters so that the hassle and transfer time involved in changing from one mode of transport to another is minimised. In this sense, the proposal appears to be user-friendly. Unfortunately, the extent of its user-friendliness is limited to the physically able Singaporeans. By the time the last phase of our world class transport system has been put into place, nearly 15% of our population will be over the age of 60 years. Many of the elderly will continue to be fit and will have a sprightly step but many of them, and this will include some of us here, will not be so physically fit. We will have osteoarthritis of our knees and we will have strokes on one side of our bodies. We might even have Parkinsonism and some of us may be in the state of what is described in Hokkien as "boh lat". For the non-dialect speakers, that means "no strength". What is being done to address the transport needs of this large group of people, remembering that the retirement age by then will be at least 67 years, if not more? Besides this group of not so physically able aged, we have to consider the group of young people who are physically disabled. We cannot pride ourselves on having attained a world class transport system unless we integrate the needs of our disadvantaged community, ie, the aged and the disabled. To do this, we must first change our mindset - learn to understand the difficulties that our disadvantaged friends face, and accept them as part of our commuting community who need an even more seamless and user-friendly journey than any one of us. A Community Development Ministry survey indicated that one of the main reasons why more than half of the 4,000 disabled persons interviewed were unemployed was commuting difficulty. This survey has not even taken cognizance of elderly people who are disabled by age. If the LTA's promise of a world class transport system is to be meaningful, then public transport should be converted to enable the disabled and elderly to travel freely. The Government has gone some way in instituting a mandatory code of Barrier Free Accessibility in Buildings, but let us go all the way so that the less physically able in our society are not immobilized by our uncaring attitude which will eventually translate into economic shortsightness as the aged and disabled will find it difficult to go to work and contribute to the economy and will become dependent on the young and able. Another consideration in the integration of land transport and urban planning is the locality of good and popular schools. Independent schools, autonomous schools and other popular schools should be evenly distributed geographically so that travelling time for students is shortened and traffic congestion is lessened. Our town councils can initiate a partnership between schools in their area and some bus operators so that a "bus pool" can be formed to ferry students living in the same area but studying in different nearby schools. This will rationalize bus trips and bus routes. Sir, it is quite obvious that the LTA alone cannot achieve the vision of a world class transport system in a holistic sense unless it has the expertise and input of other agencies, such as the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Community Development, Ministry of Education and Ministry of the Environment, just to name a few. I would, therefore, like to suggest that the LTA work with an inter-ministerial committee to realise our vision of an integrated and meaningful transportation system that is not only world class but is geared to the needs and aspirations of the people of Singapore. At this point, Sir, I would like to raise one specific matter in the area of land transport and this concerns the multi-million dollars paid up by PWD to private contractors in a dispute involving the construction of a section of the Central Expressway. Even after this major pay-off, I understand from reports in the media that the Central Expressway tunnel continues to leak and PWD has hired consultants to carry out a $1.3 million study into the cause of the leak. Presumably, after the cause has been established, further expenditure will have to be incurred to remedy the defect. Would the Minister be good enough to give an explanation into this matter and would it be possible to minimise the occurrence of similar incidents in the realisation of our multi-billion dollar world class land transport system? Would it be feasible to have some sort of an insurance policy for such occurrences? If so, did we take out such a policy for the Central Expressway? Before ending, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give us more detailed figures for the cost and maintenance of different parts of the land transport system. How much is this going to cost to the commuters in more precise monetary terms? How and when are different stages of the system going to be phased? How will the ERP system affect cars from Malaysia? Will motorcycles be subject to ERP? Are there any immediate plans to alleviate congestions at the causeway for vehicles going to and from Malaysia? These trips are made not only for leisure but for the purpose of work and affect the productivity of the workforce in Singapore. Will we have to wait for the second causeway or are there any interim plans? Sir, the LTA has spelt out a general vision but there are many unanswered questions. These constitute the nuts and bolts of the system and the Minister will have to provide many answers before informed decisions on the land transport system in Singapore can be made. However, I am in support of the general vision as outlined in the White Paper.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the White Paper on A World Class Land Transport System. Two weeks ago, BBC News reported on the introduction of the White Paper. In the programme, a staff member of BBC asked its correspondent in Singapore for the reason for the White Paper as Singapore already had a relatively good traffic system. The correspondent explained that the Singapore Government had been well-known for its thorough approach and long term view and alluded to the fact that it could implement long-term plans of 20 years, or even longer, because of its political stability. We know that some measures may not be popular in the short term, eg, the ERP during the initial stages of which some people would not be happy. Some 20 years ago, when we first started the CBD system, there were a lot of people who opposed the system. But we can see clearly now that without the CBD, road congestion in Singapore today would be much more serious. One thing is for sure, ie, the White Paper is introduced not for short-term political benefits, but to ensure that the land transport system in Singapore will cater to the needs of the people in their work, study and leisure activities. Most importantly, we have to plan ahead, and not wait for the situation to deteriorate. We can see what has happened to cities like Taipei and Bangkok. The government officials and the general public there are immobilised by a sense of helplessness as they realise that the traffic conditions are so bad that an effective solution may never be found. With regard to the MRT North-East line, we know that before the MRT system was given the go-ahead, the American consultants had asserted that it was not necessary to have such a system in Singapore, as an "all-bus" system would meet our needs adequately. Most Singaporeans today will agree that this view was clearly lop-sided, because it did not take into account, besides road congestion, the need for pollution-free air and high productivity and the optimum use of land. Similarly, the one-time capital investment required should not be the sole criterion for deciding whether or not to build the North-East line. The Singapore Bus Services Pte Ltd is a successful company and this fact has been mentioned with evident pride several times in the White Paper. But it appears that the company is somewhat complacent. MPs and residents of various constituencies often express their unhappiness over the revision of bus routes by the bus operators for greater revenue. The residents reflect their views to the bus operators but to no avail, as profit maximisation is their overriding concern. Many residents feel that their views have been brushed aside. Of course, we cannot expect to have buses plying the streets and serving every block in an estate or to have a bus stop in front of every block. But the bus operators should not be guided by revenue considerations alone in route planning and revision. Another recommendation in the White Paper is that road use should be charged according to usage. But the White Paper does not mention an appropriate ratio for cost sharing between usage and vehicle ownership. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on this matter. With the implementation of the ERP, every motorist in Singapore will have to install a smart card in his vehicle, so that an appropriate amount could be deducted each time he passes a check-point. As in every new technology, there are bound to be some technical problems in its initial stages of implementation. I would like to know whether the Land Transport Authority has any foolproof system to record that on a certain day, at a certain time, when a car passes through a certain location, a specified amount has been deducted from the smart card. In the event of a dispute, is there any way to ensure that the complaint could be dealt with in a satisfactory manner? Yesterday, we heard some Members saying that because of roadworks, the free flow of traffic was affected. It was suggested that some form of charges be levied on the relevant parties responsible for these roadworks. I think this is something that we need to look into very carefully. If we levy a charge for roadworks and if the levy is too low, it would not have the desired effect. The parties responsible for the carrying out of roadworks are the statutory boards, and a levy of a few thousand dollars would hardly have any deterrent effect. On the other hand, if the levy is high, we can expect that the cost would be transferred to the users or the general public. The levy scheme may not be effective. Some 20 years ago, Members in the House had raised similar issues concerning the lack of co-ordination of roadworks among the various parties concerned. The Government then set up a committee to review and oversee the planning of roadworks. I hope that the Minister in charge would look into this matter again, particularly when the LRT system, the MRT North-East line and the underground road network are being constructed and road digging will certainly be more extensive and protracted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" in Singapore. It is a policy paper with an inspiring and breath-taking vision. Needless to say, comprehensive and in-depth studies have gone into shaping this vision of the kind of quality land transport system Singapore can hope to have in the years to come. However, what I am interested in is how this vision will be translated into our land transport policy. Or more importantly, how the proposed land transport system in the White Paper will affect Singaporeans in their pockets. The first two paragraphs in the chapter on "Financing Framework" at page 58 of the White Paper are rather illuminating. It would appear the uproar some time back over the probability of commuters having to pay more to travel on the proposed North-East line has been much ado about nothing. While commuters pay directly towards the cost of operating the MRT, all Singaporeans, including the commuters, as taxpayers, ultimately and indirectly pay the remaining cost of constructing as well as operating the MRT. I do not know how the discussion on the proposed North-East line was hijacked into a debate on whether or not commuters residing in the north-east corridor should pay more for the privilege of riding on the MRT than the other MRT commuters. Every new line or extension of the present MRT system is meant to serve all MRT commuters. If it is made relatively dearer to use the new line or extension, then the forecast of fewer commuters using the new line or extension becomes self-fulfilling. The whole purpose of having the MRT is to induce as many Singaporeans as possible to use the MRT as a system. As the White Paper shows, a discussion of the cost of the MRT system should be logically focused on how to share the burden between the commuters as such and all taxpayers. With GST now a regular feature of our tax system, taxpayers must mean practically all Singaporeans. The question of one group of commuters being treated less favourably than others should not have arisen. Sir, I have no quarrel with the proposal in the White Paper on the funding of the MRT. The commuters pay for operational cost and replacement cost of operational assets and the Government picking up the tab on behalf of all taxpayers the construction cost and historical inflation cost. There should be no question of different rates of fares for different lines or sections of the MRT. Bus companies in Singapore apply the same fare structure to all their bus routes. These bus companies are not allowed to charge higher fares for routes with fewer passengers or routes with newer buses, even though these routes give lower profit margin. Otherwise, the situation would have been as ridiculous and absurd as in a country with a galloping inflation by the minute, where one diner has to pay double what another pays for a similar meal at the same restaurant, merely because the former has been served a few minutes later through no fault of his. Scheduled bus services are one system of public transport. The companies which provide these services have to operate less profitable or unprofitable routes without extra cost to the bus commuters, so long as the companies' overall operation is profitable. Similarly, MRT fares should be priced on the overall viability of the MRT system and not differentiated according to the viability of individual line or section. MRT commuters patronising a less viable line or section have to wait longer for trains, just as bus commuters using less profitable routes have to wait longer for buses. But these commuters should not have to pay dearer fares for less convenient services. The MRT, together with the proposed LRT, is the land transport system that is most suitable and most expensive for a compact urban area like Singapore. The Government has accepted that the overall cost of the capital-intensive MRT cannot be entirely downloaded on the commuters without making MRT fares exorbitantly expensive for the commuters. Perhaps the Minister may wish to consider a similar subsidy, but on a reduced scale, for the bus companies. Scheduled bus services, as a complement and as an alternative to the MRT, are the next most suitable form of land transport system in Singapore. If the bus companies do not have to worry about the inflation component when replacing buses, the lower operational cost will help to stabilise bus fares over a longer period for bus commuters. Companies offering scheduled bus services now do not pay COE, ALS and RPS. When the ERP comes into operation, the White Paper assures that these companies will have their taxes adjusted to ensure their combined payment of taxes and ERP charges will not exceed what they pay in taxes before the introduction of ERP. Taxi owners will not enjoy similar adjustment and private cars, needless to say, will bear the full brunt of the ERP. Sir, it is clear from the White Paper that the Government accepts that the scheduled bus services are a desirable land transport system but seems reluctant to extend to it public funding on the same basis as the MRT. This reluctance is understandable when viewed in relation to the Government's refusal to subsidise commercial activities. However, while the bus companies are private sector companies, the Government has also indicated an intention of privatising the operator of the MRT. As the White Paper has shown, it would take many years and much capital for Singapore's MRT system to be as extensive and comprehensive as the corresponding systems in London, Paris and Tokyo, if Singapore so desires. Until such time as our MRT system can adequately serve the needs of Singapore, I think it is reasonable to expect the Government to do more to help make our system of scheduled bus services more attractive to Singaporeans On the whole, the Government has come out with a White Paper setting out a world class transport system, which I wholeheartedly endorse and support.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.48 pm until 3.10 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

Debate resumed.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the White Paper before this House. According to the newspaper reports today, there are some people who feel that this White Paper is introduced for the sake of the General Election. I think this is a very superficial reason deliberately put forward to mislead readers of the newspapers. This White Paper is actually the blueprint for our land transport development over the next 10 to 15 years. Before implementation, the Government wants to have it discussed, to collect feedback on it, and to get suggestions so that all taken together will enable us to reach a consensus and a better understanding and acceptance of the basic principles involved in this issue. This is a very significant way of doing things. I believe most people in Singapore will support this White Paper. Sir, 15 years later, if what is listed in the White Paper before us is completely implemented, then the whole situation of Singapore's land transport system will be transformed and changed for the better. The way of travel among our people will also change for the better. At that time, more people will use the MRT, LRT and other means of public transport. Sir, Mencius once said, "If you cannot have both the fish and the bear's paw, then you will have to choose the bear's paw and give up the fish." Public transport vehicles and private cars are like fish and bear's paw (both delicacies in the Chinese menu). In the tiny island state of Singapore, we just cannot afford to have both growing at the same time. We cannot have the cake and eat it, so to speak. Page 6 of the White Paper points out clearly its purpose and main theme from the very beginning, that is, having a world class transport system means having a world class public transport system. I feel that this is a very important point because it sets out very clearly the whole idea to determine the direction of development for our transport system and that is to make a choice between two exclusive alternatives. You cannot have both. You choose one which is of greater value to the whole country. This is the overall direction that we are moving into. So we should look at this White Paper and the whole transport issue from this point of view. Let me now deal with the new financial formula and the North-East Line. The Government has decided to change the formula for financing the MRT. This is a very major change of policy. It shows that the Government has not only made the choice between the two alternatives but has also illustrated its determination to marshall all the resources available to develop the public transport system and to ensure that this system can be completed within the shortest possible time. The Government has decided to increase the financial assistance to the MRT system. This means that new MRT lines, including the North-East line, will be constructed and commissioned earlier. This is very, very encouraging. Because the North-East line is the next MRT line to be built by the Government, the tens of thousands of people living in the North-East region of Singapore will be the first to benefit from this new formula of financing. Therefore, people living in the North-eastern region of Singapore should fully support this policy. This new financial formula will ensure that MRT fares will remain affordable and there will be no need for MRTC to raise fares very substantially to meet the high replacement cost required in the future. Let me now deal with Manual Road Pricing (MRP) and Electronic Road Pricing (ERP). Mr Speaker, Sir, common sense will tell us that where you have availability of a public transport system like the MRT system, because of the convenience, there will be less need for people to use their own vehicles. Therefore, in that area, congestion will be less, or at least less serious, if any. That means the need to have MRP or ERP will be much less. On the contrary, where there is no MRT, there will be a greater need for the use of cars and therefore a greater need to implement the MRP or ERP to relieve congestion. This is a very great contradiction, that is to say, people living in areas without the MRT system will have to face extra penalty. This is a double-barrelled beating. So I would like to urge the Minister to study and consider very seriously the timing for the implementation of MRP or ERP. The implementation of the system should be closely linked with the progress of the improvement to the public transport system or services. At the same time, the Government also will have to take stop-gap measures, in the area where MRT service is not available, to improve the bus services operating in that area as a priority. Mr Speaker, Sir, even if the construction of the North-East line is to commence immediately, it will take at least five to six years before the services will be available. So if the ERP system is implemented in 1997, as scheduled, then people living in the North-east region will have to face, as I said, the double blow. On the one hand, they do not have the benefit of the MRT, while on the other hand, they have to pay the high price of ERP. As such, improving the bus services in this region is indeed a matter of great urgency. I have three suggestions to make for the improvement to the bus services. (1) Provide more feeder services within the town to facilitate the movement of residents from one point to another within the town very expeditiously and conveniently, such as the bus interchange or to places that link up with the trunk services. (2) The frequency of bus services along the main lines, especially during the peak hours, should be increased. The White Paper has quoted a survey done by LTA which shows that complaints of people against bus services mainly centre around long waiting times (45% of people surveyed complained that waiting time is too long). The other complaint which is common (43%) is uncertainty in the arrival of buses. I believe that having more bus lanes will be of some help in shortening the waiting time for passengers and ensuring prompt arrival of buses. More importantly, we must increase the frequency of buses along these routes, that is to say, the bus fleet should be expanded for these areas. It is only then that you are able to shorten the long waiting time. (3) During peak hours, we should provide semi-express bus services in the areas not served by MRT, that is to say, the number of stops along the routes should be reduced. In other words, the bus fleet for these routes can be divided into two groups: one group is to start from the beginning, and the other group can pick up passengers from the middle of the route. Next, let me deal with the need for implementing interim measures or the construction of traffic interchange and underground road system. The White Paper has mentioned that the LTA will take interim measures to improve the road system, especially at junctions which are very congested. They will build traffic interchange or underground road system. Two places have been identified. One is at the junction between Upper Serangoon Road and Braddell Road, and the other between Serangoon Road and Upper Paya Lebar Road. I welcome this recommendation. However, these two projects, I believe, will also take three to five years to complete. During this period of construction, I believe the congestion in these areas will be aggravated because right now the areas are already quite congested. With the construction work going on, it will become worse. This is something the LTA should look into. Apart from this, residents who will be affected by the construction work may also have their land acquired. I believe some of these residents have already received notices and they are required to move out by April this year. I think the notice is very short. Their properties are freehold. If you require them to look for alternative accommodation within such a short notice, it will be difficult. On the other hand, they have also been informed that the acquisition of their properties is under the Land Acquisition Act and not under the resettlement scheme. Therefore, they would not be given priority to apply for HDB flats. They can only get some form of compensation. Sir, these residents have been made to sacrifice for the benefit of the country. I hope that the Government can give them assistance in applying for HDB flats and not just paying them compensation alone. I hope that the Housing and Development Board will consider granting them priority in their applications for HDB flats. Finally, let me deal with another point in the White Paper, and that is, the proposal to set up the Singapore Underground Road System. The White Paper states that there is a possibility of building the underground road system in the city area. I hope that the LTA will look at it very seriously. Personally, I have reservations about this proposal. Firstly, it is against the principle of encouraging people to go into the city by public transport. Secondly, the more roads you provide, whether underground or above ground, you will encourage more cars coming in, and this again is against our principle of discouraging the use of private cars and encouraging people to use public transport. Thirdly, I am worried that such a massive project may not be conducive to our environment. It may have a negative impact on our environment. According to the White Paper, the underground road system will cost about $4.8 billion. This is a very massive amount of money, which is about the same cost for the construction of the North-East line. So I believe that we should concentrate our resources to expedite the development of our Light Rail Transit system and MRT system. We should not divert our attention or resources for the development of the underground road system. We have already made a wise choice, so we cannot be greedy and still want to go back to the other alternative.

Sir, can I have a clarification from the Member for Braddell Heights? In my speech, I have, in fact, urged the Minister to get on with construction of SURS (Singapore Underground Road System). But according to Mr Goh, he thinks that it will have negative effect on the environment. Can I get a clarification from him? Since these roads are all underground, how can it affect the environment?

( In Mandarin): If Mr Chiam had heard me clearly, what I said was that we should be very cautious in studying the construction work of the underground road network, to see whether there will be any negative effect on our environment.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. In terms of motorised trips made by the public every day, three million passenger-trips are made on buses, 700,000 passenger-trips on the MRT, and the remaining 3.55 million passenger-trips on other modes of transport. From these figures, we can see that every day, more than 90% of our people are using the roads as their means of transport. Even after the completion of the planned extension to the MRT and the LRT totalling 160 km added in, the total number of people using the rails will be about 20%. So if we have to make a choice between the road and rail, in the short term, our emphasis should be on the improvement of the roads. If the road system is good, then it would be able to satisfy the desire of our wealthy Singaporeans to own cars. Moreover, if the roads are free from congestion, our people would be able to utilise the public transport to reach their place of destination much faster and in a more efficient manner. So it will benefit all our people. I agree with the White Paper that we should put in more effort to complete the construction of all the interchanges and multi-tier road system within the next five years as well as all the expressway projects that we have. The Central Business District is a key point in our road system. Now we are using the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) as an artificial means to prevent traffic congestion in the city area. But if we look at the long term, with economic growth, we would have to increase the road capacity in the city area so that we could satisfy the needs of our economic activities. So if we keep on using the ALS mechanism to prevent congestion in the city area, I think it would have a suppressing effect on the growth of our economic activities in the city area. If the Underground Road System can increase the road capacity in the city area by 40%, I think we should actively consider how to have this underground road system ready as soon as possible. We must know that the genuine way of resolving the problem of traffic congestion in the central business district is by increasing its road capacity. ALS only plays a supplementary role to remedy the shortfall in our whole traffic system. It can only play a supporting role and not the main role. Between spending $6 billion on the construction of the MRT North-East Line and the cost of $4.5 billion on this underground road system, I think I would choose to build the underground road system first. The White Paper mentions that the shuttle bus service has not been as lucrative as the main scheduled bus services. Hence, the bus companies are reluctant to provide shuttle bus services and they will have to revise the fares for the shuttle bus service to catch up with that of the scheduled bus service. Actually, this is not correct. The shuttle bus service is a supplement to the scheduled bus service and the reason why we have shuttle bus service is to prevent the scheduled bus from going round and round the housing estates, and to improve its efficiency. So we should not be looking at which service is more lucrative, or considering merging all the shorter routes into a long route. I think that is not the right way to do. Commuters who take the shuttle bus travel the distance of just a few bus stops away. In terms of distance, the fare per kilometre on the shuttle bus is more expensive than the normal scheduled bus routes. Actually, we should charge according to the distance and not in terms of how many times you have to change buses. I think maybe, in the long term, the bus companies should come out with a system to charge the fare according to distance. Then I think it would be fair to the commuters. On the other hand, when we talk about improving the public transport service, there is still much room for improvement to the present system. For example, the present system of paying on the bus either by cash or card is not a good system, particularly during the peak hours. I think the bus companies should come out with some method for the commuters to pay before they board the bus so that they do not have to buy the tickets on board the bus. Then the efficiency will be increased tremendously, particularly during peak hours. The White Paper mentioned that the present generation should pay for the cost of the present generation of public transport vehicles, and that the Government would bear the difference between the cost of the operating assets for the present generation and that of the next generation. I think this is a reasonable and rational decision. The reason is very simple. If I drive a car, do I pay the present cost of the car or its future cost when my son drives it in the next generation? However, the White Paper did not say whether this would be applicable to the other public transport system, like buses. Although the lifespan of buses is shorter, if we consider it to be an effective means of public transport, like the MRT, we should also give it equal treatment. Some people say, "Well, we have to wait until the fares are high before we look into the matter." The fact that the present bus fares are low is not a crime. In fact, when the fares are low, it is an illustration of the efficiency and success of the bus operation. So if the concept of letting the present generation pay for the present generation of public transport system, I think the bus service should also be accorded the same treatment so that bus commuters can continue to enjoy low fares. The White Paper makes special mention that the cost of usage per kilometre of a taxi is only 14% of that of a private car. I think this figure is somewhat exaggerated. Actually, the only difference is that diesel attracts a lower tax than petrol. If we add in the taxi diesel tax of $6,600 per year, the figure will not appear to be so frightening. If we take the cost of usage as a reference point for traffic control, we would have to seriously look into the great difference between petrol tax and diesel tax. As we all know, whether it is a petrol-propelled vehicle or a diesel-propelled vehicle, it contributes to traffic congestion. As a matter of fact, the effect of the latter is larger because diesel-engine vehicles are normally bigger in size. So they are contributing more to traffic congestion. Using the cost of usage as the broad principle of traffic control, we should levy the same tax on diesel and petrol, and abolish the present taxi diesel tax. The White Paper mentioned only the vision of a good public transport system. But it has made no mention on the problems that will come about with a more developed transport system. With more cars running on the road, they will certainly contribute to more air pollution as well as noise pollution. So are we going to have more stringent standards on air pollution and noise pollution? When we are heading towards a world class land transport system, can we also have a world class pollution-free and noise-free living environment? With regard to air pollution, at the moment, there has been very strict control on the petrol-propelled cars. In fact, the standard is world class. It is a very high standard. However, much has to be done about the control on diesel-propelled vehicles like the buses and lorries. Perhaps, in the long term, we should try to set a high anti-pollution standard for diesel-propelled vehicles. Many people are very unhappy with the noise produced by motorcycles. I think we should have very strict control on the noise pollution of motorcycles. With the massive construction of roads and rails, we know that many houses and flats are very close to the expressways and the MRT lines and although we do have certain guidelines that a certain distance has to be kept, the noise level is still quite an important factor to consider. We should learn from other countries. Perhaps we should have some noise-absorption boards or reflectors installed at appropriate places. I think this would improve the quality of our living environment so that our people would not be affected by the noise produced by the heavy traffic. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Resolved, That the proceedings on item 1 on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed. 3.45 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the motion. The Land Transport Authority deserves to be lauded for producing the White Paper which outlines its vision for a world class transport system. It is well-written and well-illustrated. Government policies and principles are explained in detail. I find the arguments given generally sound. The release of the report is also timely. Singaporeans have, for some time now, been frustrated by the rising cost of car ownership and also not knowing what to expect for their future. The White Paper would enable the public to better appreciate the transport problems faced by Singapore and the challenges ahead. It maps out quite comprehensively the near and long-term strategies for the public as well as private transport. Singaporeans would as a result be able to assess the individual transportation needs and make informed decisions. I have discussed the report with a number of people, including friends and junior colleagues who normally commute by public transport. They mostly agree with the concept of the White Paper. However, whilst they support LTA's efforts to upgrade our transport system to world-class standard, they are apprehensive about the cost implications. They fear escalating costs which have to be borne by the users. It is thus imperative that fares are kept affordable for the system to be widely accepted by the public. Affordability factor, however, is relative. Some may not mind paying more if they feel that they are getting good value for money. I am therefore glad to note in the White Paper that LTA will provide a wide spectrum of transport choices with differentiation in service standards and cost to suit each individual's preference and pocket. I would now like to add a few comments of my own. (1) LTA should look into the feasibility of extending the operating hours of public transport, to allow for people who are working on late shift to return home after work. An extended operation, say, to 1.00 am, would allow greater flexibility for companies in rostering staff for the second and third shifts. (2) Taxis contribute to road congestion as much as private cars, if not more, because of empty cruising. Taxis should not become an alternative to owning cars and freely used by commuters. Its use should be curbed. The standard of the other public transport should be raised to a level where taxi use would be kept to an absolute minimum. However, this alone will not curb demand unless taxi fares are adjusted to reflect its true cost. Taxi fares should be raised gradually, as and when the integrated rail and bus system has been put in place. The rise in taxi fares is inevitable if the objective of the White Paper is not to be defeated. (3) Taxis should be discouraged from cruising empty. One way this can be done is to structure the road tax into two components, a fixed component and a variable component which is based on mileage clocked. At the same time, the call and booking surcharge should be reduced so as not to discourage people from dialling a cab. (4) For Singapore, being a high density city state, it is important that air and noise pollution be kept to a minimum for the sake of our long-term health. Wherever feasible, preference should be given to electric propulsion vehicles over those powered by internal combustion engine. Stricter air and noise control measures should also be applied to motorcycles. (5) The use of bicycles should be promoted extensively. The bicycle has many advantages. It is pollution free and cheap. Cycling is physically healthy provided the roads are safe, of course. It is an efficient form of support facility to the rail system. It will relieve the need to provide parking spaces for cars at MRT stations. In order to encourage the public to use bicycles, LTA should not merely provide bicycle parking facilities at MRT stations and bus interchanges, but must also provide safe cycle tracks. (6) The hon. Nominated Member Walter Woon raised a point in the House yesterday regarding the rising cost of COE due to a cap in supply. I would like to dwell on it a bit more. The Minister for Communications has said that car ownership will increase progressively from the current 1:10 car to population ratio to 1:7 in the year 2010. If an average family unit comprises four people, ie, one couple and two kids, this would translate to one car to just under two families, or over 50% of households would own cars in the year 2010. This means that car ownership would reach the average Singaporean and not be the exclusive domain of only those in the very high income bracket. In fact, as I understand it, the 1:7 ownership ratio was made possible from just the capacity increase of our road network, as outlined in the White Paper. Improved public transport system plus road pricing measures are bound to cut down car usage, especially during the peak periods. If we succeed in cutting down the average mileage of 18,600 kilometres per year currently clocked by our motorists to 10,000 kilometres per year as in Japan, even more households can be allowed to own cars. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether this is indeed the correct scenario. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not entirely comfortable with the financial framework as proposed. LTA proposed that fares for MRT be charged to cover operations and historical cost, but not replacement cost of trains. This would make certain projects viable while keeping fares at an affordable level. I have no qualms with this principle. However, as the Minister said yesterday, we should look at this whole project as a legacy for our next generation. As such, we should not leave them with a high financial burden to carry if we can help it. Just like in a family, responsible parents should provide for their children's future, including giving them a head start in adult life if the parents could afford it. To provide them with a hefty bill instead, as in the case of the proposed financing scheme, would be remiss of our parental obligations. I would therefore like to suggest that the Government put aside a small percentage of its budget surplus each year into a sinking fund to pay towards the replacement of major assets. After all, an improved transport system would contribute towards economic growth to improve productivity, and indirectly contribute towards the Government's till. Finally, to curb road demand, there ought to be a change in mindset towards public transport, especially of those in the higher income bracket. These people must regard public transport as an acceptable means of communication and that there is no shame to travel by bus. LTA should spearhead a drive to achieve this change of mindset. We should not rely on fiscal measures alone to force them to switch from driving their cars to using public transport.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the White Paper sets forth the PAP Government's vision and blueprint for achieving a world-class land transport system in Singapore. It is a very important document and if endorsed by this House, the Government will be committed to spend billions of dollars to realise this vision. I am therefore surprised to note that the SDP is conspicuously absent from this debate, although notice of the debate has been given much earlier. The SDP has been calling for a debate with the PAP on the various Government policies. It has even published its own land transport report last year, pontificating what it thought our land transport policy should be and said it would make its report part of its election manifesto. But when such an important debate is taking place in Parliament with extensive media coverage of its proceedings, the Chairman of SDP, Mr Ling, absented himself and went to meet some liberal organisations at Subic Bay in the Philippines. Mr Cheo Chai Chen, who is an SDP CEC member, is also not scheduled to speak. Although Mr Chiam has spoken, he, however, is not a CEC member and does not seem to represent the SDP, especially after the last parliamentary debate. This House must therefore question the sincerity and the seriousness of purpose of the SDP when it said it wanted to debate the PAP on Government policies. The SDP should stop ---

Sir, can I clarify?

Are you giving way, Dr Chen? Dr John Chen Seow Phun resumed his seat.

I would like to explain to Dr Chen that I am still an SDP member. Let it not be mistaken.

Sir, I did not say that he is not an SDP member. I said that he is not a CEC member. It seems to me that he did not represent the SDP when he spoke. Sir, the SDP should therefore stop this hypocritical and deceiving act. If it let this debate pass, it should not come back and call for another debate. But knowing the SDP, I am sure it will do just that. Sir, a world-class land transport system must have two key components. First, a world-class public transport system and, second, a free-flowing traffic condition. The two, however, are interlinked. Without free flowing traffic, taxi and bus services will not be efficient and public transport will not be attractive. Without an excellent public transport system, it will be difficult to persuade motorists to switch to public transport. Traffic will then become congested unless demand for cars and road usage are controlled. The present public transport system in Singapore is far from ideal. The MRT network is not extensive. The location and layout of some MRT stations do not provide good accessibility for both pedestrians and motorists. Take Newton Station, for example. A commuter walking from Newton Station, which is on the Scotts Road side, to the other side to Newton Road, which is on the other side of the Newton Circus, will find it very difficult and hazardous. Sir, MRT stations were also designed without taking into consideration the tropical weather in Singapore where showers can come at any time of the day. Commuters are therefore stranded when it rains. Bus services are also not satisfactory in that travel times are long, waiting times are uncertain, and that during peak hours, buses are just too crowded. To address these problems, we need to build more and better MRT lines as well as LRT lines. We need also to build a more comprehensive road network. But it would take some time before an extensive rail and road network is established. In the meantime, we need to quickly improve our bus services. But this cannot be done effectively if road traffic is congested, which we have already experienced on the expressways, major ring roads and around the bigger HDB estates. It is therefore necessary to introduce road pricing in the immediate future to restrain the usage of cars, improve traffic flow and hence bus services. Of course, motorists will be unhappy. But without usage restraint, traffic will get worse unless we reduce COE quota. In which case, COE prices will sky-rocket, which I do not think is desirable. Sir, the White Paper, though comprehensive, has missed out an important point in its proposal to improve public transport, and that is the benchmarking of travel and waiting times against world standards. I do not know whether the LTA is not bold enough to set such standards for itself to achieve or it has overlooked the importance of such benchmarkings. Benchmarking will allow us to constantly measure our performance against the set targets. It will force the authority and the operators to strive towards the benchmarks. Adherence to these standards will be the best quality of service a public transport operator can deliver to its customers. May I therefore ask the Minister whether LTA will benchmark travel and waiting times for both rail and bus services. Sir, it is not uncommon to find that at certain traffic light junctions and at certain times of the day, the traffic in one direction, say, east-west direction, is much heavier than traffic in the north-south direction. It is very frustrating for motorists to experience such congestion. What the LTA must do is to install devices at traffic lights which can be preset remotely from a control centre to facilitate traffic on the more congested road. The White Paper has mentioned about harnessing technology to maximise network capacity and made some proposals, but it did not include what I have just proposed. Will the Minister look into it? On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Can I clarify the point made by Dr Chen? This is a debate on a very important document, the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" in Singapore. I hope it is not misunderstood that Dr Chen is using part of this debate to show the differences in the SDP. I have got no privy to the thinking of the SDP on the transport system in Singapore, but I believe the Secretary-General of the SDP has written something on it. The Leader of the House has lifted Standing Order No. 1 so that we can go beyond 4.30 pm. So it is still not too late for the SDP to give its views on the transport system in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the White Paper which contains a bold, farsighted, comprehensive and pragmatic proposal of a world class land transport system in Singapore. The report on land transport is the most detailed and in-depth study ever undertaken in Singapore since its independence. With one bold stroke, their recommendations, when implemented, will no doubt give Singapore one of the most modern and efficient land transport systems in the world. Sir, I am happy to note that the off-shore islands of Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong in my constituency will also be included in this system. Given the Government's proven track records in its single-mindedness in successfully making our Changi Airport, seaport and the public housing programme the best in the world, I have every confidence that given time our land transport system will be another feather in its cap. What we need to do now is to convince the people of Singapore of the necessity of implementing the total transport package as elaborated in the White Paper to solve our future land transport problems today.

4.07 pm In order to have the people behind us, we must convince them that only a long term and comprehensive approach as bold as that proposed in the White Paper will prevent our roads becoming as chaotic and impassable in future as those found in many major cities in the world today. Of course, there will be inconvenience, even sacrifice to make. But to be timid, to resort to piecemeal solutions, is to postpone the problem; to shift our responsibility to the next generation, making the problem more difficult to solve, if at all soluble. Sir, I am also gratified to learn of the new financing formula offered by the Government to co-pay the replacement costs of operating assets for the Mass Rapid Transit. This generous gesture on the part of the Government will not only expedite the construction of MRT extension, for example, the North-East line, but also hopefully serve to maintain MRT fares at an affordable level for the average commuter. Sir, I also hope that the MRT extension to Changi Airport could even materialise sooner. Sir, I am also supportive of the long term aim of getting 75% of Singaporeans to ultimately travel by public transport, be it the MRT, bus or taxi. In land-scarce Singapore, there is really no other way. Again, we have to find ways to sell this concept to all Singaporeans. However, up to now there have been limited efforts on the part of taxi operators, for example, to address commuter grouses of frustrating attempts to get a taxi on the road or by phone, and long waiting time especially during peak hours or during festive seasons. Complaints on taxi shortage are still common as often we can see long queues of commuters lining up at taxi stands as well as outside shopping centres. There is apparently a lack of initiative on the part of public transport providers at this juncture to also improve their services in terms of courtesy and professionalism. Therefore, there is a need for the Government to set some basic service standards to spur the transport operators to be more responsive and accountable. One area for consideration of incentives is to grant certain forms of concession in road tax or diesel tax in future for taxi operators who can be inspired to project a good image of their professionalism in their delivery of friendly, helpful and courteous service both to local and foreign commuters. Sir, another area of contention between the commuters and public transport operators is the question of increases in fares. More often than not the increase in fares is based on profitability alone. People do not understand why fares have to be increased just because the operators are not making enough profits. The perception of what is enough is in itself a contentious issue and often causes dissatisfaction among the people. The general public cannot be blamed for being unhappy if fares are increased solely because the transport providers are not making enough profit, the service they provide must also be raised accordingly. If this is the case, more people will be willing to pay a little higher fare for better service, and fewer commuters will be upset and fewer commuters will blame the Government for being responsible for the rise in their travelling expenses. On the other hand, the proposal to develop the space around the MRT stations and the introduction of light rail transit is to be welcome. This proposal not only optimises the use of precious land but also makes travelling, working and shopping that much more convenient for the people who make use of the public transport. However, the perennial problem remains that of the peak hour demand when Singaporeans all rush to work or come back from work all at the same time. Although this is being addressed to a certain extent in the existing framework of the Area Licensing Scheme, Road Pricing Scheme, Weekend cars and Park and Ride Scheme, more innovative solutions are needed to address this problem. A concerted effort should be made to study the feasibility and implementation of staggered working hours. In the long term, the Government should study this measure in-depth and perhaps use financial incentives to influence companies. The MRT should put in more trains at shorter intervals to meet the morning and evening peak hour demand. Alternatively, it should look into the possibility of increasing the present six coaches in each train to seven or even eight coaches. I endorse the concept to make the public transport system as detailed in the White Paper the main mode of commuting by the people in Singapore. Realising the vision of a world class land transport system is of course no mean feat. It needs the understanding, cooperation and commitment of all parties concerned - the Government, the transport operators and all Singaporeans. Indeed, with the commitment of all parties, we can certainly look forward to better, faster, convenient, affordable and more comfortable commuting.

Sir, we intend to have a world class land transport system, and I do not see why not. After all, we already have a world class airport, a world class seaport and our workforce has long been regarded by BERI as the world's best. But a world class transport system comes with a price. How much more do we have to pay to travel in such a system? This is a question that is of crucial importance to me as a commuter and more so as a trade unionist responsible for workers' interest. Of course, the Land Transport Authority will have to do its sums before coming up with actual fees. In doing so, I am sure it will bear in mind that although we are as good as a developed nation, there are many workers who still earn third-world wages. In principle, I support the concept of partnership. Government provides the infrastructure, commuters pay for operating cost and operators operate efficiently under the scrutiny of the Public Transport Council. Government is to be congratulated for its farsighted vision on land transport. The MRT is our pride and joy and that was made possible because of Government's decision in 1980 to pay for the infrastructure. Now the White Paper on a world class land transport system has proposed that Government foots part of the cost for the replacement of trains when it is necessary to make such changes. I applaud Government's move, but I cannot say I am happy with the reaction of bus companies. The Singapore Bus Service sought to ride on Government's generosity. It too feels that Government should bear part of the cost of replacement of buses. Why, may I ask? Surely, SBS has made provision for bus replacements. Now let me turn to the White Paper's reference to a social contract among Government, the operators and commuters. I say that such a social contract can only work if there is mutual trust. There can be no trust if we the commuters feel that the operators are only interested in higher profits. I am not against bus companies or any organisation for making profits. Without profits, we trade unionists cannot secure better terms and conditions for our members employed in such organisations. Here, let me read what the Straits Times reported on 2nd January 1996. It quoted SBS as saying, "to keep bus fares affordable amidst an environment of rising manpower, fuel and capital cost, it would go a long way if Government can similarly explore some form of co-financing scheme for bus renewals as well". The question is: what if the Government says no? Does it mean that SBS will not carry out bus replacements? Or does it mean that bus fares will be raised to the extent that they become unaffordable? Neither proposition makes sense to me. Maybe it is unfair to SBS to just take one sentence from its statement and draw conclusions. Perhaps SBS has all along been seeking Government's subsidy for bus replacements. Whatever the situation is, I hope the Minister for Communications could clear the air. The White Paper states that fares have to be realistic and revised periodically to take into account cost increases. Hopefully, in fixing the fares, LTA will bear in mind lower income workers who need to use public transport. The White Paper states that while the public is willing to pay for the service, public transport must always be affordable to all Singaporeans. Another important point made by the White Paper is that future increases need not be effected across the board. To this, may I add that future increases need not be rounded up to the nearest five cents or the nearest 10 cents. Now that many of us use TransitLink card, there should be no qualms about fixing rates at, say, 67 cents, instead of rounding it up to 70 cents. On the question of efficiency and healthy competition, Sir, for some instances, one has to change buses three times to reach one's destination. Surely this is not efficient. To have a world class land transport system, this must be addressed. Perhaps with healthy competition, this problem can be resolved. What we have now is the SBS route and the TIBS route, hardly competition at all, more like monopoly. These two companies should be allowed to compete freely on each other's routes. There should not be territorial rights. Better still, allow a third or fourth company to compete and operate. Sir, the problems of the handicapped should also be addressed. I ask the Minister what provisions are made for these unfortunate citizens of Singapore. How do we help the wheelchair-bound citizens of Singapore, as an example? There is also the question of operating hours. Could additional hours be extended so that late shift workers can save on taxi fares? And how about our polytechnic students who have to pay adult farecards when prices go up, and they will go up? Can we look at discounted rates for these students? The White Paper states that in public transport, there is a triangular relationship between fares, service standards and viability of the operators. But it clearly states that we will not run our transport system on a cost-plus basis. The Government will not leave it entirely to market forces to determine the fare structure. So long as we are guided by these principles, we should not be unduly troubled by higher fares. I therefore support, in principle, the White Paper on A World Class Land Transport System.

( In Mandarin): I would like to thank Mr Deputy Speaker for giving me this opportunity to speak. Before I speak on the motion, I would like to make some clarifications concerning Dr John Chen's criticism on the Singapore Democratic Party and its Members of Parliament. First, the Chairman of SDP, Mr Ling How Doong, is not trying to run away from this debate, that is, this debate on the White Paper. He has gone to the Philippines to attend an important conference. Secondly, on 15th January, my secretary informed Dr Lee Boon Yang's secretary of my intention to speak. I do not know why my name is not in the list of speakers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like the Member, Mr Cheo Chai Chen, to explain to this House how did he inform my office. According to my record here, on 9th January, 0901 hours, we faxed a note to him to advise him to let us know if he wished to speak in this debate, and my office has no record of his reply to my fax to him.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my secretary used the telephone. We did not give a written notice. I think the Minister can go back and check.

I have asked my Personal Assistant to also check her records of all incoming telephone calls. There was no record of a call from Mr Cheo to say that he wished to participate in this debate.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have indeed asked my secretary to inform Minister Lee. But that is not important. Now I have got the chance to speak. The third point is that Dr Chen said just now that the SDP did not take the problem of our transport system seriously. That is not a correct statement. Otherwise, I would not be sitting here all the time. Dr John Chen Seow Phun rose -

( In Mandarin): Can he just wait for a while? Now I would like to tell Dr Chen that the Singapore Democratic Party has already published a report on transport system, and that is the transport policy of the SDP. If Dr Chen is interested, I can send him a complimentary copy.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Cheo one question. He said that his Chairman was unable to take part in this debate because he had gone to attend an important conference in the Phillipines. I would like to ask him: which is more important? Is the debate here in Parliament more important, or attending a conference in the Philippines more important?

( In Mandarin): Sir, in my view, both are important. That is why our Chairman has gone there and I am here!

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think Dr Chen's question is out of order. He is not seeking clarification.

I am seeking a clarification.

He is not seeking a clarification. He is creating another debate within a debate.

Mr Cheo, do you want to reply?

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think you should stop him from speaking, because what he is saying is irrelevant. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, now I am going into the debate proper. The land transport system policy and planning of a country varies according to its circumstances, its industrial and commercial development and its needs. The transport system and measures of a country must be realistic and planned within the limits of its resources and manpower available. If you want to make a name for yourself and puff yourself up to your own cost just to claim a "world class" land transport system, then it will bring about a heavy burden on the country and its people. I would urge the Government to be careful about it. On the White Paper, a number of Members of this House have already made some very constructive suggestions. Here, I would like to make two suggestions. The first suggestion is that the Government raise the speed limit of light goods vehicles, such as pick-ups and vans, from the present 50 km per hour to 70 km per hour when they travel along the expressways and highways. I feel that the present road system and the design and engine of these vehicles are much improved than before, and they are in a position to travel safely at higher speed. They will not pose any danger to the other road users. As a matter of fact, sometimes by travelling too slowly, a vehicle may even cause accidents to happen. I feel that if the speed limit of light goods vehicles is increased, it may not only help to make the traffic flowing more freely but also increase the productivity and efficiency of industrial and commercial services. Because if vehicles are restricted by lower speed limits, it will cause snarls in traffic flow or even cause traffic jams. This is particularly obvious in peak hours. My second suggestion is that the Government Ministries concerned should also increase the speed limit along Holland Road and along Yishun Avenue 2, as monitored by the speed detection cameras installed there, from the present 50 km per hour to 70 km per hour, for the same reason. This White Paper only deals with the concept of policy and provides some guiding principles and preliminary plans, without giving concrete details. As such, it is very difficult for me to make further comments. We should, from time to time, review the contents of this White Paper and make necessary adjustments or changes to its proposals, where necessary. The White Paper tabled by the Government in this House is only the first step towards the goal of attaining a world class land transport system.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I support the motion and commend the Land Transport Authority for a world class land transport system and, I believe, at affordable prices. I think no one, Sir, can deny that it is a comprehensive report, and no one can deny that it is integrated in its approach, and no one can deny that it is creative and innovative in solving our land transport problems. The report endeavours to give us more mileage and more rail lines, set in a seamless web of feeder services. Details and preferences will vary, but we must focus on the big picture, and that is, the Government is working ceaselessly to give us a world class land transport system for the convenience of all Singaporeans. We must also not forget to appreciate and thank the Government for the new financing framework which takes care of part of the financing for the operating assets of MRT. This is indeed, Sir, a big step forward and must be applauded by all. The point I am trying to make here is against this outstanding report and very positive proposals by the Government, what do we have from the Opposition? We have complaints. We have all sorts of negative reactions. And we have just heard Mr Cheo. He has not said whether he supports this particular report or he objects to it. What is his stand? He has not clearly stated his stand. He merely said that he would photocopy one set of the Land Transport Report of the SDP and send it to Dr Chen. But that would be after the debate is over. What is the use of a report after the debate is over? Last year, when the SDP put up its report and made a hue and cry of it, and reported in the Straits Times and Business Times of 27th January 1995, it said that it had all the solutions and wanted a debate. Here in Parliament is where we should be debating national issues. And where is Mr Ling? He is far away in the Philippines. Is a foreign conference more important than a matter that touches the hearts and minds of every Singaporean, ie, land transport, something which we talk about even in the coffeeshops? If they do not go to the coffeeshops, then they would not know that it is the talk of the town. We must put our national interest first by coming here, and not all the way to the Philippines and running away from a debate. Mr Cheo said that Mr Ling is away. But does he know that some PAP MPs were also away. Mr Heng Chiang Meng and Mr Goh Choon Kang were away for another important meeting, a da hui ( ) also. We can say that this hui is bigger, geng jia da de da hui ( ). But they made it a point to come back in time. They flew back in time to participate in this important debate because they know that this matter touches the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans. So we want to ask the SDP, "What is your stand? What are your alternatives?" There is no point that, after this event, the SDP will again write to the newspapers and say, "Let's have another debate." It is always running away from a debate. And yet on another occasion, they will ask for a debate. This is the time when we come to the truth. Does the SDP have any good solution to the problems of land transport? I would say none. The SDP suggested that, in its earlier report last year, it had carried out a study and recommended that there be separate classes of COE bidding to cater for people living and working in different parts of the island. This is indeed woefully inadequate. How can you have a COE system depending on where you stay? If you stay in Bukit Gombak, does it mean that you have a cheaper COE? An hon. Member: No COE.

Or no COE. Or if you stay in Orchard Road, you pay higher COE? Or if you stay in Marine Parade, will you pay higher COE? Does it mean that if you stay in the Prime Minister's constituency, you pay the cheapest COE? This system will not work. And Mr Cheo, for all that he is trying to enlighten us, only said that the speed for pick-up should be increased from 50 kph to 70 kph. Is this the solution to our transport problem? Then it will be very simple. He said that by keeping the speed at 50 kph, it is causing a lot of traffic jams and it may even lead to accidents. May I ask: are there any concrete examples of accidents being caused by pick-ups travelling at 50 kph? If not, he should not mislead this House. And traffic jams are not caused by keeping the speed at 50 kph. There are other factors. Mr Cheo Chai Chen rose ---

Dr Ong, do you want to give way to Mr Cheo?

Yes.

( In Mandarin): I would like to clarify. I did not say that by travelling at 50 kph it will definitely cause an accident. I am saying that accidents may also happen if a vehicle travels too slowly. Because of the slow vehicles in front, some drivers travelling behind may want to overtake, and when they suddenly shoot out, they may cause an accident. That is the basis of my argument. I am not saying that travelling at 50 kph will definitely cause accidents. What I meant was that some impatient drivers behind may suddenly shoot out in an attempt to overtake and cause accidents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, even if a vehicle remains stationary, it can also cause an accident. The point I am trying to make is that we expect the SDP to give us an alternative or solution if it disagrees with this Report. That is all I ask.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the suggestion I made just now is a point which may have been overlooked in the White Paper. Many other suggestions were made by Members of Parliament here. Our SDP's report on the land transport system has also mentioned some points. So we are debating on a world class public transport system and not the SDP's report on transport ---

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he has not stated whether he supports this particular White Paper. And honestly, this is the time to debate the issue. He is trying to run away by saying that it is not about the SDP's alternative proposal. Is he trying to say that he is ashamed of the SDP's alternative proposal? Or is he trying to hide the proposal because there is nothing to show?

You have another clarification, Mr Cheo?

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in fact some of the SDP's transport policies coincide with those of the Government. Some are different, but some are the same. For example, in this White Paper, the Government is beginning to implement not only car population control but also usage control. That is also one of the SDP's policies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may ask Mr Cheo whether he will vote `Aye' or `Nay' on this motion. Will he support this White Paper since he said that the SDP agrees to some of the proposals?

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have already made my stand very clear. This White Paper does not give very comprehensive and concrete details on the Government's plan. It is very difficult for us to make a judgment on it. If some of the Government's transport policies coincide with those of the SDP's, of course, we will support them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Report is very comprehensive. It is very detailed and clear. But if the SDP member is not clear, then I think he is hiding away from the issue and is avoiding the issue altogether. He is not giving us the truth or stating clearly the stand of the SDP.

Mr Cheo, you want to clarify again?

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because this is quite a complicated and complex plan and vision, it is very difficult for us to debate on it in just a short time.

All issues are complex. But we are perplexed that he cannot come to a conclusion. May I ask whether the Member has actually read the White Paper or not?

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have read the White Paper. I have also read the report in the Chinese newspapers on this ---

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if he had read it, then he should know where his stand should be. And in the absence of the other SDP Member, he should represent the SDP. I am sure he is not going to say that he has a superior paper in SDP. We will call for a division and he should state his stand clearly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on item 1 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 45(8)(a) so as to remove the time limit to enable the Minister for Communications to give a full and comprehensive reply to all the points raised by the Members.

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of all Members present to so move? Hon. Members indicated assent. With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker, and the general assent of Members present,

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on item 1 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 45(8)(a). - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed. 4.42 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank all Members who have participated actively in this debate. They have given us very valuable feedback, many, many suggestions, a lot of food for thought. As Mr Goh Choon Kang said earlier, this is a very important part of the process of building consensus on the Government's transport policy and our commitment to building for Singaporeans a truly superior and world class transport system. Many of the proposals in the White Paper have been accepted. Some Members have expressed doubts and sought clarifications about other proposals and expressed their concerns about still other proposals. I welcome this opportunity to clarify the misunderstanding and also allay some of the Members' concerns. But before I proceed any further, I, too, would like to express my surprise at the SDP's very conspicuous silence. The SDP did make a very big song and dance, some time ago, when it presented the SDP's Land Transport Report 1995. I read it and I decided that it was not worth replying at that time. However, I thought that this would be a wonderful opportunity for the SDP to come out with not only its own proposals but, having seen the plans put up by the Land Transport Authority, to have a full-scale debate with us as to what is the best solution for Singapore in the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for us to hear from the SDP what are the details that are hidden behind its report. Mr Cheo has criticised or commented that the Land Transport Authority's White Paper is not detailed enough and, therefore, he is not able to comment. If that is the case, then I would like Members of this House to read the SDP's Land Transport Report and to decide for themselves whether their own report contains more details as to convince all Singaporeans that they have a superior system. Instead of which, one Member is conspicuous by his absence and another Member was, until just towards the end of the debate, conspicuous by his silence. The third Member of the SDP, I am presuming, is not speaking on behalf of the SDP. May I ask the Member whether I am correct in assuming so?

I should tell this House that I have got no instructions from the centre of the Party. I have got no communication whatsoever in regard to this debate. And I was not even told that the Chairman was going to be away until I read in the papers that he was in Subic Bay. As I was commenting to some Members in the Members' Room, Subic Bay is no longer the Subic Bay. I understand it is now a big city, or some kind of a city. So I do not know what attractions are there. But in any event, if I were told that the Chairman was going to Subic Bay, I would certainly say that it is not a good time to go because his first priority must be in this House. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

I think it is pure common sense that priority must be given to a debate of this magnitude which involves a very important subject in Singapore. The Minister has asked me whether I was speaking for myself or for the SDP. I wish to say that these are my own views.

I would like to thank Mr Chiam for his clarification. If he had said that he was going to speak on behalf of the SDP, then I would have asked him a next question which is: why is this document silent on a point which concerns almost every other Singaporean, ie, the question of the North-east line?

Can I get it clarified?

The fact that there is no mention of the North-East line and the fact that Mr Chiam obviously has got a very important interest in this and has raised it, I guess, supports what he said earlier that he does not know anything about what is going on in the SDP.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I clarify? I have not even read one page of the report.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Minister for Communications may not have noted that during the debate in this House, normally Members express their personal views. Sometimes, they may take the stand of their party. I would like to tell this House that the SDP is not the government. So it is not possible for the SDP to give a comprehensive plan because we do not know how much financial resources the Government has. It is only when we become the government then we will be able to put up our plan according to the financial resources available. It is not possible for us to present a more detailed plan or White Paper as it is being done by the PAP Government. What I meant just now was that the White Paper did not spell out the details of implementation. For example, if you want to collect money, how much do you want to collect? You want to have tax deductions, how much? You have not told the people.

Mr Cheo has a very convenient excuse. The SDP is not the government and therefore it is not expected to produce a reasonable report. This is an excuse. But have we not heard that the SDP aspires to be the alternative government of Singapore? And this is the reason why it has stated, when it produced its land transport report, that this is the alternative vision for Singaporeans. If I may read the first sentence of the preface of this report: `In our effort to provide Singaporeans with an alternative government, the SDP feels that it is important to be constructive in its criticisms ...' So how can Mr Cheo now claim that because the SDP is not the government that it is not in a position to, first of all, put up a decent report and, secondly, to comment on what has been put up by the Land Transport Authority?

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have said, the SDP has already published a report on transport policies. So our policies and views are already spelt out there. But the various schemes and plans require a lot of consideration concerning so many factors. So this kind of work can only be undertaken by the Government. It is more appropriate.

I think I can summarise what Mr Cheo has said, ie, that the subject matter is too complex for the SDP to comprehend. Therefore, rather than debating this issue in Parliament, it is much better to go to Subic Bay in the Philippines and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Liberal Party of the Philippines. I think it is a much safer place for the Chairman of the SDP to be in, rather than coming here and exposing what they obviously do not have, an alternative plan for Singapore. But I think it is important for the Chairman of the party, the elected representative of his constituency, to explain to his constituents why they did not take this opportunity to explain what are the alternative plans for Singapore. I think SDP owes the people who voted for them to represent them in Parliament an explanation. Earlier, I asked Mr Chiam whether he spoke on behalf of the SDP and he said that he did not. If that is the case, then I will have to ask him in his personal capacity what he meant when he said that the White Paper is an election ploy, an election gimmick? What is an election gimmick? Based on my understanding of the word "gimmick", it is a trick. It is a publicity stunt. In other words, when the PAP Government and the Land Transport Authority put up our plan we have no intention whatsoever of carrying it out, but it is a means of hoodwinking the people. Can Mr Chiam let this House know which part of the report he considers to be an election ploy? Which chapter, which paragraph, which page is an election ploy, which this Government has no intention whatsoever of carrying out, but is just publicising and publishing this report as a gimmick for the election? Can I ask Mr Chiam this question?

Sir, perhaps I should also take this opportunity to explain what I said in regard to my party. I am not in any way siding the Government when I speak out in respect of certain members of my party. In fact, what I am trying to do is to get the party in order and to improve itself.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to have an answer to my question. I think that is probably more relevant.

After having prefaced that and made myself understood, if I have been misunderstood, then I would withdraw the word "gimmick". But certainly having gone through three successful elections, I do not think that the Minister can deny that this White Paper, published at this opportune time, will be definitely used in the elections. In that sense, it is not a pure effort in trying to tell the people about the Government's plan. But it has some bearing on the elections. So you cannot deny that it is in fact going to be used to the advantage of the PAP. In that sense, I am saying that it is an election ploy. We have seen it before. I have given my reasons for it. This kind of strategy has been used before. Basically, that is what I am trying to say. I am not saying that the PAP is not going to carry out the plans and programmes that are mentioned in the White Paper. But certainly there will be a lot of amendments and reconsiderations and the Government is not going to carry out in detail what is set out in the White Paper. There will certainly be certain amendments.

What exactly does Mr Chiam mean by that, Sir?

The Minister has been changing. There will be amendments. I am certain of that. Even if we take the North-East line, at first the Government was supposed ---

Order. I think we are straying. Mr Chiam, will you please resume your seat? Mr Mah, please ask your question again.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, ---

I only recognise Mr Mah and Mr Chiam. The others should resume their seats.

Sir, I would like to seek clarification from Mr Mah regarding the election issue which he has mentioned.

Mr Low, will you resume your seat first. Mr Mah, please ask your question.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like a categorical answer from Mr Chiam as to which part of this White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" he considers to be an election ploy or a gimmick. He was quoted in the Straits Times as saying so. He repeated his statement in Parliament in the debate yesterday. I am now asking him which part of the White Paper he considers to be an election ploy, because, as far as my understanding of the word is concerned, it carries a very negative connotation, in the sense that we are not serious about what we are going to do and we are trying to hoodwink the people. As soon as the election is over, we are going to change all our plans, as Mr Chiam has alluded to just now. So I am going to ask Mr Chiam, Sir, which part of this White Paper he thinks we are going to change after the elections. I am also going to ask him further if he can show this House the relevant plan, strategy or measure that he considers to be a "gimmick". Then I will ask the LTA to expunge that particular measure from the White Paper and not implement it.

Much obliged, Sir. As I said, I have clarified myself. I did not mean that the whole thing was a fraud or something untrue. What I mean is that the White Paper comes out at an opportune time in view of the coming elections. And that is basically what the PAP in fact has done before, and I think they are just repeating this kind of election strategy. But I am not saying that the whole thing is not true. I am not saying that at all. Basically, of course, the Government will carry out its transportation plan. But the fact is that the title "World Class Transport System" is used. They could have used many other titles. They could have used "Singapore's comprehensive transport policy". The title used is to catch the eye. What is the purpose of having such a title? Can the Minister explain to me what is a "world class transport system"? Would he say that Zurich's transport system is a world class transport system or is it the system of some European or American country? Do we have to be at par with them and then we are considered world class? What does it mean by world class transport system? At what stage? I can say that we already have a world class transport system, as far as motorists are concerned in Singapore. If you ask motorists, people who can really afford a car, I think they will have no complaints. It is those people who do not own a car and people who have a car but barely can afford it, these are the people who complain. Basically, who are the complainants in Singapore? It is probably the 80% Singaporeans who do not own a car, and also those people who own a car but cannot really afford it.

Sir, can I take it that Mr Chiam actually agrees with the White Paper on land transport? The only thing that he does not agree with is that it is the title which is too eye-catching. Can I confirm that? So if we rename it "Land Transport System for Singapore", he will vote for and support the motion.

This question on whether or not the White Paper is going to be used as an election strategy has been admitted by many. I think it will be. This is my point. I am not saying anything else. What I am saying is that it is a PAP election strategy. Basically, that is what I am trying to tell the people.

Sir, as the Chairman of the GPC for Communications, the LTA has briefed us and spent quite a lot of hours telling us about this White Paper. I sincerely believe that the LTA would go through with it if this House accepts the White Paper. I am shocked in a sense that one of my parliamentary colleagues has said that this is an election ploy. A "ploy" means that you put up something and have no intention of doing it. If that is the case, I must say that I have been terribly hoodwinked. So I would really like to find out from him, just as the Minister would like to, whether he really believes that this Government, if after the next election still remains the Government, would not carry this policy out. Let us give him all the latitude possible. I would not say when. I think this is of great importance to the House and, in particular, to the people of Singapore.

Sir, I take it from our exchanges just now that Mr Chiam is going to vote in favour of the motion. If he does not, then I would think that what he has told the House just now is an election ploy. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Mah, do you want to give way? Mr Mah Bow Tan resumed his seat.

Sir, I think the word "gimmick" may be a bit strong and I would withdraw it. As for the word "ploy", if you could bring up a proper dictionary, I do not think there is anything sinister about its meaning. We can even now have a look at it.

Sir, I would also like to make the point that when Mr Chiam said those words I felt upset not only for the Government but also for the fact that a lot of people, professionals in the Land Transport Authority, have done a lot of work over the last few months. The White Paper was drafted in response to the challenge that I posed to the LTA when I launched the Land Transport Authority last September. To me, his remarks demeaned the efforts that they put in and devalued the professionalism of this statutory board. This is the reason why I felt that it is very important for me to get Mr Chiam to retract his statement that the White Paper is actually an election ploy or an election gimmick. I am glad to note that he has actually done so.

After hearing what the Minister has said, I must make it clear that I did not mean to insult or belittle the efforts of the professionals who have put up this White Paper. I think I should congratulate them. They have done a very good job. But Mr Mah is a politician and I am a politician. I think I am justified in saying that this White Paper, coming out at this time, is an election ploy. I am not saying anything against the people who put up this paper or, as I say, to belittle them. I think they have done a very good job. But it is the tactic of the PAP. We have seen all this before. So I do not think I am really trying to have some bad motives. Not at all.

I would take Mr Chiam's remarks as withdrawing what he has said earlier and that he appreciates the work that has been put in by the professionals. I think the Land Transport Authority will be pleased to hear that. But I would say that it is one thing for Mr Chiam to play opposition politics and to criticise every Government initiative as a ploy. But it is quite another to say things which are clearly not valid and after a while people may not take him seriously except for hard core opposition supporters. Sir, let me now respond to the Members' queries. Many Members have fed back to us the concerns of their constituents through this House. One of the major concerns that I detect is that commuters fear that they may have to pay unaffordable prices if the plans that are proposed in the White Paper are implemented. Sir, this is an understandable concern and I would like to take this opportunity to allay those concerns. First of all, let me remind Members of this House that today's motion is to develop an outstanding and affordable transport system for Singapore. I think the word "affordable" has been put into the motion quite deliberately and this is the whole substance of the debate that we are having today as to whether Singapore and Singaporeans working with the Government and in partnership with the Government can develop not only an outstanding but also an affordable transport system. Sir, a world class land transport system would not come cheap. I think all Members appreciate that. It will involve a lot of investments in billions of dollars in infrastructure. But the White Paper has also stressed that it must be affordable. It must be affordable not just from the point of view of the commuters but also from the point of view of the nation and the taxpayers. As far as price is concerned, so far the indications are that people are generally satisfied that public transport prices are considered reasonable or cheap. This is not something that I pluck out from the air, but as a result of several surveys that have been done, not just by the authorities but also by some members of the media. There was a recent survey by the Straits Times that revealed that our basic transport services are considered cheap and reasonable by the majority of commuters. As far as bus fares are concerned, 87% of respondents to this survey felt that they are cheap or reasonable. As far as MRT fares are concerned, 83% felt this way. I must confess that I am not exactly surprised by the results because over the last 15 years the average rate of increase in the cost of public transport travel per kilometre was actually lower than the CPI. For buses, the increase per annum was about 2.9%, for MRT it was about 1.9%. Over the same period, the average wage increase was 8.2% per annum. So it is really not surprising because of the productivity improvement and efficiency improvement that have been squeezed out by the operators that the PTC has been able to keep their fare increases below CPI. But we do recognise, and we have to recognise, that this question of affordability means different things to different people. I think Mr Imram actually pointed that out in his speech. Some may be willing to pay a little bit more for better service, others, either they cannot afford to pay for the better service or they are not willing to do so, will settle for the basic service. So it is not just in transport but any other service or good that people want to buy or partake of, whether it is chicken rice at $2 at a hawker stall, $3.50 at air-conditioned food courts, and $14-plus-plus if you go to Mandarin Hotel. The point really is that we should make sure that there will always be hawker stalls selling food or chicken rice at that basic price, no frills but food that is enjoyable, palatable and nutritious. But we must also recognise that there are always people who want and who are prepared to pay for something better, whether it is better food, better quality of service, better ambience, or whatever. A higher level of service costs more to provide and therefore it is only fair that those who enjoy the better service pay for it. If customers feel that they are not getting good value for money, very soon that service provider, whether he is a chicken rice seller or a taxi operator or a bus operator, will get to hear about it. So what the White Paper recommends is to widen the spectrum of services that are available to give commuters more choice apart from the basic bus service and the basic taxi service. So air-conditioned buses, Bus-Plus and Taxi-Plus services should also be made available in the same way that hawker centres, air-conditioned food courts and restaurants are available for customers who want different service levels to suit their own pockets. But I think we must also recognise that, over time with rising expectations, even basic services will have to be improved. Even though some Members have called for basic non-air-conditioned bus services to be retained, I can see a situation in the not-too-distant future where the demand would be for all buses to be air-conditioned, in the same way that many years ago some taxis were non-air-conditioned, but today you will not find a non-air-conditioned taxi on the road. I turn now to another point that has been made by Mr Low Thia Khiang. Mr Low, in trying to suggest a solution to reduce the cost of public transport fares, has put up this proposal on a non-profit making national transport enterprise. I presume that is the correct idea. Can I ask Mr Low whether by this he means that this enterprise will amalgamate the functions of TIBS, SBS and SMRT and since these are public companies, is he also suggesting that the Government nationalises them? If he is, I hope he is not serious because this is a very major step backwards in the opinion of the Government. First of all, we have gone past that stage. We did an exercise many years ago to bring all the different bus companies together, as Mr Low may recall, at a time when 11 bus companies provided a level of service which many people felt was not up to standard. There was free-for-all competition, as Mr Low may well remember. In Hougang there were about three or four services running and buses were poorly maintained and crowded. They broke down and, worse of all, they were not making money at the same time. The Government took the initiative, made many painful adjustments and at the end of which they came up with a single bus company that reduced duplication and wastefulness and revamped the whole transport system. I think this is what Mr Low is alluding to, that we should go back to that system. But what happened after that? Why did we change? Why did we introduce another bus company? For the reason that one single company, without any other means of checking on its performance, would inevitably deteriorate and decline into inefficiency. Not only that, the public was not convinced that a monopoly for buses, no matter how efficient, was actually doing a good job. As a not-for-profit organisation perhaps and as a sole service provider, what incentive is there for the enterprise to reduce operating cost? Why can it not just pass on the operating cost? Why should it, even without making a profit, take the trouble to go and squeeze out all these inefficiencies and rationalise buses? Why not just accept every single proposal that comes along? After all, if the company loses money, or does not make money, it could just raise the fares and pass on the cost to the commuters. Where is that profit motive? Where is that incentive for the operator to operate a viable, profitable company for its shareholders? This is one sure way for inefficiency. This is one sure way of higher operating cost, and eventually higher than necessary fares. And if Mr Low thinks that I am saying this just to rebut him, let me reassure him that this is not the case. We have been through that. Many other cities have done the same. Many cities in the West have nationalised monopoly bus operators. You talk to the operators, you talk to the management of those companies, and you have a totally different approach to the running of a bus company. So you ask them: how do you plan routes? They say, "Oh, very simple. Whatever the people ask, whatever the city mayor asks, we just provide. After all, you just pass on the cost to the commuters." And if there is a shortfall - this is the difference for them - they will go to the city mayor, or they will go to the local government, to cover the balance. What is the big deal? Why go through the hassle of going for an efficient system? I think this is a big lesson that we have learned, and this is the reason why we have decided not to go that way.

Sir, would you allow me to clarify?

Yes.

Thank you. First of all, I believe that with the development of a rail system and different modes of public transport, it might come a day when you find that there is conflict of interest, for instance, between bus companies and SMRT, in terms of route provision. Secondly, I think, whether we like it or not, even if we have two bus companies now, there is quite a degree of monopoly. So there is no real competition in this sense. Thirdly, I am not convinced that having just one operator, and supervised by the Government, would be less efficient than the competition that you have now. I think it is less competition. It is not full competition at all. And given the size of a compact city that Singapore is, will it be better if we integrate all the public transport services into one enterprise and run it in such a way that it is as efficient as CAAS or PSA, for instance, which is not privatised yet? Does it necessarily mean that once you operate a system under the supervision of the Government, as the case may be, it is going to be less efficient? I am not convinced of that. The situation, as it is now, is not conducive to forge, as stated in the White Paper, a social contract of cost-sharing or financing of the public transport system. Because, on the one hand, the commuter has to pay for increases in operating cost, eg, manpower cost increases, and on the other hand, he is also paying for the profit of, for instance, the bus company. And if SMRT is privatised, there are shareholders. They have to look after the interest of their shareholders. I understand, but I stand corrected, SBS has promised its shareholders a certain percentage of 7.5% or something like that. I do not know whether it is correct. If that is the case, then why should commuters pay, on the one hand, for operating cost increases, and at the same time, the profit. They will not be convinced. So if an enterprise is run and supervised by the Government, or LTA, and it is non-profit making, I think it will be more convincing.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think I can ever convince Mr Low if he is not willing to be convinced. All I can tell him is that, based on the experience that we have had in several other countries, and based on our own experience, an institution or an enterprise which does not have a responsibility or an incentive to do well will eventually just deteriorate. And I think the fact that even SBS as a private company with the need to pay profits has been able to keep fares below CPI over the last 15 years is, I submit, a credit to them. Sir, some other Members of the House have asked what exactly does the White Paper mean by a world class transport system. Unlike ports and airports, there are no international rankings as such of transport systems, to the best of my knowledge. There is also no one particular system in the world that we are aware of that has the attributes that we are seeking to introduce in this system. Each transport system is unique. What we have to do is to be prepared to learn from, emulate and adapt the best features of systems in other parts of the world. It will have, therefore, the many good qualities of different systems such as the convenience and comprehensiveness of rail systems in cities like London and Paris, that have been quoted in the White Paper. It should be integrated and accessible like the light rail systems in cities like Miami and Hong Kong. It should be financially viable. The Hong Kong public transport system is financially viable. It should have a high percentage of commuters taking public transport, like in Zurich where 75% of trips are made by public transport. That is a quantifiable target that the Land Transport Authority can use in deciding how far it is going in that direction. And above all, it should remain affordable, like the fares for our public transport today which, as I have explained, over the last 15 years have on average risen less than the CPI. The total transport system should also have relatively free flowing roads, just like what we have achieved in our CBD. So, these are some of the attributes and we will continue to learn from the examples of other countries. It will not be cheap but the Government recognises that transport is not purely consumption but also investment in human capital, like investment in education and health which ensures that our workers are healthy, knowledgeable, skilled, and productive. In that same way, the Government is willing to invest in transport facilities to facilitate higher productivity and enhance both economic activities as well as our quality of life. Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Dr Ker Sin Tze have commented separately on the need to have more integrated development of transport facilities within buildings. I agree with them that we should as far as possible integrate transport facilities with building developments as early as possible. And this is to maximise convenience and accessibility. We have done this for densely developed areas, like Raffles City area, where MRT stations are well integrated. But this has to be done progressively. We now have 42 stations. When Woodlands station opens, we will have 48 stations. We cannot develop all 48 stations at once. But we will do so, and when we do so, we will take, as I said earlier, the best examples and experiences of other cities like Hong Kong, London and Tokyo. When we do this, our aim is not just to maximise development potential. It is also to make sure that there is ease of travel and convenience for the commuters. If necessary, because of some of the problems that have been faced by developers in some of these sites, as have been cited, I am sure the LTA will consider taking the lead to demonstrate the feasibility and desirability of building above and around MRT stations. They can do this in conjunction or in joint ventures with private sector developers. I think that is a good idea because then, all ideas and experiences will be brought into this venture, and the city will grow and can only benefit from such a wide variety of ideas and designs. In carrying out this exercise, the LTA will obviously have to work with many other agencies, in particular with HDB and the URA. Dr Wang also asked what exactly is the time-frame for such buildings and what exactly will be built in the next 10 years. And I believe Mr Chiam in another form also wanted to know what exactly will be the rate of progress. I want to say that what is important in the White Paper is a commitment that has been made to develop this outstanding transport system. The White Paper lists out a series of projects that the LTA will undertake, both in the short term as well as in the medium term. Let me, however, point out that these things take time. Our port and airport infrastructure took many years to develop. They are paid for by the port and airport authorities themselves. They are expensive. CAAS took close to 10 years to accumulate sufficient operation surplus to plan to build the third airport terminal. If we adopt the same financing model and ask our public transport operators to pay for the building of new MRT lines, we will probably take maybe not as long as but almost as long as London and Paris to build up their rail network, which is roughly 100 years, and I do not think we can wait 100 years. So Government will invest heavily to improve the public transport system. Business Times added up some numbers and estimated that the world class transport system will cost $20 billion. Economists estimated the bill to be US$9 billion. But a world class transport system cannot be constructed without a commitment on not only the Government's part but also on the part of the users. It cannot be done with a pre-determined budget today. Many Members, I think, felt that the plan is too long term. It is 10 years, 15 years. Why can it not be done now? Why must it take so long? I think Mr Sinnakaruppan, in fact, said that we should have done all these things yesterday. I received a letter a few days after the White Paper was published. An irate father wrote to complain that the bus did not stop for him and his family. This Mr Yeo wrote and said: "My daughter was emotionally shattered. I suffered anguish. My wife was stunned. So we took a taxi to the airport, and we had to explain painfully to our daughter why this particular bus driver was behaving so badly." So he said: "`Improving public transport - chief goal', says the White Paper. Government spells out its vision of top transport system, reports the Straits Times ...", etc. "What does SBS have to say about this?" Sir, I think this is something that we would have to be careful about. The White Paper does not promise that overnight we will transform all bus drivers into angels and make Mr Yeo and his family happy. But, I believe that, over time, such incidents can become less and less frequent. I do not think that it is ever possible for us to reach a situation when there would be no such incidents. Even SIA, world renowned for good service, still receives letters of complaint from time to time. But what sets SIA apart is that it learns from each incident. It takes great pains to ensure that such incidents do not recur and therefore our transport operators and all who are involved in building this outstanding land transport system must do the same. The LTA will help. We will provide incentives to foster good service. We will train to generally improve conditions on the road. But the point I want to make is, please do not expect miracles overnight. I think that is why Dr Vasoo and Mr Ibrahim Othman are also concerned over things like travel time and waiting times of public transport services. They want to know, not what is going to happen in 15 years' time, but what is going to happen next month, next year. The LTA will work with the public transport operators to implement short-term measures. These short-term measures will be visible. It will make a difference. I agree that there is a necessity for these intermediate markers on the road to our final destination. The White Paper has spelt it out. I will list some of them. The Woodlands MRT extension which will be opened on 10th February will provide residents in the northern region superior public transport services. There will be technology to improve the flow of traffic on our roads. Several junctions are going to be converted into interchanges. These will be completed within the next two to five years. Some of the bus stops in town will be refurbished as part of the project to provide better facilities and amenities at bus stops. The bus fleet will be fitted with new technology which will allow the transport operators to monitor their buses and, if necessary, to do the kind of things that all of us want the operators to do. In other words, when there is a break in the service, or when there is a disruption in the schedule, it will be able to despatch alternatives to plug the gap. That is possible with technology and it is something that the operators are committed to do. These are some of the examples. There are many others. There will be the introduction of intra-town services. Members have complained that some services require transfers. The LTA is relooking at some of these services and see whether there is an opportunity to provide direct services in some cases. There will be express services, as Mr Goh has asked for, because, as he has rightly pointed out, without an MRT and, if we do not improve the public bus service, you do not provide an alternative when you have to implement other restraint measures. So the introduction of express services and airconditioned services are on the cards. And the LTA will, in the course of the next few years, be looking at these short-term measures. Others include real-time bus arrival information system. Again, another Member, and I believe it was Dr Wong, who said that these facilities are available in some other public transport operations that he has seen. These would be introduced. On bus priority schemes, more would be introduced, for example, bus lanes and traffic light priorities. Taxis would be fitted with a radio despatch system, again using GPS (Global Positioning System) technology to better manage supply and demand, and so on. It is not possible for us to list all that is possible or all that is doable in the White Paper. But I would certainly keep Members informed as the LTA goes along in the next few years to plant the intermediate markers on the road to that final destination we are all looking forward to. Let me put all these transport issues in perspective. As I said earlier, and I repeat it again, the measures that are in the White Paper should not be seen in isolation. They should be seen in totality. Land transport is a very complex and multi-faceted subject and you need different measures to tackle the different aspects of the problem. So for demand management, we have ALS, RPS and VQS. For traffic management, we have GLIDE, GPS, and so on. In fact, there are so many abbreviations that the authors of the White Paper felt it necessary to list them out in an index. All these measures and strategies form a comprehensive package. They each serve a purpose. No single measure on its own will work. So if we rely only on introducing more ALS locations without providing good public transport choices, that will not do. If we provide more roads and build more expressways without appropriate usage measures, again, that will not do. So when Dr Arthur Beng felt that public transport should be improved before we introduce more extensive road pricing, this is precisely the kind of piecemeal solution that we want to avoid. Road pricing is part and parcel of the package. It is necessary because it will freeze up roads for more efficient bus services. And faster travelling time on buses will give motorists who are affected by road pricing an alternative that they are looking for. Dr Ow Chin Hock wanted more assurance that the current bus industry structure is sound. He advocated the opposite of what Mr Low was advocating just now, and he wanted more competition in the industry. As I have explained in this House several times, the Government policy is to encourage competition and to let market forces prevail wherever possible. But the bus industry is one example where the Government has used market forces but created an environment where there is limited competition so that it suits our circumstances. There are many different other examples in other countries. There are different models. What the British has done is to go the way that Dr Ow was talking about. They have opened it up completely to free-for-all competition. And what has happened, based on the feedback that we have had, is not entirely satisfactory. Another consideration in this policy that we have is that we need to provide universal public transport services. So in areas where demand is low, we have had to create an obligation on the part of the operators to run prescribed services at regular intervals and frequencies and at affordable fares. And this is the reason why you have bus services running in places like Tuas and Loyang, even though those services are not as frequent as those in town. But there is a bus service. And sometimes, when you are there, you are wondering what the buses are doing there in the first place because they are all running empty. But that is part of the universal service obligation because there are certain times of the day when people do take those buses. So at the end of the day, we have had to look at our own situation and we have to decide a balance between the free-for-all competition that some had advocated and the monopolistic single agency model that others have advocated. We believe that we have a system that works and we would like to keep it that way. Both SBS and TIBS maintain some form of check and balance on one another. The PTC keeps a check on both. We compare their performance standards, cost-effectiveness and service levels. It is a good comparison. It is not ideal but it suits our circumstance. And besides, when you talk about competition, there is some form of indirect competition from other forms of public transport, like BusPlus, taxis, and so on. What I would like to submit is that the present issue is really not whether there is too much competition or not enough competition. The issue really is that our traffic conditions will deteriorate and, in fact, are deteriorating, if we do nothing. Because as the traffic becomes more heavy, buses tend to bunch up and they are unable to adhere to their schedules. And this is the nature of bus operations. So one of the immediate tasks that the LTA will have to undertake will be to implement measures to improve traffic flow and improve the efficiency of bus operations by according buses suitable priority on the roads. Dr Arthur Beng has also asked about the future road tax structure. I sense that there was some confusion in the media reports about the review of the road tax structure as well as the road tax rebates that I mentioned in the White Paper. The present vehicle tax structure has accumulated over time. It lacks a consistent basis for charging. For example, the present road tax is based on engine capacity for cars and motorcycles. For goods vehicles, it is based on maximum laden weight. For buses, it is based on seating capacity. And for some goods vehicles, it is based on a flat fee. Before we implement the ERP, we will rationalise the vehicle tax structure to clearly reflect the actual purpose of each tax. For example, road tax is a usage tax and, therefore, should ideally be based on the road space that is occupied by the vehicle. Ideally it means that, as suggested by some Members, a big car and a small car should pay the same road tax because they more or less occupy the same road space. But this is a big deviation from the present progressive nature of our road tax structure. At the moment, a small motorcycle is subject to an annual road tax of $20. A luxury car can be taxed as much as $5,000. But traffic studies show that a moving motorcycle occupies as much as 70% of the road space of a moving car. So if you were to base strictly on traffic management alone, the motorcycle owners should be paying 70% of the road tax of a luxury car. I am talking about a moving vehicle. So I am explaining all this to make sure that when we change our road tax structure, we cannot completely go for an ideal system. We would have to maintain our progressivity which has been in place for many years. We would have to also, at the same time, take into account social and equity considerations. And at the end of the day, after we have made all the revisions, we would target for revenue neutrality. These are the general principles which Dr Arthur Beng wanted to know. The details would be announced when it is ready. Then the question of road tax rebate when we introduce ERP. That is another story. When we introduce ERP, we will give road tax rebates to motorists in order to help ease or cushion the introduction of a new charge, which is the road pricing fee. These would be largest at the beginning and it would progressively tail off over time. We will also help taxi operators to adjust to ERP by phasing in ERP charges over a few years, as some Members have asked for. As far as taxis are concerned, some Members have fed back concerns from members of the public about the affordability of taxi rides. Sir, in the spectrum of taxi services worldwide, there is no doubt that taxi fares in Singapore are cheap by world standards, but obviously this is not a consideration for some people. However, this is also accepted by quite a few of the respondents to the surveys which said that 35% or so of our commuters find our taxi fares cheap. It is not a high figure, I admit. Some might argue that we should make taxis as cheap as buses, or cheaper, so that more people can take taxis. I think this is not possible. We have to be realistic. Taxi fares must reflect the higher level of service which they provide, and they must also reflect the congestion that they cause. While we have recognised that taxis are a form of public transport, we never said that they are a basic form of transport, like the bus or even the MRT. They are at the high end of the spectrum and, as such, we will have to make sure that the charges, fees and taxes that are levied on taxis reflect their position in the spectrum. I turn now to several Members' very emotional, or should I say very strong, appeal for consideration for the aged as well as the disabled in the White Paper. They have mentioned that the White Paper does not specifically spell out what the proposed transport system has in store for the aged and the disabled. The White Paper spells out the Government's commitment and plans to provide an efficient, integrated, affordable and sustainable land transport system for all Singaporeans. And I want to assure this House that this includes the disabled and the greying population. When designing public transport systems, thought has been given to being as friendly to the aged, as it makes sense to do so. It has incorporated features like special flooring and special facilities at the various new stations, including vertical lifts to be incorporated in the new Woodlands Station. But let me take this opportunity to stress that the MRT, like buses, is a form of mass rapid transit, and there must be overriding concerns regarding the safety of all commuters and the overall efficiency of the system. In other words, we have to make sure that the system carries large numbers of people in as safe a manner as possible. And within this design perimeter, where it is sensible to do so, we will certainly take all possible steps to make sure that the concerns of the disabled and the aged are taken care of. And this, I would like to inform the House, has been done, but within reason. It is not possible to cater for all forms of disabilities and this is the reason why there are very highly specified niche services that have been provided by organisations such as the Handicap Welfare Association. There are dial-a-ride services for people who want such services and who have difficulty in using public transport. What the Government has done for them is to exempt these vehicles from customs duty, registration fees, ARF and COEs. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to briefly touch on a very interesting proposal that was put up by Dr Michael Lim. He suggested that utility agencies should be charged for use of road space because they inconvenience the public and cause congestion, and that imposing such a levy will make the agencies more conscious of the externalities that they impose. I think this is an interesting suggestion and I will ask the LTA to look into it. Mr Sinnakaruppan made a point about the whole-day ALS not being effective. He said that traffic during peak hours is now worse than before the whole-day ALS was introduced. Let me explain that the objective of the whole-day ALS is to even out the traffic flow over all periods of the day so that our roads can take more traffic. It allows for a better distribution of traffic in the CBD throughout the whole day. The traffic engineering studies show that the whole-day ALS has achieved its objectives and, if anything, what Mr Sinnakaruppan has highlighted is the fact that the peak ALS fee is probably too low compared to the off-peak fee. It is now $3 and $2. So this is something that we will have to review at the appropriate time. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon suggested that we should allocate COEs. He used the analogy of HDB flats to argue that we should allocate COEs through balloting in order to benefit those who are not so well off. Sir, I think this is not an appropriate analogy. Cars are not analogous to HDB flats. Public transport is the equivalent of HDB flats. HDB flats are allocated by queuing because it is Government's aim to provide every household with a HDB flat. But there is no queuing system for terrace houses and landed property because there is not enough land for everyone to own landed property. So only those who can afford to pay the price will own it. Similarly, Government can ensure universal access to basic public transport services, like buses and MRT. But it cannot guarantee universal car ownership. We strive to be a hundred per cent home owning society, not a hundred per cent car owning society. But let us assume that we do give balloting a try, I take the House through the argument, and assume we take Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon's idea at face value and give it a try. How many COEs do we allocate? There are 250 small-car COEs a month. He says we need not ballot all. Let us say we take half, ie, 100 COEs a month. Who will qualify is the next question. By salary level, first-time car owners, newly married couples, those with children, those who do not have a car? Assuming we can settle that question, after we have done the balloting, you will find that there will be a few very happy people but a lot of very unhappy people. When HDB had balloting for flats, we met many people who came to see us at our meet-the-people sessions. They complained that this was a very unfair system, because so-and-so balloted for the first time got a flat. And he, with a wife and four children and living with his parents in a 3-room flat, had balloted 10 times but could not get a flat. So even HDB, which tried the balloting system, decided to revert to queuing. What more in this case where there is simply no logical reason for us to ballot for cars. I do not think Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon actually thought through his proposal when he came to this House. In any case, if he is really suggesting a lottery, there is already a system like this in town. It is called the Big Sweep. For $2, if you are lucky, you can go and buy any number of COEs or, in fact, any number of cars that you want. I turn to Mr Heng Chiang Meng's comments. He made the point that the LTA should take the trouble to look at the problem at source. In other words, to look at how traffic is generated and for the Government to consider giving incentives for people to minimise travel demand. I think there are already some measures like this in place, as he may be aware. What the LTA has advocated in the White Paper really addresses part of what he is concerned about. In other words, to minimise the need for travel, and this is done through sound land use planning integrated with transport planning. He also suggested staggered working hours. I believe the civil service does practise staggered working hours. As for school hours, in fact, there is really no reason to change the school hours because the school hours dovetail very nicely into the peak hours for the working population. And because schools start earlier and buses are able to ferry both school children as well as adult workers, there is an optimal usage of resources. So it may not be necessary to touch the school hours. Tele-working, yes, this is a new idea. This is now possible with advances in technology and I think companies will, on their own accord, go for this method of operation, particularly if we introduce road usage measures, because this will then force individuals as well as companies to re-examine their present mode of operation. I turn now to the question on financing. This is a question of great concern to many Members. Let me start by saying that the experience of major cities around the world and these are the cities that we have cited - Paris, London, Tokyo - points to a very heavy reliance on rail. Rail can provide that high level quality service and reliable form of public transport that compact cities need and that people living in those cities desire. And as Singapore becomes more compact and as the aspiration for a high level of service goes up, we too have to go for the rail option. But rail options are expensive options. Rail systems are very expensive to build and operate. What is important to recognise when we are talking about financing of rail is that whichever way the Government decides to finance the development of the infrastructure for rail, the cost ultimately is borne by us, the taxpayers. We can choose to pay for both infrastructure and operations, as some Members have suggested, but where will the funds come from? From general taxation or at the expense of budgets for something else, for education, health or housing. We can do what the French government does, which is to impose a transport tax on employers to finance public transport improvements. It is very attractive for some people but again ultimately this must mean lower wages for workers or higher prices of goods. So the question, therefore, is not who pays, but what is the financial arrangement that we must adopt which can (a) encourage fiscal prudence; (b) encourage individual financial discipline; and (c) encourage operators to keep their operations efficient, lean and trim. If we can do that, then not only the commuters but the taxpayers will get the best value for money. So the key is to retain this partnership concept that balances the interest and the financial responsibility of the commuters, operators and the Government. Under the current financial arrangement, commuters are burdened by the responsibility to pay fares and these are the fares that cover the cost of not just the direct operations but also the replacement of assets. This is the reason why the Government has decided to revise the financial regime for rail and to redefine operating cost to mean the historical cost for the first set of trains. This lowers the hurdle rates for rail projects and it allows a rail network to grow and allows us to grow our public transport system in a way which is highly reliable and efficient, but at the same time it does not forsake the concept of partnership, ie, Government builds the infrastructure and commuters pay fares that cover the operating cost. Many Members in this House are concerned that we are moving very far away from our existing financial policy. There have been many other questions raised about the financing framework by Dr Lee, Mr Chew Heng Ching, Mr Heng Chiang Meng and many others. Let me explain. The revised formula retains the concept of partnership, as I said, but it changes the treatment of operating assets like trains, signalling systems and escalators because these are equipment that generally have a life span not exceeding 30 years. In the old financing framework, Government pays for the first set of assets and the operator is required to set aside funds from fares to finance the replacement of all these operating assets. What this arrangement de facto means is that the present generation of commuters - those who take the trains today - will have to pay for the next set of trains to be used by the next generation of commuters. Let me just illustrate. Assuming operating assets comprise trains which cost $1 billion today and assuming that the replacement set that is due in 30 years' time will cost $4 billion. The old formula will require the operator to charge the present generation of commuters a fare that would pay for the replacement set of trains costing $4 billion in year 30. The new financing formula in contrast requires today's commuters to pay only the historical cost of $1 billion towards the replacement cost of the next set. The difference of $3 billion would be paid in year 30 by the Government and tomorrow's generation of commuters will have to cover the cost of the second set of trains in year 30. This is how each generation of commuters pay for its own set of trains. This is a fairer system. Even if we start a sinking fund, as suggested by Mr Heng Chiang Meng and several others, it would mean that the present Government, if we did not change the formula, would have to pay for future commuters' consumption, and the present Government would still need to generate surpluses. So by changing this formula, it has allowed us to relieve the operators from the burden of having to provide through their fare box the extra fares that are needed to buy the next set of trains. Some Members have expressed concern that the revised formula will burden future governments. I think it is right that these concerns should be expressed by Dr Ow Chin Hock and Mr Chng Hee Kok. But the formula that we have is a fairer formula and it is up to the future government to decide on how best it finances their component of the operating assets. It can use several methods. It can use the surpluses that it generates. It can use past reserves if the Elected President approves it. It can issue bonds to raise funds. It can raise taxes. Or if the elected government of the day has allowed the economy to degenerate and is in no position to pay, the only choice it has may be to delay the replacement, and to run the trains, decrepit though they may be, because there is no other choice. So this reinforces the point that we have to be judicious when we are building infrastructure and rail extensions today to make absolutely sure that the projects we intend to invest in will be economically viable and sustainable. It also means that if we want to finance the replacement and extension of future rail systems, we must have the funds to do so. So the underlying, unstated assumption in the White Paper is that we continue to have good Government, we continue with rational policies which will keep our economy strong and growing and provide sufficient surpluses to finance all our public projects, including the renewal of operating assets for the rail system of the future. Some Members of this House argued very strongly that Government should be spending more on transport. They used the comparisons between the revenue that is collected from vehicle taxes and COEs and so on, and compare it with expenditure on transport. Having made the comparison, they come to the conclusion that since we have collected so much money, we should be spending it. I think the Government has explained many times that vehicle taxes, like other revenues, go into the Consolidated Fund, which is administered by the Ministry of Finance. This is the same consolidated fund which is used to finance projects like housing, education and health which Dr Lee mentioned. This arrangement ensures that taxpayers' money is most well spent to bring maximum benefit to the nation. Indeed as I listened to the debate and I was scribbling the notes, the wish-list kept getting longer and longer and each speaker kept adding to the list. If we added it all up, I think you would get quite a fright. Because there is really no end to how far and how much we want to spend. If I may quote Dr Lee, there is really no such thing as a free lunch. In the case that we have proposed in the new financing formula, we believe that the lunch we intend to serve will be affordable. There are other people, however, who feel that the financing framework is in fact not generous enough and specifically there was a request by SBS, which is supported by some Members of this House, to also help defray part of their operating cost, like co-financing the cost of replaceing bus fleet. Let me say, first of all, that the Government has adopted similar financing approaches, whether it be for rail, bus or taxi transport. We bear the cost of the infrastructure and users pay for operating cost. So in the case of buses, Government pays for bus interchanges, roads, expressways, bus stops and bus stands; and in the case of taxis, all of these and taxi stands as well. Further, the Government helps scheduled bus operators to keep their cost of bus fleet low. They are exempted from COE and ALS. What is the result? They have fared well. They have turned in respectable performances. Bus fares have been kept reasonable. In the case of taxis, they enjoy a host of vehicle tax concessions, even though they occupy the same road space as the car. We have given concessions for taxis on ARF. They do not pay the full ARF. Cars pay 150% and taxis pay a flat $2,000. Taxi owners pay lower customs duties, lower registration fees, a flat road tax regardless of engine size. They do not have to bid for Category 3 COEs, rather they go for PQP (prevailing quota premium) for Category 2 cars. Again, in this kind of a tax regime, taxi operators have fared well. They make a decent living. Taxi fares are kept, as people do agree, reasonable. We have not treated them exactly like cars but we treat them as the highest grade of public transport. But while I say that the basic financing principles for rail, bus and taxi are the same, we must also recognise that there are differences in the cost structure of rail, bus and taxi operations. Because they have a different cost structure and the economics is different, therefore we also need to recognise and levy different rates. We need different solutions. Therefore, for the rail industry, the White Paper has revised its financing framework and redefined the replacement of operating assets; for the bus industry, the White Paper calls for bus fares to be adjusted in small steps on a regular basis, if they can justify it. If fares are adjusted to take care of rising wages and other operational cost, and incentives are given for bus operators to run their fleet in the most efficient manner, then there will be sufficient incentives for bus operators to provide good service and at the same time give good return for their shareholders. There is no need for us to apply the same formula as for rail by co-financing or co-paying for buses. I see no justification for that whatsoever. Of course, there have been other calls on Government for more subsidies. There has always been this point that the Government should not be talking about money. In fact, there have been some people who said we should be providing these services free because after all it is the Government's duty to provide something as basic as transport infrastructure. If that were the case, then we should also be providing public utilities like water and electricity also for free. So these are calls which we have to constantly guard against. They are very easy to make. The Opposition comes up with it from time to time. It is very seductive. But if we start to go down that way, I think we have seen with our own eyes what happened in other countries. We have to stand firm on our principles, and I am glad that there are MPs in this House who are here to remind us that we should continue to stand firm on these principles. As Mr Heng Chiang Meng put it in an interview, the Government has been willing to subsidise public services but to the point of affordability, not in the way that encourages wastage and inefficiency. Another very popular one. Why do we not build, so long as the whole system is viable? Let us cross-subsidise profitable and non-profitable lines. This approach is rational but, again, it is short-sighted. It leads to either rising fares for the existing commuters or it leads to increasing losses by MRT operators. Every extension that is not breaking even adds to the financial burden of the company. So the argument goes that bus companies do that all the time. They operate money-making and loss-making services. But that is the reason why bus companies are so reluctant to introduce new loss-making services. Because every service that they introduce that loses money adds to the burden. And either they come back to the PTC for fare increases when their bottomline is no longer sustainable, or they have to operate in the red. So it is better for us to stick to the partnership arrangement that has been spelt out, because that is the only sustainable arrangement that can allow us to grow our network in the most judicious manner while we ensure fiscal prudence and financial discipline. I want to reiterate Government's commitment to improve public transport. We will do so by expanding the rail network. But, as I have said, we cannot do so lightly. We will only invest in a rail project if it meets the following two conditions: (a) the benefits of the project outweigh the costs, from an overall national perspective; and (b) commuters that use the line are willing to pay fares that cover operating cost. If the operating cost of a system is high for whatever reason, commuters must be prepared to pay higher fares. This is their share of responsibility under this partnership arrangement. It is also a clear indication that they value the service that is provided by the new lines. If they do not value the service, if they are not prepared to cover the operating cost, then it would be a sheer waste of public funds and we should not build. The existing MRT lines were built on this basis. Future MRT and LRT lines will also be built on this basis. We cannot adopt the alternative approach, as I have explained earlier, where we build any line, so long as they can be cross-subsidised by the rest of the network and so long as the overall bottomline remains healthy. If we were to proceed on this basis, we will be building lines all over the place, including lines that do not make economic sense, and we will continue to do so until the MRT system goes into the red. Let me quote an observation of a transport economist who was formerly with the World Bank. He related this story that if a group of friends go to a restaurant and decide beforehand that they will share the bill evenly, they will tend to over-order and waste food. Because they know that whatever extra each of them orders is cross-subsidised by the rest. If each person pays for his own food or order, each will only order what he needs and what he is prepared to pay for. So Mr Chin should realise that it is not that unusual for different people to go to a restaurant and pay different bills if they order different meals. I think in his speech he mentioned that it would be untenable for different people to do so, based on service. I am suggesting that it is not just service alone, but what each person orders that determines what the size of the bill will be. Recently the PRC government raised subway fares in Beijing by 400%. And we are told that in the PRC system, the application to raise fares requires the approval of the Premier and two Vice-Premiers, as well as the top officials of the city government. Even then the company officials said that, because the new fares cannot cover costs, a new rail line promised this year will not be ready till at least after the year 2000. I think this is a good example and lesson for us to learn. Services must cover operating cost. If we want to minimise wastage and keep the whole network affordable, then let us preserve this nexus between the cost of using a particular line and the cost of operating that line. This was the message I brought to residents living in the North-East sector when I visited them at the invitation of a few MPs. Residents are understandably keen to have the North-East line built early. So I explained that while the Government was committed to building the North-East line as the next MRT extension, the question of when to start work depended on whether the line could recover its operating cost. I further went on to explain that, based on the projections, this criterion could not be met if we were to factor in the existing fares. So I asked the residents, "Are you prepared to pay slightly higher fares in order to bring the line forward, because of all these benefits that will accrue to you? Do you really value this enough to help us to bring this line forward?" I said that this will enable the North-East line to cover its operating cost sooner and signal the value that they place. The immediate reaction was not unexpected. Some people thought that it was very unfair. Others felt that they were victimised and many of my MP colleagues were wondering what was going on. However, after more explanation and clarification, I believe the rationale and benefits of such a proposal have become better understood. I have been very encouraged by public feedback and by the various dialogue sessions that we have had with the MPs in the area. More residents now have indicated that they are prepared and willing to pay slightly higher fares to cover the higher operating cost of the North-East MRT line, in order to bring forward the construction of this line. The LTA has revised the financial projections for the North-East line, taking into account these slightly higher fares and the revised definition of operating cost, as it has spelt out in the White Paper. It has concluded that with these changes, the North-East line can break even operationally from the year 2003, instead of only from the year 2006 onwards, as was originally forecast. We are not yet certain how much the fare premium for the North-East line needs to be. But with the new financing formula, I am confident that it can be less than the 20 cents figure I estimated when I visited Hougang and Cheng San constituencies. I have reported this to Cabinet and have recommended that the LTA should proceed to build the North-East MRT line immediately. [Applause]. Cabinet has agreed. And the LTA will announce further details on the North-East line in due course. The North-East line will bring many benefits to the residents of the North-East. We have gone through the benefits. I am sure Members here are fully aware of them. But let me stress that there will be sacrifices involved. While the LTA will try its best to minimise congestion and noise and air pollution during the construction process, residents will have to bear with this disruption for a considerably long period, because it takes a long time to build. An hon. Member: How long?

The Government will need to acquire land along the route of the North-East line, especially around the sites of the stations. It must do this to be able to redevelop comprehensively the areas around the MRT stations, to build the North-East line facilities, and also to ensure that windfall capital gains resulting from construction of the North-East line accrue to the State rather than to individual property owners. But these sacrifices are inevitable if we take a long-term perspective and do what is best for the nation. And over time, a good public transport system will bring considerable benefits to all Singaporeans. The North-East line is just the beginning. The LTA is finalising the evaluation of several LRT projects. We should be able to announce the results of the evaluation soon. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members who have spoken during this debate and also all those who have contributed to the debate on the White Paper over the last two weeks. All the suggestions and feedback received will be considered and implemented wherever they make sense. The White Paper does not promise a revolutionary change in the way we tackle transport-related issues, rather it builds upon what we already have but in a more integrated, holistic manner. Because of the complexities of transport, we cannot hope to solve the problem once and for all. We will have to refine our approach and we will have to make adjustments and manage the challenges as we go along. One Straits Times commentator said "the road to achieving a world class transport system will be a long and perhaps arduous one". It will not be easy. It will take time. But I believe the results will be well worth our collective efforts. As the White Paper says, if we are true to the philosophy and approach of this White Paper, we should have a world class transport system that Singaporeans deserve. I have every confidence that the LTA will be able to fulfill its mission and deliver an outstanding and affordable transport system for the benefit of all Singaporeans. [Applause]. Question put, "That this House endorses the Paper Cmd 1 of 1996 on `A World Class Land Transport System' as the basis for developing an outstanding and affordable transport system for Singaporeans."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I call for a division.

Will hon. Members who support the claim for a division please rise? More than five Members rising in their places ---

There are more than five Members who support a division. Ring the Division bells. The House divided: Ayes, 40; No, Nil; Abstentions, 3. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Jayakumar, S Chandra Das, S Kanwaljit Soin Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Ker Sin Tze Chen Seow Phun, John Koh Lip Lin Chew Heng Ching Lau Ping Sum Ch'ng Jit Koon Lee Boon Yang Chong, Charles Lee Hsien Loong De Payva, John Lee Yiok Seng Goh Chee Wee Lee Yock Suan Goh Choon Kang Lew Syn Pau Harun bin A Ghani Low Seow Chay Heng Chiang Meng Mah Bow Tan Ho Kah Leong Ong Chit Chung Ho Peng Kee Othman bin Haron Eusofe Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Ow Chin Hock Ibrahim bin Othman Tan Keng Yam, Tony Imram bin Mohamed Teo Chee Hean Ayes (cont.) No Teo Chong Tee Nil Wong Kan Seng Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Abstentions Yatiman Yusof Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Cheo Chai Chen Zulkifli bin Mohammed Chiam See Tong Low Thia Khiang Resolved, That this House endorses the Paper Cmd 1 of 1996 on `A World Class Land Transport System' as the basis for developing an outstanding and affordable transport system for Singaporeans.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Seven o'clock pm.