Hansard, 2002-07-10

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: FromTo Name(2002)(2002) Mr Raymond Lim10 Jul- Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed12 Jul14 Jul Mr Sin Boon Ann15 Jul18 Jul ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Ho Geok Choo - 1. To ask the Minister for Education in light of the report that there has been an increase in the number of students seeking counselling services in our schools, will his Ministry provide (i) some of the analyses and findings for the students wanting to seek such services and (ii) the number of such students with percentage breakdown and their profile.

Question No. 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the counselling cases reported by schools, about 6% of students have been referred for counselling, with secondary school students accounting for slightly more than half of these 6%. Of these 6%, 4% were seen by school personnel, including Teacher Counsellors, and 2% were referred to the Ministry of Education's specialists and external professionals. The two main types of problems referred for counselling were discipline-related problems, eg, truancy and late-coming, and emotion problems, eg, coping with grief and loss issues, boy-girl relationship problems. These two types of cases accounted for about three-quarters of the counselling cases reported by schools. Other cases involved bullying and theft, motivation and attitude problems. The students who were referred for counselling came from a cross-section of academic levels, streams, gender and ethnic groups. In recent years, there has been a greater awareness among the public on emotional health issues, greater acceptance of counselling as an option, and easier access to counselling services in schools and the community, such as the Family Services Centres. Referrals for counselling have therefore gone up. The availability of these counselling services is indeed helpful to our students who may need them.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [9th July, 2002],

"That this House, being aware that Singaporeans are suffering from the effects of a recession, mindful that many Singaporeans, in particular the unemployed, are having difficulties making ends meet and agreeing with the Prime Minister that this is not the best time to increase bus and MRT fares, (a) urges the Public Transport Council to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares; and (b) further urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the prices of public services are not unreasonably increased during these difficult times.". - [Mr Tan Soo Khoon].

Question again proposed.

Sir, according to the latest Annual Report of the Public Transport Council, the PTC is driven by the mission to balance the need for public interest to be safeguarded and for public transport operators to remain financially viable. With the fare hikes, coming at a time when Singaporeans are hit by job losses and pay cuts, the feeling on the ground is that the PTC has put the interests of the public transport operators over that of the public. The PTC has lost sight of the larger social mission of public transport. Most Singaporeans use public transport today because cars are priced out of their reach, with the Certificate of Entitlement and the taxes on road usage. Public transport is the only affordable means to get to where they need to go, to work, to the market, to get home. It gives them access to employment and, hence, income. As an MP, I sometimes hear jobless residents not wanting to take jobs far away from their homes because it means taking two buses and an MRT ride, which means waking up at 5.30 am to get to work on time. The cost of travelling itself can also be a disincentive, especially if the take-home pay of the job offered is already low. The pricing of public transport has a major impact on the lives of disadvantaged people. The household expenditure surveys conducted by the Department of Statistics consistently show that it is the lower-income group, especially those in 1- to 2-room flats, who spend most on public road transport, compared to the other groups. Indeed, the latest survey shows that public road transport takes up 6.8% of the household expenditure of those living in 1- to 2-room flats. This is higher than the average 4% for all households. Any price changes will hit the lower-income most. And we also know that this economic downturn has hit them the hardest. The Government says that it helps them with the Economic Downturn Relief Scheme, the New Singapore Shares and other such financial schemes. But these are often once-off affairs, or for the EDRS, up to three months. But the psychological blow, not to mention the financial impact, of a price increase for something as basic to them as public transport is felt on a regular basis. Sir, I do not drive and I do not own a car. I take public transport everyday. I know the service of the public transport has improved over the years. But I also know how it feels to be squeezed in a bus, with no elbow room, and to have to wait for more than half-an-hour for buses that arrive so packed, you have no choice but to wait for another, which comes another half-an-hour later, just as packed. The commuting masses, by and large, do not want frills. They want an affordable but an efficient and convenient public transport. I heard the Senior Minister of State Khaw Boon Wan talking about buses being made more sophisticated, so that they can be "mobile offices". Frankly, I dread the day. I find the TV mobile enough of a nuisance. Commuters often use the travelling time on buses to rest, take a nap or just unwind, not as a place to start work. I urge the Government and the PTC not to forget the social mission of public transport as they tinker with fancy and costly ideas that the public does not want. Sir, the Transport Minister was reported as saying that the commuters should expect fares to rise because service standards and wage expectations keep going up. I question this. In times of recession, all workers, including bus drivers, have been told to moderate their wage expectations. As for service standards, yes, as I have said, they have increased, but commuters do not want to be made to pay for unnecessary frills. The airconditioned bus interchange is a frill. Why the need to aircondition it when the idea of a quality service is that commuters do not have to wait too long at the interchange for their bus to arrive? True, this interchange is not factored in the recent fare increase, as the bus operators do not have to pay for the capital cost of building the airconditioned interchange. It is paid for by the Government. But they have to pay for the cost of maintaining the interchange. This will surely add to their operating cost. Will this lead to bus operators asking for more fare increases in future, especially as I hear that more airconditioned interchanges are on the cards? Sir, the Transport Minister has defended the hikes by saying that transport companies must be allowed to make reasonable profits. It is not clear to us or to the public what are the criteria for deciding if operators are making reasonable or unreasonable profits. In particular, how does the Minister measure viability, given the current economic conditions and the social mission of public transport? Moreover, the operators are operating in a privileged situation, with limited competition. The reasons given by the operators for the fare increases are not compelling. SBS Transit cited increases in statutory costs, such as ERP, as one reason for the fare increase. I know the Government has more than compensated SBS for the ERP charges by lowering the road tax significantly. But given the social mission of public transport, there is also a case for the Government to ease the cost burden by examining if the statutory costs, such as the ERP for buses, can be reviewed. Public transport should be exempted from the ERP, which is meant to ease congestion and to encourage cars to use alternative routes. Buses have no choice but to ply the routes that they have to. Sir, there is a fear that ERP will only continue to push up the cost of public transport further, especially with night ERP being discussed. As for SMRT, it cited energy cost as one factor leading to rising operating costs. Energy cost has risen as a result of electricity tariff hikes. For TIBS, one of the factors cited, among others, is diesel cost. But why should these factors be cited as reasons to raise fares when electricity and diesel costs should be addressed by the Fuel Equalisation Fund (FEF). This Fund was set up in 1992 to address volatile fuel prices and to curb fare increases due to fluctuations of fuel prices. The operators should be allowed to draw from their FEF to cushion the impact of increases in electricity and diesel costs, without a fare increase. As at 31st March 2001, the balances in the FEF are $39.8 million for SBS, $8.7 million for SMRT, and $8.4 million for TIBS. They can draw from this rather than raise the prices. I also query the argument that restriction in the number of operators allows them to achieve economies of scale and to balance the profitable routes with the unprofitable ones. Some MPs have repeatedly asked for bus routes within their estates. I myself have represented my residents in asking for Bus Service 292 to link two zones tucked in a far corner of my ward directly to the Changkat Community Centre, but the response has always been, "It is unprofitable. Hence, we can't give you that service." I propose that competitive tendering be extended to certain zones. There is potential for lowering costs by introducing competition in awarding contracts to run zonal services within a planned and coordinated network, as has been adopted in other countries such as Scandinavia. On this matter, perhaps more weight should be given to committees, like the Estate Coordinating Committee of a GRC. These committees, which can be found in Tampines and Pasir Ris GRCs, coordinate estate development and include LTA and SBS representatives as well as grassroots leaders and MPs. Perhaps more authority and powers could be given to this Committee to push forward the agenda for competitive tendering. Sir, some Members argued that this House should not undermine the credibility and independence of the Public Transport Council by urging it to review or reverse its decision on fare increases. While I agree that we should not politicise the PTC and its work as far as possible, it is important to assure the public that they have recourse in such matters. This is the case with the Judiciary. Our Judiciary is independent, and it guards its integrity jealously and fiercely. No MP is allowed to ask the Judiciary to reverse its decision. But it has an internal appeal mechanism which makes sure that the system works. If one disagrees with the judgment passed down by the courts, he can appeal to a higher court. But in the case of public transport, there is no higher body outside of Parliament. Moreover, as this case shows, Parliament may not be able to react fast enough to appeals from the public. This sitting is taking place after the fact, after the fare hike has already been implemented. I would urge the Minister to establish a public transport ombudsman as a mediator or assessor of last resort for users, and perhaps for public transport operators as well. There should be a body separate from operators and regulators to act as an appeals body. It would help ensure that the system works, that the process is transparent and, at the same time, assure the public that they can get a fair hearing before a fare hike is implemented. Finally, with all these fears about price increases, especially in public transport, I want to bring up a cheaper alternative to public transport and cars - and that is cycling. Sir, I declare my interest. I am the patron of the Singapore Amateur Cycling Association. Cycling is becoming increasingly popular in Singapore, both on and off-road. But our road transport system gives little thought to their use. On-road cyclists find their enjoyment and safety jeopardised by sharing roads with motor vehicles, and off-road cycling may conflict with the interests of pedestrians. Sir, there was a time when I cycled to work from Upper Changi Road to Times House, then in Kim Seng Road, and back. But I stopped after I was knocked down by a taxi. Sir, there are local grassroots and environmental groups, all trying to promote cycling. I urge the Minister to consider providing a bicycle lane on roads that can be used by two-wheelers, including motorbikes, for safety and as well as an alternative mode of transport. Such lanes can be found in many developed cities, even those which experience winter. These bicycle lanes are not used in winter, but that does not stop the authorities from providing them. What more for a country with tropical weather all year round? Sir, in conclusion, public transport must be guided by its over-riding social mission. The PTC, in reviewing fare prices, should take into account the state of the economy, the unemployment rate, and also the affordability of public transport to the masses, especially the lower-income. I support the motion.

Sir, the motion being moved in this House is a significant one. It is both timely and bold in its call. It was unfortunate that a slew of public service charges have increased over the last few months. It could be that some have decided that it is a politically safe time to raise charges without incurring the public ire. Sir, the public has spoken. Looking at the quality and the tone of the letters, comments and feedback, both in the public and private domains, one cannot but conclude that there is indeed a sense of frustration and despair among many Singaporeans. The increase in the garbage collection charges was the first whip the public tolerated. Then came the carpark fee charges and the public transport fare increases. Collectively, they will make a financial dent in the lives of Singaporeans. Many people are worried how do they cope with these increases when their salaries are frozen and, in some cases, cut. Many Singaporeans' feedback was rebutted with the usual statistical and textbook answers. The increase was a small percentage in relation to the overall fare per trip, that is what some said. What it fails to highlight is the percentage increase, and the fact that many Singaporeans take public transport many times a day, and not once or twice, as some people have highlighted. I recall that, during the last four years, some Singaporeans had seen many MPs, in the course of their meet-the-people sessions, with sad stories that they could not afford to go for job interviews, because they did not even have money to pay for their fares. Sir, I sympathise with many Singaporeans, particularly our low-wage earners, for whom public transport can come up to 10% of their monthly expenditure if one includes the total income they spend on public transport. Many have not had pay increases for the last few years. Some have their pay reduced, some have just been re-employed, and some are still unemployed. The impact of the public transport fare increases on this group of Singaporeans is tremendous. They are angry but, at the same time, they are helpless. I join in the call of the people to demand an explanation as to why public transport fare increase was allowed in these difficult times. Last year, the Public Transport Council took into account the prevailing economic situation and only allowed the alignment of adult feeder fares with the minimum trunk fares. Even then a 10-cent increase, from 50 cents to 60 cents, came up to about 20% increase in the feeder fare increase. I thought it was a substantial amount because many Singaporeans use feeder services in the public housing estates. It was a substantial jump for many Singaporeans because they use these feeder services. For this year, despite no substantial improvement in the economic environment, the PTC has approved an across-the-board increase. I would like to ask the Minister why an increase was allowed when the economy is still in the recovery phase. I am equally puzzled as to how the wage bill for the public transport operators can be increasing, the CPF cut is still in place and wage increases are minimal. When some companies are in the red and many more are without a steady business, was there a real need to pamper our bus companies with a fare increase? For a monopoly who enjoys a steady profit, even in bad economic times, could they have sacrificed more and alleviate the financial burden of the public? I would like to ask the Minister whether the present policy for allowing route and transport monopoly is the best model to achieve a good, efficient and reasonably priced public transport system. I am sure the Minister will agree that the public policy favours competition over monopoly. In many countries, public policy relies on the competitive market to establish the price and quality of goods and services. Yet, in Singapore, in the public transport domain, we have monopolies. I would urge the Government to seriously consider calling for public tenders to run certain transport routes, which was mentioned earlier by my colleague, Ms Irene Ng. This would certainly not unsettle the present operators, as many of the infrastructure and mass public facilities, like MRT stations, bus stations, and depots, are built by the Government with taxpayers' money. By calling for tender, say, once in five years, I think it will allow these public transport operators to be benchmarked against the market mechanism, and to see whether true efficiency can be delivered by the market. In the present set-up, the only available models to compare cost efficiency are the present two operators and the two MRT operators. They enjoy a monopoly in perpetuity. Opening up the market and testing the existing operators against other potential competitors, I am certain the public would benefit. A good example is the case of the garbage collection companies. I understand that the Ministry of the Environment divided Singapore into eight sectors and called for tenders for each of these sectors. The cheapest was selected by competitive tendering and their contract period is limited to five years, after which a fresh tender will be called. I would urge the Minister to consider such an approach as a way to control costs and introduce competition to the public transport sector. Let me highlight one more sector to show how competition in the public sector helps control fare increases. Sir, when taxi fares were liberalised, the taxi companies did not increase their fares because they knew that demand was not inelastic. They know that customers have other choices, like bus, MRT, and other taxi companies, to reach their destination. In the case of public transport operators, like bus and MRT, the public has no choice. They are fixed by the present operators - use them or be doomed. In the long run, I do not think that this is the model that we want to have in Singapore. Sir, as I was listening to the debate yesterday, I was impressed by the arguments of the Senior Minister of State for Transport, Mr Khaw Boon Wan. He highlighted there are many misunderstandings among the public. However, I felt that there are still a lot of misunderstandings remaining, despite his brave attempt to clear the misunderstandings. Misunderstanding No. 1, which he highlighted, is that fare increases are not due to frills, and that these are paid for by the Government. But what he fails to state is that the operators have to maintain it. As my colleague earlier highlighted, more airconditioned bus terminals are going to come. A PUB officer advises any consumer who goes there and complains about high PUB bills that airconditioning is the biggest culprit. Here, again, we have to ask ourselves whether the operators are going to bear the cost of these new frills. In his speech yesterday, he did not cover this aspect. The misunderstanding continues. This misunderstanding is legitimate. Perhaps the Government could explain whether it is the Government's agenda, or the public bus operators' or MRT operator's request that such facilities be built. Sir, misunderstanding No. 2 is that he explained that fare increases are not to fatten the profits of bus companies. I beg to differ because I cannot see any other reasons. I cannot recollect any of our public transport operators being in deficit, or close to it. They have always enjoyed good profits and they have always come back to PTC for fat profits, not to pull them out of any deficit, or any other serious problem. In any event, as listed companies, they can always go back to the equity or loan market to raise funds that they may need, instead of relying on fare increases as the sole source of raising money for their business. Let us not reward them for their lack of financial creativity. Misunderstanding No. 3. It was stated that bus companies have huge losses in other business, and they have attempted to cover it by fare increases. He has explained this misunderstanding. I spoke to many people and they are clear in their mind that there is no such misunderstanding, and that this was never an issue in the debate that has taken place over the last few days. Misunderstanding No. 4. He raised the issue whether PTC was uncaring. He said that PTC indeed was caring, and he highlighted some figures. He mentioned that the average wage has gone up by 136% over 15 years. CPI has gone up by 29%, but the transport fares have lagged behind. Unfortunately, no data was provided by how much it has fallen behind the wage group. A better comparison would be to see how much is transport expenditure in relation to a Singaporean's wage now, as compared to 15 years ago. I do not think there would have been a drop. Indeed, I speculate that the portion of transport expenditure would be higher relative to one's ordinary income, particularly the ordinary wage earner. Naturally, it leaves one wondering whether the Senior Minister of State has difficulty in producing the relevant figures. I would urge the Minister to address this issue. In respect of the role of the PTC, I must say that I have great sympathy for the PTC, because they are handling a difficult assignment. How can they be fair to both the public transport operators and to the commuters at the same time? The parameters of their job are defined by an Act of Parliament. My colleagues have raised many issues in relation to the job of the PTC, questions about the conflict of interests, whether the members are qualified to be able to be sitting in the council. And I would like to add one more issue, whether the PTC has, in the course of its deliberations, independent studies put up by think-tanks, or academics, to advise the PTC, or whether they just rely on the reports furnished by the bus companies as the sole source of reference and decision-making. Perhaps some clarification could be given, both by PTC and the Minister to clarify to the public on how they arrived at these figures. Because being a lawyer, I can always say that there are two parts to the argument, and it depends on who presents the argument. If the bus company is the only company that is able to present the argument, I pity the PTC because they need additional support and research from other independent researchers, or academics, to support the PTC in whatever decision that it is going to arrive at. Let me now move on to a wider question, and it is whether the type of competition that we are having in Singapore in the public transport market needs to be re-looked. I think it is something that the Minister has to look at the Ministry's level and see whether there is indeed a call which can be justified to re-look at the type of public transport operators that we have in Singapore, and not rely on some consultant's report which was made some decades ago. That is the format that is being used in Singapore. Considering the present public transport usage and the type of market that we have, perhaps it is time we re-looked at the whole market itself, and see whether we can allow for more competition so that we can achieve greater efficiency. Sir, let me now move on to the second part of the Motion that deals with the call to ensure that essential public services remain affordable, and that any price increases during this difficult period should be kept to the absolute minimum. In my view, this is where the real crux of the debate lies. Fare increases are the chosen rhythm of the day. The others, like carpark charges, utilities, have been let off lightly. The wider debate is how do we scrutinise increases in the price of essential services. While we have some mechanism to ensure that some public services are subject to market mechanism and competition, not all are. Some public services are in the hands of the Government, some in autonomous Government bodies, some in statutory boards and some in the public sector. In the public sector, I again applaud the Ministry of the Environment for its practice to call for fresh tenders at the end of the tender period for refuse collection contractors. In some cases, public bodies, like PTC, or CASE, have a role to play. In the case of some essential services being provided by the Government, I would urge the Government to ensure that cost recovery should be its policy rather than profiteering. As many of the cost structures and profit numbers are not found in the annual budget numbers, it becomes an impossible task for any researcher to identify these culprits. I would urge the Government to give the mandate to the Auditor-General to look at the Government agencies that provide essential services and determine whether they are operating on a cost recovery or profit-making basis, and to highlight these cases in its annual report. This will provide a good example of our Government leading by example where its essential services are scrutinised by an independent authority. Perhaps CASE, or a committee made up of the general public, can start a list of such essential services to be scrutinised by the Auditor-General (AG), and this list should be made available to the Government for scrutiny by the AG. This will certainly arrest the trend of some essential service providers, including the Government, charging unreasonable fees and charges under the pretext that they are affordable to the public. Sir, whenever a fare increase comes about, or some increase in fee comes about, the usual words are that it is "affordable to the public". This argument is going down less and less with the public, because affordable does not mean it is cheap. It can be cheap and affordable but, in many cases, the yardstick that some of these essential service providers equate is that if it is affordable, the public can tolerate. This should not be the way in which we price essential services. The way we should price it is that we must make it cheap and affordable, not merely affordable. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to say that we have a duty to ensure that essential services are provided at reasonable prices and even at subsidised rates, eg, health, education and sports. One of the arguments that the Government has stated in allowing some of these public fare increases, or essential service increases, is that we provide rebates, or we provide some form of financial help to the poor by giving them money in the form of Singapore bonus shares. But having talked to many of the people in the poor income bracket, it is basically a shot of ecstasy for a while. They take the $600, or whatever amount that is given, and spend it, and that is it. They come back to normal. So we have to think of a way whereby such amounts are directly going to help people cope with these increases, if need be, rather than giving them one shot and then having them spent by the public in one go. Somebody said to me that it is basically a one shot of ecstasy. After that, they get high. Then, the next day, they wake up, and it is back to solving the same problems. Sir, we must remind ourselves, at the end of this debate, that the public are like a balloon. They can take a fair amount of air pressure and expand, but too much pressure and they will burst. And burst they will one day, if we do not look after their interest and welfare. Let us never take the public for granted. On that note, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion put forth by Members of the House, and I agree with the eloquent argument put forth by Mr Tan Soon Khoon. I feel that the move to raise fare prices in this instance was ill-timed and a misjudgment. The rationale given for the fare hike was one of recovering costs - incurred in terms of wages given to employees and in terms of maintenance for services - to maintain the respectable profits for the public transport companies. Yes, profit is not a dirty word, but when the very profitable transport companies seek to recover costs from a public that is generally going through a bad patch, that action, at this point in time, leaves behind a foul taste in the mouth and cannot be very palatable. On grounds of this principle, I feel that it is not a rightly placed motivation to push for the hikes in bus and MRT fares. In a perverse way, however, we also have to say thank you to this fare hike, because it has brought into focus the role of the listed public transport companies, the role of the PTC and the needs and, more importantly, the expectations of a more sophisticated commuter today. This incident highlights, in my point of view, these three main points, and what is also to be appreciated is how this public outcry is also a good sign that Singaporeans do care for others, for whom the pinch hurts a bit more. These are good signs of a maturing Singapore. Coming back to the three points: on the role of a listed public transport company, I seek a greater clarification on what is the role for a public transport company. The issues related to this question have already been brought up by the other speakers: should such companies be just focused on profits? Should they take a different model or be restructured? As has already been suggested, should their services be opened up for tenders? Hence this means a re-examination of what is the role and function of public transport companies. The other is the role of the PTC. At least a third of the members in the 14-member Council are either from one of the transport companies or the shareholders. Whether they like it or not, the perception is that perhaps they could be looking after the interests of the organisations they represent, and it could be most unfair to them. It is best then to have a range of members in this Council. I would like to suggest that some of the members come from the school bus operators, private bus companies, as well as officers from NParks. NParks has been trying for some time to bring families to its parks - and we are family oriented - and it is also trying to nurture a cycling culture within Singapore. It might be timely to have their input too in the council. But, what is going to be the role of the PTC, if there is perhaps no change in the current model of how public transport companies operate? How are they going to walk this fine line between safeguarding the public interest as well as those of the public transport companies? And it is at this point that I do despair over the age-old debate about providing services for those who are disabled, especially those who are wheelchair-bound. This is an age-old debate, perhaps as old as the 15-year-old PTC. How are we going to address this? We are an aging population. The North East Line, when it opens, will be ready for those in wheelchairs, and yet how seamless are we in this aspect? There are already retrofitting works going on for other MRT lines, but where does the bus fit into this scheme of seamless transportation? To outfit buses with hydraulic lifts for the wheelchair, as a previous Straits Times report shows, can cost about $40 million. When it comes to providing for such facilities, what then will be the role of the PTC? If there is any guiding principle at this point in time on how the PTC operates, then its rationalisation to raise the fares for the bus companies, leaves me to fear that bringing in better systems for those in wheelchairs may take another two decades before it comes true. Hence, I feel that this current 3- to 5-cent hike - which some cannot understand what the whole fuss is about - is a good point at this time to reflect on how we can improve the role of the PTC, reassess what is the structure or model for public transport companies, as well as, at the same time, understand the Singaporean of today better. To an unemployed Singaporean, 3 to 5 cents will send shudders. To the average Singaporean, it means absorbing more and more costs. Here, I would like to relate a case that happened just last year. A woman and her daughter walked all the way from Bedok to a hospital in the central part of Singapore, because they could not afford the bus fares. Thankfully, the mother and daughter have been helped since, through the very same schemes that Minister Mah Bow Tan brought up yesterday. Even as we help those who cannot afford to pay for their transport, let us not forget that the money comes from donations from the public, and from MCDS-funded programmes, which again comes from the taxpayer. So, it is not so easy to dismiss this concern for those who cannot afford to pay for public transport by citing available financial assistance schemes. For the above three main reasons, I think the Motion is a good one.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Sir, many of the speakers before me have already expressed the unhappiness of the public transport users and their plight. They have also pointed out correctly that many are upset because of a slew of increases that will take place over the next six months. This unhappiness is exacerbated by the uncertainties that workers face as retrenchments by companies will surely continue for the rest of the year and even up to early next year. As the Government warns us that more jobs will be lost - and the 5% unemployment rate is hanging over us - a call to be austere by the Government further ignites the anger of our people as a slew of charges comes on stream. Mr Speaker, Sir, the PTC is entrusted with the important and, as we have seen, a difficult task of striking a balance between safeguarding public interest and ensuring the financial viability of operators, and we have heard the comment on viability by our hon. Member, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, yesterday. I join in the call by my hon. colleagues who spoke before me to urge the PTC to consider in its fare increases to tip the scale towards safeguarding the public interest to achieve the balance it first set out to do. Whether in reality or not, people are not convinced that the PTC has represented their interest. Together with the stream of increases from other bodies, the unhappiness is understandable. We hope that the PTC will communicate the plight of the commuters to the transport companies. My hon. colleague, Mr Ravindran, pointed out just now that affordability may not be cheap. If we look at affordability - this is my perspective - at any single increase, we can say whether it is affordable or not. But when we put a slew of increases, affordability for each in totality means I cannot afford for most of these essential services. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the points raised that the Government is uncaring and not listening to the people, I do not think so. What I think the Government did not do well enough is perhaps that it might have painted a clearer enough picture of why the increases have to be made now. If this had been done, there might not have been so much nitpicking, irritation and anger over the increases. Yes, I do feel that some of these increases, especially the bus fare increase, are ill timed. With a little less profit, I am sure the company can make it through another year or so. Transport companies have to realise that revenue gains will probably not increase at the rates like before. Commuters will have to realise that capital equipment, such as buses and systems, needs to be replaced, and these investments cost money. Without such replacements and upgrades, the benchmark service levels that Singaporeans think nothing of, will not be maintained, let alone improve. Why this unhappiness? I think the PTC, the transport companies and the Government bodies did a poor job in enlisting our people in seeing the rationale behind the slew of increases and the timing of it. Only when an uproar occurred did "justifications" come out. Yes, let me tell you that a Member doing explanations of justifications at block visits and grassroots events is quite a sight. How else could we have explained to the commuters? As I sat here looking at these wonderful plasma screens, probably the first in the world, I remember the times going to a movie at Lido Cinema where a seat at a stall cost us $2.50, and a circle seat $4. When the new generation cinemas began operating, the price of movie tickets was double what people were used to paying. Cinema-goers were crying foul. Double the price? I will stay home and watch the videos. Today, with DVDs and VCDs in most homes, going to the movies is still a treat. People have come to enjoy the state-of-the-art sound system, the comfortable seats, the screens and the picture quality that the extra $4 get them. Making movies today is also much more expensive. I do not think the people will go to the cinema for $4 now for a movie in the old cinemas, even if one can be found today. A trip to a movie now will cost us $8, and that is without the popcorn and soft drinks. Let us learn to explain things so that people can make sense of. The bus companies have set a benchmark that Singaporeans have become used to. Service standards can and should get better. It does not make sense to say now that we can wait and we do not mind waiting for 30 minutes instead of 15 minutes, like we used to, because I cannot take the 3-cent increase. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Parliament opened with a cautionary Address from the President and, since the Budget, Singaporeans have been advised to be austere with an uncertain economic backdrop. As the economy seems to be headed for some recovery, the longer term outlook will still see companies making less revenues and not at rates of increases as before. This is a global phenomenon for most companies, whether or not it is in a regulated transport environment. Sir, we are seeing many companies buttoning down their hatches and booking their profits early, employing their profits to secure cheaper capital, restructuring their balance sheets, and making changes to position themselves, so that they can operate profitably in the face of lower revenues down the road. I think the transport companies are no different here. The PAP Government's idea of seamless transportation goes beyond what the transport companies tell us, and I have some additional comments to add to the point made by Ms Braema. What do I mean? Let me relate this to Members. When I was going to school in a university town at Eugene, Oregon, I signed out a wheelchair for half a day. With a clipboard in hand, I went to various parts of the university and to the town, and one of them was the local library. Although the objective of the exercise was to understand how a wheelchair-bound person would feel accessing buildings, I was amazed by the bus ride that I took. The bus platform lowered for me for the wheelchair to be on, a single bus driver de-bused, helped me strap in and went on its way. So, going down the road, this seamless transport would come into play. The PAP Government has led the HDB upgrading programme and, as we can see, there is a ramping up of the construction of access ramps from bus stops to HDB precincts, and from carparks to linkways to HDB blocks. The objective of Barrier Free Access (BFA) for HDB dwellers is a long-range idea. It is a long-range plan to give our aging population BFA all the way to the buses. This is the PAP Government's idea of long-range planning of caring. Not caring for the people? I do not think so. Perhaps, in the future, I am sure that the reasons for increases in the bus fares, as Ms Braema pointed out, would even include the cost of providing buses that can accommodate the increasing number of people going around in wheelchairs. The Government is not caring? Clearly not! Perhaps a poor way of showing it - that it is listening. But not caring and not listening? I do not think so. Mr Speaker, Sir, the PAP Government had garnered support from our people, and we have together built Singapore to what it is today. Our people face difficult times, and the decisions made by the Government then had great implications on whether we survived as a nation or not. This will not change. The PAP Government had never succumbed to pressures and never went the way of populist policies, however difficult politically it was. The resolve to carry the nation and to implement unpopular policies in order that we make it, despite political costs, shows what kind of Government this is. Globalisation has set in motion a shake-out not only global businesses have to deal with, but governments of the day would have to address. What we do during this shake-out, and the kind of resolve we have to change and put on new armour for a different kind of fight, has bearings for our social and economic structures down the road. I am comforted by Minister Mah's and Minister Khaw's acknowledgement that the Government needs to respond to the calls by the people and to see their plight. I hope that the Government will do a better job of showing that it has listened. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope not just the PTC but the respective Government bodies responsible for the slew of charges in fee increases will explain the rationale in a way that people can understand and, most importantly, explain the timing for such increases, and consider the economic plight of its users. I hope that Singaporeans can unite during these difficult times and to move on and brace themselves for the greater challenges on the horizon.

Sir, I wish to declare my interest as a Director of the SMRT Corporation. I also add that I no longer own any shares in any of the public transport companies since the merger of MRT and TIBS in December 2001. Sir, I join this debate not to defend the public transport operators, but with a hope to give a different perspective to the issue, so that a more balanced view on both sides of the coin would be considered. Mr Speaker, Sir, I empathise with the commuting public, who are affected by the recent round of fare increases. Fare adjustment not merely has its financial implications, but it is also an emotive issue. In an article in Shin Min Daily, a writer angrily complained that his "chwee kueh" has increased from $1 to $1.

20. And the owner told this writer that the increase was a result of the recent fare increase. So we can see how emotive things can get. Sir, on the other hand, I also empathise with the Public Transport Council which, as some Members have also pointed out, has the unenviable task of balancing the interests of the commuting public with the need of the public transport operators to remain financially viable in order to provide the required standard of service. The nature of public transport service is such that it is characterised by huge capital investments, high manpower and substantial energy or fuel cost. For example, in the case of SMRT, it has fixed assets of $1.38 billion, including those of TIBS. On high manpower and substantial energy or fuel costs, in the case of Singapore, wage bill for bus operators is about 50% of total operating cost, and 40% for train operators. Transport workers, who provide 365 days of service, and almost round-the-clock service on a daily basis, have to be appropriately remunerated and motivated in order to provide good service to commuters. They too expect yearly adjustment and incentives, so that they will be within range of their fellow workers. Some have argued that, in difficult times such as this, probably transport workers should also moderate their expectations. But this is very much more of the condition in the labour market. Not many realise, for example, that bus companies face perennial difficulties in recruiting and retaining bus crews. Singaporeans shun this kind of work, finding it tough and the working hours unearthly - waking up at 4 o'clock to do the first shift, and going home at 3 o'clock in the morning when they finish the last shift. They find the pay not attractive, as it is not commensurate with the type of hardship they have to endure. Their work is seldom appreciated by others, and they have to face complaints of commuters who have higher demands, and higher and higher expectations. Whether in good times or bad, bus companies have to pay attractive salaries to attract and retain workers, so that they can continue with their operation. The Public Transport Council, the body responsible for regulating public transport service and approving bus fares, has a thankless job to do. It has to face the wrath of public opinion whenever there is a fare adjustment, and also the unhappiness of public transport operators, who usually do not find the approved increases meet the needs of what they have justified. Whether in good times or bad, there are always complaints on fare adjustments. And we can all understand that it is more so during difficult times, such as now. But I would like to add that the record does show, for example, that during the last 10-year period from 1992-2001, PTC approved a total of 11.7% for train fare increase and 13.7% for bus fare increase. The consumer price index went up 13.3%, while real wage increased by 53% and nominal wage increased by 68% over the same 10-year period. The fare increase approved by PTC could not cover wage and other operating cost increases. Operators had to find other means to increase revenue, adopt vigorous productivity improvements to make ends meet, and to have reasonable profits to keep shareholders satisfied. Sir, I do not think there was very much argument on reasonable returns to transport operators and their shareholders. The nature of these companies is also such that investors find that they are really similar to utilities stock. In the case of SMRT, they gave a dividend yield of 4.12%, and for SBS, 4.24%, which are very much in line with market expectations. So, we can see from the last round of fare increases that there were no big movements in their share prices, a reflection that it is very much in line with market expectations. Shareholders who invest in these companies also do not expect exciting share price movements like those in the technology industries. It is only fair to say that PTC has done a good job in keeping public transport fares within the range of the CPI, and substantially below that of real wage increases, making it affordable to commuters. At the same time, it did not allow automatic fare increases and ensured that operators earned their keep through better productivity. Sir, I believe that the work of the PTC should be recognised by this House and that they should be allowed to continue with their work without interference. Sir, some have suggested that having representatives of public transport operators on the Council is not a good idea, as it may give a wrong perception, even though these representatives do not take part in the deliberations on fare increases and they have absolutely no say in approving fare increases. On the other hand, I am not sure whether it is a good idea to exclude them, because the Public Transport Council does more than approving fare increases. I do not know whether this Council should become an authority, or whether it should be a partnership between the Council and the public transport operators, so that it could look into the various aspects of public transport, so that services can be improved and costs can be contained. It is really a thankless job to do. There are suggestions to include other representatives, and even Members of this House. I am not sure whether there would be many volunteers rushing for this job. There is no doubt that the Public Transport Council must continue to be stringent when dealing with fare adjustments. Public transport operators must continue to improve productivity and contain costs. How best do we then deal with fare adjustments when they become necessary? Sir, there were suggestions that, if public transport service is not provided by commercial enterprise, then perhaps there could be lower cost to them. But, Sir, if the cost of capital is not provided by shareholders and, therefore, the required profit and a reasonable return, then it has to be provided by loans, which also have interest cost. So, either way, the cost factor would always be there. Sir, it is not a practical solution to allow only fare increases when the economy is doing well, as the need to adjust fares may not coincide with the economic cycle. Looking for such windows could lead to irregular and hefty fare increases that are more painful. Second-guessing the economic cycle could also catch PTC on the wrong foot and force PTC to approve hefty increases during a downturn, which is hardly acceptable. It also means that the profitability of public transport operators would deteriorate over time and surge or spike when there is a fare increase, a situation that is not satisfactory to their shareholders, and transport operators will find it difficult to do good financial management and planning. On balance, the recommendation of the Cost Review Committee in 1997 for a small increase on a regular basis is a better solution. The advantage is that it is less painful and disruptive to the commuters. Using the 10-year period of 1992-2001 again as an illustration, train fares went up 11.7% before fare adjustment during this period, ranging from 0.22% to 6.42%; 2.19% in 1994; 6.42% in 1995; 0.22% in 1997 and 2.23% in the year 2000. If we do regular small increases on a yearly basis, it amounts to a small fare adjustment of 1.17%, which, I believe, would be more acceptable, and it avoids the need for deferring fare adjustments until such time that it may not be acceptable. For public transport operators, it means more certainty in financial planning, the ability to better plan for capital expenditure and investment. It would also smoothen the earnings of public transport operators and avoid spikes in earnings, which, if taken in isolation, may be misinterpreted as obscene profits or unacceptable windfalls. Sir, it is never easy to find simple solutions to complex public transport issues. Sir, about 4 million passenger trips are made on buses and trains each day. The commuters using public transport range from workers to senior executives, students, housewives, to senior citizens. Their preference and requirements range from very basic transport service, and some would say they do not want airconditioning in buses, to the high end business-class type of service. Their tolerance to fares also differs substantially. To make each and every commuter satisfied is really a daunting task. It is unlike airlines where they can have differentiation in type of services - having first class, business class, economy class - and therefore charging different fares for them. In our public transport service, we can only have one class fare. So whatever changes will affect everyone, across the board. Some Members spoke about no-frill service. Over the years, in tandem with the progress of our economy, and with a higher standard of living, expectations for a better public transport service have also become higher. For better comfort of passengers, we introduced airconditioned service. For safety and convenience of commuters, we introduced low floorboard buses. For clean environment, we introduced Euro 1, and now Euro 2, engines. These add up to cost. For those who will not want to wait longer for bus services, they demand higher frequency. For those who wish to have convenience service, they ask for more services, more direct services, and higher frequencies. And some of these new services may not be economical to run. And if they are not happy with it, they go to the MPs, and MPs will write to the public transport operators. If MPs are not satisfied, they will complain to the Minister. So, Sir, these uneconomical services and higher frequencies that people expect also add to cost. Can we not say that these are frills? Would people accept non-airconditioned service? Would we want to go back to the days where - we would not talk about rickety buses - buses with higher steps so that it is a bit more dangerous to our senior citizens and ladies going to work in high heels find it very inconvenient? I do not think that that is accepted. And, even if we want to do it now, the cost of public transport service cannot be changed overnight. From 1980, when the cost of the bus ranged around $70,000-$80,000, it is now $270,000. So, even if we want to change these buses, it cannot be done overnight. Sir, I suggest that for issues like this, we should really be looking at it on a more balanced basis, and perhaps seek a long-term view. Close collaboration between LTA, PTC and public transport operators is definitely required to contain cost. I believe that commuters must also be brought into this and make them a partner of this scheme, to decide on the standard of service required and therefore the related cost, so that when adjustments are to be made, they can better understand why these changes are needed and why these adjustments are made. In difficult times like this, sometimes it is really difficult to explain to those who are affected financially. But I think it is gratifying to learn in this House that Government has made sure that those who are badly hit are being provided for. So, I think it is now up to us really to have a good reasoning on this round of fare increases and try to explain to our constituents so that they can also understand, perhaps not fully accept, why it has to be done. Sir, I would like to touch upon one other issue, that of cycling, as brought up by Ms Irene Ng. I declare my interest as Chairman of the Singapore Sports Council. Sir, I think it is a good idea, and I think cycling is a good sport that we should promote. But creating a cycling lane is not a good solution, as it would also take up road space. One example is China. China has 700 million cyclists and now the authorities are having a hard time trying to do away with cycling lanes, and I do not think we should really be going in that direction. I would suggest that more park connectors be built so that cycling can be promoted as a healthy exercise. Sir, on this note, I oppose the Motion.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. We are amidst difficult times. And, like my fellow Members of the House, I understand and feel the distress of the people over price increases that raise the cost of living. I am glad for this Motion, for it provides an opportunity for many of us to reflect the concerns of our constituents. As we saw yesterday, and no doubt, we will see today as well, my colleagues do quickly seize the opportunity to express their views and to reflect the sentiments on the ground. My residents have also expressed to me their concerns and unhappiness over various increases, and in particular, the recent transport fare increase. The sentiment of the people is clear. While I appreciate the Motion before the House for providing the opportunity to discuss the issue of the recent transport fare increases, I do not agree with it in its entirety. First, the Motion reflected the Prime Minister's appreciation of 17th June that this is not the best time to increase fares. However, the Prime Minister at the same occasion also said that the principle of small increases is right. This was left out. This is an important omission and I felt ought to be corrected, so that the first statement by the Prime Minister is placed in its proper and complete context. Second, as noted by several colleagues who spoke earlier, the PTC is a body set up by Parliament, specifically to make decisions regarding public transport. It has performed its duties, and unless we are convinced that it is derelict in carrying out its duties, I wonder if it is wise for the House to require it to review a specific decision that it made, with the purpose of getting it to change its mind on this decision. Sir, with this in mind, I am moving an amendment to the Motion before the House. I have taken the liberty to ask the Clerk of Parliament to make copies of this amendment, which I would like to ask your permission to be distributed to the Members of the House.

All right. The Clerk will distribute the notice of amendment. [Copies of amendment distributed to hon. Members.] Could you move your amendment, Dr Tan?

Sir, I beg to move the amendment as follows: (1) In line 3, to leave out the word "and";

In line 5, after the word "fares", to insert the words, "and noting his support for the principle of Public Transport Council granting small increases"; and

In lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words, "to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares", and there to insert the words, "when reviewing requests for fare increases, to take into consideration relevant factors such as the affordability of the commuters and the viability of the public transport operators.". Sir, there is really no good time to increase fares. Nobody likes to pay more, even if one can afford it. It is in the nature of things. However, I agree with PM and my fellow Members, who have spoken earlier, that this is not the best time to increase fares. The economy is down, many are out of job and the future is still uncertain, though it is beginning to brighten up. If my income were reduced and uncertain, I would certainly wish that the cost of living would not rise, and even hope that it would be reduced. Hence, where expenditure can be deferred to keep cost and, hence, fares down, it should be done. But, alas, life does not stop just because the economy is bad. It continues. So some costs continue to rise - maintenance must be carried out, old equipment need to be replaced, and new equipment need to be purchased, if we want to continue to have a good public transport system. Fares may thus need to rise for all these necessary activities to be carried out. So, even in difficult times, as now, we have also to think of the future. For what we do today affect the lives of our children tomorrow. The decisions that bus companies make to-day affect the services they can deliver tomorrow. What sort of bus services do our children deserve? And what do we leave them with? So, while the Prime Minister agreed that this is not the best time to increase fares, he also recognised the need to increase fares to enable critical activities that must be carried out if we are to maintain the viability of the public transport system. He thus supports increases in small steps that are affordable and less painful. I recall past instances, other than transport fares, when delay and reluctance deferred price increases until the inevitable. When the prices were increased, the increases were large, and were very painful. There were then calls for increases in small steps, to occur more frequently, so as to spread out the pain. This is what is being done now - a small increase in fares. But, alas, our memory is short. Sir, the issue of fare increase is inherently a situation of conflict. The public dislikes fares to increase, but public transport operators need it to remain viable. Parliament, in its wisdom has delegated this unenviable task of approving fare increases to the Public Transport Council. In the debate on the PTC Bill in 1987, the House made it clear to the PTC that they must consider both the welfare of the people and the viability of the bus companies, to ensure the availability of a good public transport system in the long term interest of the people. As I said earlier, this situation is inherently conflicting. To carry out the difficult task of the PTC, able, capable, fair-minded and honourable people were appointed to the Council. Hence, since 1987, fare increases have come before the PTC. But, today, there is a Motion before this House asking the PTC to review its decision on the recent fare increases. We are treading on uncomfortable, if not dangerous, water. We formed a body and delegated to it responsibilities. The body has discharged its responsibilities, and we are questioning its decision in public, with the intention of getting it to change its mind. The public and the world will look at this House and wonder if we made good, well-considered decisions, and abide by them. The question would be asked, is this House to be trusted? People who are asked to assume positions in our institutions will wonder if their decisions would be appreciated and supported. They will ask whether they will be abandoned when the goings get tough. We must be very wary of demeaning our institutions. We must not sacrifice our institutions for expediency. Sir, we should carefully study the explanation given by the PTC for approving the fare increase. If we believe that they had done the work fairly and properly, we should courageously support its decision and take on the more difficult and unpleasant task of explaining and convincing our people of the correctness of the decision. It is easier to support popular decisions than to support decisions that are right, but painful. But for the long-term interest of the country and people, we must do what is right and good. I personally believe that with regard to the fare increases, including the current one, that have come before the PTC, it has dutifully performed the task delegated to it by Parliament, within the framework and guidelines established. I would like to quote what Mr Eric Gwee, Chairman of PTC, said in regard to the decision to approve the recent fare increases: "In reviewing the application by SBS, TIBS and SMRT, PTC tried to balance the need of public interest to be safeguarded and for public transport operators to remain financially viable. This year, the PTC has improved the process of scrutinising the bus and train operators' accounts and financial performance. PTC is satisfied that the operators have been prudent in containing costs and that they have not been profiteering at the expense of our commuters." I share the sentiment of the other Boon Wan in the House, when he said yesterday that, "There is nothing wrong in criticising the decision of the PTC. They have a difficult job of balancing the long-term interests of commuters and the short-term effects on them. Inevitably, judgment has to be made. We can certainly disagree with PTC's judgment, as honest people would. But we cannot fault them for not being diligent." Sir, I urge the PTC to always remember that its role is both important and sensitive and that it must carry out its duties conscientiously, properly and professionally, within the terms and reference that have been set for it, so that the public will continue to have confidence in its decision. Finally, Sir, I also urge the Government to take heed of the feedback provided by Members of this House during this debate and from the people. Please listen to us. Sir, I seek the support of the House on the amendment.

The Member has moved an amendment comprising three parts: (1) In line 3, to leave out the word "and"; (2) In line 5, after the word "fares", to insert the words, "and noting his support for the principle of Public Transport Council granting small increases"; and

In lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words, "to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares", and there to insert the words, "when reviewing requests for fare increases, to take into consideration relevant factors such as the viability of the public transport operators and affordability of the commuters".

The Question is now the amendment moved by Dr Tan Boon Wan. May I remind hon. Members that the debate and their speeches should be restricted to the amendment. But the debate may include both the words proposed to be left out, ie, deleted, and the words proposed to be inserted or added.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the order of the wordings is reversed. I said, "the affordability of the commuters" followed by "the viability of the public transport operators".

I read it from your notice of amendment which has been circulated to Members. Mr Iswaran.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I rise in support of the motion that has just been moved by the Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Dr Tan Boon Wan. It injects a note of balance, a note of circumspection, to this debate which is warranted, given the heat that has been generated in this House in the course of the last day-and-a-half of debates. Allow me to elaborate. Yesterday, I was moved significantly by Mr Tan and Dr Tan's impassioned plea on behalf of Singaporeans and commuters on why these fare increases are ill-timed, unwelcome and inconvenient. But, having said that, I also want to say that my personal experience with this has been the same. I have received a lot of feedback from constituents and others on this increase and why it is not welcomed. The timing is part of an unholy confluence of factors - economic downturn and retrenchments. At this time, a fare increase for buses, no matter how small, is, in a sense, the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. But, Sir, even as this House has the responsibility to voice the concerns of Singaporeans and address those issues in a comprehensive way, we equally have the obligation to ensure that the debate encompasses the total perspective of the issue. I think the wave of public opinion is great in this debate. Many Singaporeans are agitated about this. But it would be a disservice to the quality of the debate and the final policy or conclusion we draw if we were to only focus on that aspect of this issue. In the course of this debate, the terms "fair and reasonable" have cropped up many times. And, indeed, I think all of us would like to be fair and reasonable and be seen to be fair and reasonable. But the question, I suppose, is "fair" from whose point of view and "reasonable" from what perspective? Let me try to broaden the perspective a little to show what I mean. I am looking at it from the perspective of the company, and here I would like to make a declaration. I am an employee of Temasek Holdings, which is a major shareholder of SMRT, but I have no direct interest in any of the public transport operators. Is SMRT such a laggard in comparison to similar companies, ie, transport operators, in other parts of the world? Yesterday, there was a very sharp contrast drawn between SMRT and MTR in Hong Kong. Mr Tan Soo Khoon gave us many examples of why MTR in Hong Kong was such an innovative transport operator, introducing many interesting dimensions to its service. If I recall correctly, some examples were: if one takes 10 rides, then he gets a free lunch or a free dinner. And, also, when a new line was introduced, there was no fare increase. In fact, it was a fare decrease. So why can the SMRT not be like that? Indeed, I was quite troubled and puzzled by that, and I thought this warrants a little bit more investigation. So, I dug up a little more data on this. It is interesting. As always, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and let me tell Members why. MTR is actually better described as a property company than a transport company. It owns the land above its stations and around its stations. 70-80% of MTR's profits come from its property business, not related to its rail business. What does that mean? MTR has to promote ridership on its lines. Why? Because that is what will increase the value of its main business, which is the property business. And MTR will therefore cross-subsidise from its property business to the rail business. Indeed, we could infer that this is what is happening here. Is that a right business strategy? Probably from MTR's point of view, yes, because, overall, it is able to continue to improve its profitability. But the analogy with SMRT then is perhaps unfair, because SMRT, by comparison, is a pure transport operator. 90% of SMRT's revenue comes from the train, bus and taxi type services, and 70-80% of its profits comes from the same business. So the exact reverse, if you like, of what MTR has. SMRT has very little scope to cross-subsidise. There is nothing to cross-subsidise from. Really, at the end of day, the only return it gets is from its fares, and just to be complete, with a little bit of rental and advertising income of about 10%. Sir, the next question, from a broader perspective, is: Is SMRT profiteering? It is a listed company. Is the company rewarding its shareholders unfairly? Again, I think it was the Non-Constituency Member, Mr Steve Chia, who raised this question rather rhetorically, if not theatrically: "Isn't making more than $50 million profit enough?" That is a good question. Let us look at the issues. What kind of investment product or share is SMRT share? Think about it. The growth prospects of this company are very constrained. Ridership and fare increases are the only real factors that would drive its top line growth. I do not want to talk like an analyst, but since we have totted up a lot of figures and financial data, I think we need to look at these in totality. The best proxy for growth in this company is really population growth, which means, at best, it is going to achieve 2-3%. In fact, last year, SMRT achieved, I think, 0.6% growth, in fact, lower than you would think to be the average. So this is not a company whose stocks you buy because you expect this wild run in its share price, because it is going to become very valuable and you get capital appreciation. There is another dimension to this. SMRT is like any transport company whose fare structures are regulated and have a regulatory risk because, at the end of the day, the revenue is affected fundamentally by policy decisions. I do not think I need to belabour the point about the regulatory risk because the debate in this House on the fare increase is ample evidence of what that risk is all about. So, why invest in SMRT shares? What is the benefit? If you ask fund managers or financial analysts, they will tell you that it is what you call a counter-cyclical defensive stock. What does it mean? Basically, it is a nice stock to have in your portfolio, so that when your tech stocks are bombing out, all those high growth stories are now fizzling out, you still have some stocks in your portfolio that continue to offer you a low but steady growth rate and a decent rate of return, either through dividend pay-outs or from very small capital appreciation. It is a kind of stock where when the economy goes up, it will not go up as fast. But when the economy goes down, it will not go down as fast either. That is the value of stocks like this, low beta stocks. So, it is not a stock you hold for capital appreciation. If you want to look at SMRT shares, in July 2000 when it was listed, its price was 61 cents, and yesterday when I checked, it was about 68-68.5 cents. It is not a fantastic growth. At the end of day, it is the dividend yield that it will pay. So, are they profiteering and rewarding the shareholders unfairly? What is the dividend yield of SMRT? The current dividend yield is 4.1%, and this 4.1% is gross of tax. It is gross, before you take into account tax. So, if you are on the top tax bracket, you have to knock off another 20-odd percent after tax under the new tax regime, or lower for the lower tiers. Let us compare that 4.1% dividend yield with some less risky products. For 10-year Government bonds, the yield is 3.5%. If you look at the LTA bonds, the yield is 3.7%. So, when you compare that with what SMRT shares give as a dividend yield, is it that unreasonable for the risk that the shareholders have to bear? We can also compare this dividend yield with utilities companies around the world - US, Japan, UK, etc. Because, let us face it, it is an international market, you do not put money in SMRT, you can put it in the same kind of stock elsewhere in the world. The interesting result is that the range for dividend yields for utilities counters is between 3.5-6.5%. That means SMRT's dividend yield rate is not exorbitant. It is within the industry's norms and, if anything, at the lower end of the industry range. Sir, there were a lot of other points that can be raised on the financial front. I do not want to go into that and a lot of details now. But why go into all these? Why this financial comparison? What is so important about it? SMRT is a listed company. We can debate the merits of whether it is good to have public transport operators as listed companies or not, but that is a separate issue. We should not vilify a listed company which is basically competing in the market not just with other operators and so on, but also for investor funds. If you want to continue to invest in improvements to rolling stock and other innovations, there are only two sources of funding, either the profit you make in your internal financing, or you get it from outside, equity or debt. And if they do not achieve a reasonable rate of return and offer a reasonable yield, who is going to put money in SMRT? Mr Ravindran says, "Well, if they do not get it, they can go and raise money outside by issuing shares." But the question is, who will subscribe to those shares? Because, at the end of the day, the comparison will be made on an international basis. So, we have to be realistic. I am not defending the fare increase per se. But in the heat of the discussion and argument, let us not throw the baby out with the bath-water and start vilifying institutions and companies unfairly. I was reflecting on this last night. If SMRT's profitability goes down, then we will have another debate in this House saying, "You see, this is the GLC that is under performing." And I know many Members of this House would champion that line. If SMRT's profitability goes up, there will be another line, precisely along what we are talking about, that it is making money at the expense of Singaporeans. So it is a no-win situation. Sir, ultimately, if we pursue this kind of logic, it is not going to be helpful for Singapore, Singaporeans or, for that matter, our transport companies and our transport system. So, I was trying to inject that sense of reality, just to create a balance in the thinking. Let us not get carried away without some reflection on the broader issues. Sir, I would say that the amendment to the Motion that has been moved is a fair one. It balances the issues, and the Member has pointed out clearly why he is doing so. I have been thinking about whether we should really be asking PTC to review its decision. Let me tell Members that the best thing that can happen now is, yes, for the fares to be reduced, or restored to the original position. I think all of us would be very happy about that. It is an easy decision. The question is: is that the right decision? Dr Tan Boon Wan has elaborated on the point, and I would just reinforce it. The first is the issue of the integrity of the PTC. We need to distinguish between the process and the outcome. We may not like the outcome, fine. But you do not undermine the process unnecessarily. Let us go back, revisit the process that led to this outcome and see how it can be improved. But once we start tinkering with everything at the same time, we create uncertainty in people's minds. Why would any self-respecting individual want to serve on the PTC, if the concerted view of the PTC is subject to parliamentary review, Executive review, public opinion review, and so on, and then they are forced to recant? Where is the credibility when the next time they make an announcement, whether it is a fare reduction or fare increase? How would they defend their position? The other part is the message we would send if we do compel this fare reduction after it has been announced. It goes to the heart of the issue of how we would be perceived as a country, and a system within which to do business. If we have capricious changes in policy, or specific policy decision, because of this sort of public opinion, then I think the regulatory risk premium, that I talked about earlier, would go up significantly in Singapore. But does that mean we do nothing? I am not saying that. And I do not want to be misinterpreted. I think there is a lot we can do. But the amendment that has been moved by the Member which says, first, it drops the need for the PTC to review its specific recommendation, and instead focuses on the process where, in making its decision, it takes into account all factors and, in particular, viability of the operators and the affordability of the commuters. That is a more productive, long-term solution that this House should be endorsing. On that score, in terms of the process, a lot has been said about what we can do to improve and change, and I offer a few suggestions. On the composition, I do believe that the PTC's composition can be improved. Whilst having public transport operators as members of the PTC may not necessarily, in any way, have a conflict, because they excuse themselves from critical decision points. There is still the issue of perception. And for that reason alone, we should leave them out of it and let them come in as experts, or as presenters of their point of view. There has been another suggestion in some quarters, where maybe we bring in commuters themselves into the PTC. I have trouble with that, as it is the exact analogue of the public transport operators, but on the other side. If we cannot have a transport operator who stands to benefit from a fare increase on the Council, then can we justify having commuters who stand to benefit from a fare reduction on the Council as well? I think there is a contradiction here. What we ought to have is a Public Transport Council made up of experts from different areas, whether it is financial experts, transport industry experts and maybe those with prior experience in the industry, so that when the deliberations occur, it is a considered final opinion, drawing on a wide range of expertise. I do believe the PTC's deliberations can also be more transparent. Because, at the end of the day, people do want to know why and, by this, I mean both commuters as well as transport operators, how they arrive at their decision, and that will help raise the level of understanding and debate. On the issue of formula, CPI + X, I would like to know how productivity factors are encapsulated in this formula. The Senior Minister of State yesterday alluded to this, but some clarification is necessary. Because on the face of it, it looks like you have got a total insulation from cost increases and you get the clear increase in nominal prices without any adjustment, or requirement to improve your productivity. And, yet, I think this is not the case. This needs to be brought out in the open so that people understand this clearly that there is already, if there is not then there should be, a productivity discount to this formula. But, ultimately, Sir, we can talk about all this tinkering with the process. I feel the best solution is still to introduce greater competition in our public transport system, particularly perhaps in the bus area, if we cannot do it in the train system. Because then, we will avoid issues of how do you fix the price, are you profiteering, and so on. Because the market will lead to straight competition, and there should be an element of internal correction within the market. Many Members have drawn the analogy with the telecommunications sector and others. I know there are differences between transportation and telecommunications, and so on. But at the end of the day, we do not realise the benefits of competition until we have it. And then, it becomes very obvious. Why did we not do this before? I think we ought to try it, if not in a total way, then in some measured manner. Finally, Sir, on the issue of broader Government charges, the Government should make an effort not to over burden Singaporeans at this time. I fully endorse that. There is an element of cynicism out there. They think that the Government charges go through a kind of political Circadian rhythm. You start after the elections and rates go up, and then around the middle of the period, it stays steady, and then towards the end of the five-year term, there is an inverse performance, either rates go down, or they may not go down, but other forms of compensation kick in. This might be because we have a range of various Government bodies who are all run by people who are thinking ahead and trying to ensure that the Ministers do not have a tough time. But perhaps we ought to take a "more hands" approach on this and say, "Let's look at how we can actually space this out and manage this as a total impact." Because that is the crux of the issue here today. The public transport fare increases and the Public Transport Council, as Mr Tan put it yesterday, have become lightning rods, but they are not the problem. The issue is broader and it has just become a convenient point of reference, or scapegoats. And I think we should ensure that we do not fall into that trap again by addressing this issue comprehensively. I would suggest one other point that we could consider - whether some of the schemes which we already have, like the Economic Downturn Relief Scheme and there is a scheme through the CCCs for those who are affected by the GST, perhaps we should give more flexibility to the grassroots organisations on the ground, so that for those who are unduly affected by these transport fare increases, they too should be eligible for some form of assistance. Sir, on that note, I support the amendment moved by the Member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the hon. Member, Dr Tan Boon Wan's proposed amendments and his call for the PTC to be transparent in its review for fare increases, and to specifically take into consideration the affordability of the commuters for the review of the affordable fare, which is one of the PTC's objectives of safeguarding our public interest. Such an amendment would serve the public interest better, a concrete step towards a longer-term view, as it takes a harder look at the fundamental considerations of the measurement of the affordable fare. Presently, the affordable fare is indirectly measured using a formula that was recommended seven years ago, consisting of cost data, ie, the CPI + X factor. Both are cost factors of the transport network operators from which the fare is computed and levied on to the general public. Quoting Senior Minister of State, Mr Khaw Boon Wan's explanation, within this framework of the formula, the PTC decides what is a reasonable rate of increase which is commensurate with the affordability level of the population. Affordability is a relative term. The cost increase should be measured in relation to the income. The present formula does not consider the income of the commuters directly, especially during this economic downturn period. When the economy is reasonably good, one can argue that the annual increase in income would have been taken into account relative to the CPI. For example, the public service sector has always taken into account the CPI to consider their salary increases yearly. When the increases in income are higher than the cost, it would probably have taken into account that the commuters are able to afford the additional cost. The PTC has argued that this increase is only a very small increase, and has then allowed it. But it is the relative increase in cost and income that should be the issue. The lowering of the income bar and the overall increase to the cost of transportation result in an increase in the cost to income ratio of the commuters. But in the present state of the economy, most commuters have either no increase in the income for the past years or suffered a pay cut, or are even out of job. Some are even living day by day in fear of losing their job because of the closing down of the companies. These small increases would have reached the threshold of pain. To understand the commuters' threshold of pain is to determine the composition of cost in relation to the income. Although, again, Senior Minister of State, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, has stated that transport fares have lagged behind wage growth by a big margin over a period of 15 years, we are looking at the present scenario in this economic downturn where income has been lowered, the transport fare relative to the income would indeed have been increased even with a small increase in the fares. Sir, I support the hon. Member Mr Ravindran's call for the amount of transport expenses in relation to the average income of the commuters to be made known. The threshold of pain of the commuters is further compounded by the string of increases of the other economic factors adding to the cost of the commuters, ie, the increase in refuse collection fees in May, the simultaneous increase in utilities rates and transport fare, the coming September increases in carpark charges and factors affecting the income of the commuters, eg, the coming review of the CPF rates. In addition, the Economic Restructuring Shares, which are to help our people in overcoming the poor economic situation, have not been received yet, as they are only scheduled for next year. It is timely for the PTC to be transparent with the public on the factors that are used as their bases to determine this affordable fare. Listening to the Minister's reply, none had explained how the affordability fare was determined and the list of the factors that were taken into consideration. Dr Tan's timely amendment has highlighted the need for the PTC to be transparent in the evaluation of this affordable fare, in view of the transport companies being in a privileged position - a ready pool of no-choice commuters, free infrastructure costs, minimum competition and good surpluses. To conclude, I would like to urge the PTC to readily take into consideration the call of the Members in this House in the amended Motion to take into account the affordability of the commuters and the unemployment situation in relation to the current economic situation in reviewing the affordable fare. In view of the transport companies' privileged position of no competition and the no-choice situation of the commuters, we would like to urge the PTC to make known and be transparent on the factors considered when evaluating the affordable fare. Sir, I support the amendments to the Motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate. I must declare that I am the Executive Secretary of the Singapore Transport Workers' Union. We have some 12,000 workers working in the transport sector. Yesterday, we have heard from the PAP and Opposition MPs the sentiments and feelings of the middle and lower income group people in Singapore. If we go to the market-place and coffee shops, we will find that what these MPs said in this House is true and correct. What amazes me is that our PAP Members seem to be more energetic and incisive than the Opposition members when they made these points. If we send people like Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Dr Tan Cheng Bock to contest in the opposition wards in the next General Election, I am afraid the incumbents will not find their way back to this Chamber at the next Parliament. Our PAP Members are more mature. They will be able to contest and win all the single-member wards in future elections. We know that price increases are never welcomed by the people. As I live in a HDB flat, I have a deep understanding of how the people there are feeling about the daily matters. As I am living among them, I meet them when I go to work and come back from work. These lower income people are unhappy, and their dissatisfaction is not just confined to this round of bus fare increase. In the coffee shops, many people commented, "The Government allows the officials to set fire, but ordinary citizens are not even allowed to light a lantern." Increase in refuse collection fees, increase in car park charges, increase in GST, and what else do we have? Yet, when the hawkers were to increase their prices, the Government sends the Chan Soo Sen Committee to go after their blood. We must look at the Singapore political situation in a calm and objective manner. We must apply our political EQ or emotional quotient. Our PAP leadership is not stupid. They are aware of the feelings of the people. Many of our grassroots leaders are well educated. In the wards of the Ministers, many grassroots leaders are professionals. They understand what is going on at grassroots level. But, we know that in many Latin-American countries, during the election campaign, the politicians would make a lot of promises to their people to win votes. Then, after the election, if they are fortunate enough to be returned to power, in order to keep faith with the people and to fulfil their promises, they would hand out all sorts of goodies. In the process, they clear out the nation's coffers. When their term expires, the country is bankrupt and heavily in debt. Is this the kind of country we want? We know that every five years, the PAP must face the people in a General Election and seek a fresh mandate from them. "Who would do things so that the people would not elect them in the next five years' time?" I talked to the people in the coffee shops. A lot of them are not happy with the Government's decision to allow the fare hike. I asked them if we were to hold a General Election now would the PAP win. They replied, "Oh, the PAP will still win the elections." Why? This is because they know that the PAP Government is the only one that ticks in Singapore. Yet, people are not happy. These price increases had led to emotional upsets. It is a question of timing. We have to exercise our political wisdom to decide whether what we are doing will be good for our nation. If we promise people that there will be no price and fee increases, what will happen? Will our public transport system be as good as it is today? The Member of Parliament for Hougang advocated for a state-owned bus company. When I was young, I had to take the Singapore Traction Company (STC) buses to school. This was a bus company operated by the Government. In the end, the company went bust and had to close down. Why should the Government run a losing business and waste our surpluses and reserves? We should leave it to the experts and professionals to run it at a profit and benefit the people - and the Government. As such, I feel that we should adopt a calm and balanced attitude on this issue of public transport fare increase. Mr Speaker, Sir, our population is small, and the market for public transport is very limited. Two transport operators are facing the possibility of losses. If we allow five or six companies to compete, can we make sure that they will reduce fares? Our commuter base is small. We have to maintain our buses. If we allow more companies to operate, can the companies have the economy of scale to operate at a profit and remain viable? I have read in the papers that in Ang Mo Kio, Mr Wee Siew Kim provided buses for his constituents to go to the market. Every week, he incurs a cost of $500. I applaud his effort and hope that he can sustain till the next election in 2007. Bus workers are like you and me. They would also want to enjoy pay increases. They are lowly educated and elderly. They have to support their families. Should they not also enjoy bonuses and pay increases so as to cover their family expenses? Every day, they work for more than 12 hours and every now and then they have to face complaints from the commuters. They have to learn new skills, especially those drivers who are 50 and 60, they have to continue to upgrade their skills as public transport system goes IT. How to avoid fare increases? Yes, we can do that. Today, the average waiting period for a bus is three minutes during peak hours. In order to meet this target, we have to operate 20 buses on one route during the peak period. If the commuters are willing to wait six minutes instead of three, we can reduce the number of buses operating on the route from 20 to 10. This will translate into savings in capital investment and the subsequent depreciation charges on 10 buses. With two drivers taking turns to operate each bus, this will also mean that we will reduce the cost of employing 20 drivers. The question is, "Are the commuters prepared to wait for 6 minutes for a bus during the peak periods?" It is already the case that sometimes when the buses are caught in traffic jam and arrive one or two minutes late, the commuters would complain and even abuse the driver by asking, "Why so late!" And you want them to wait for six minutes instead of three? Furthermore, the statutory life-span of a bus is 15 years. Why do we not extend it to 20 years? If we allow a bus to operate for 20 years, then bus companies will save on depreciation, and asset replacement cost. If Singaporeans feel that we want to enjoy a world-class transport system, they must be prepared to pay. In the 60s and 70s, it was not uncommon to wait for half an hour for a bus. I had to get up before dawn to make sure I catch a bus before 6.30 am in order to reach school on time. The bus stop was just a post with a plate attached displaying the bus number. There is no shelter or seats. Sometimes, while I was standing at the bus stop waiting for the bus to arrive, it suddenly rained. I had to run back home to change my drenched school uniform and come out again with a rain-coat or an umbrella. The buses were usually packed. If you board the bus just a couple of stops from the depot, you would be lucky to be able to board the bus, let alone getting a seat. If Singaporeans are prepared to go back to the standards and conditions of public buses in the 1960s and 70s, then I think it is possible for us to wait for another 3-4 years before it would be necessary to raise the bus fares again. We know what Singaporeans want. Any fare or price increase is surely not welcomed. But we have to be realistic. One constituent of mine thought he struck a bargain when he bought three pairs of socks for only $1 at the pasar malam organised by the Residents' Committee. But these socks shrank and tore when they were washed two days later. He came to me and complained, "Why you people sell this type of lousy things at your pasar malam?" Yes, they were cheap and affordable. But are they the sort of things you want? If the Government says the bus can be used for 20 years and that people are prepared to wait for 10-20 minutes, as the Executive Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union, I can assure you that in the next three or four years, there would not be any need for fare increase. However, there will be complaints from the commuters. My constituency is near to the Yishun Interchange. One night, at the meet-the-people session, one constituent told me there was a thunderstorm a few days ago. His son was drenched by the heavy downpour. He remarked, "How could you say that our transport system is world-class when our bus interchange is so badly designed? Why can we not offer better shelter from the weather at the bus interchange?" As for the issue on the airconditioned buses or non-airconditioned buses, it is a matter of choice and opinion. Today, there are many people who would prefer and do not mind paying a bit more to travel in the comfort of an airconditioned bus. They absolutely detest travelling in a non-airconditioned bus. We have to exercise our political wisdom when dealing with the issue on fare increase. This time round, the issue on fare increase has been brought up and debated vigorously in Parliament. If Parliament has to convene for every proposed price increase, then our MPs will have to become full-time MPs and come to Parliament every day to discuss these matters, just like those in Taiwan. I know that all our Members are either professionals or successful business people. It is not easy to get 84 people to become part-time parliamentarians. If we are going to get 84 professionals and successful entrepreneurs to give up their career and business to serve as full-time MPs, it will be almost impossible. Then, are we prepared to accept lesser people to come in here? I do not think so. I hope that everyone of us would look at this matter in a calm manner. Much as we want to please the people, we cannot please all the people all the time. There are bound to be some policies which are unpopular with the people Last night, when I was talking to my residents at the coffee shop, I told them that we should be more concerned with Malaysia's intention to increase the price of water they supply to us rather than the fare increase. They all agreed. They said, "Yes, this is more important. Parliament should use their time to discuss how we are going to fight the Malaysians." However, today, we are spending a long time talking about the three-cent to ten-cent fare hike. Just now, Mr Ng Ser Miang, our NMP, explained the problems faced by the bus operators. Mr Ng is an honourable man. I respect him, although sometimes, I had heated arguments with him because I represent the union and he was on the management side. Under the law, so long as we have enough votes, we can stage a strike. So, I used to tell him that if the management persists in treating us badly, and our workers cannot live a comfortable life, we would go on a strike. But do we want to see such a situation in Singapore? My counterparts in Taiwan told me that even the taxi drivers can go on strike. Every time they go on strike, they want us to give them some moral support for their industrial action. If our workers cannot earn a decent living, then nobody would want to be bus drivers. Currently, approximately 30% of our bus drivers are not Singaporeans. In total, the two bus companies have vacancies for at least 200 drivers. Despite the grave unemployment situation in Singapore, there are some 200 vacancies for bus drivers that remain unfilled. I have been telling people, "If you are unemployed and want to become a bus driver, just come to me. I will get you the job. No need to write letters. No need to get referrals." It is a big difference from the situation 10-20 years ago. Nowadays, nobody wants to become a bus driver because the pay is not attractive. We have about 30% non-Singaporeans driving our buses. Let us look into this matter squarely. Now, if all our people do not want to drive buses, if we have 80% bus drivers who are foreigners and if they do not maintain the bus properly, if the tyres are not properly secured, the lives of 50-odd passengers on the bus would be in jeopardy. If they are not Singaporeans, why should they work so hard to maintain the buses for you? Why should they be concerned with the lives and safety of the Singaporean commuters? By then, you would have to start worrying. Who would not want to feel secure and safe while travelling on public transportation? Our accident rate is the lowest in the whole of Asia. During the seventh month, the month of the hungry ghosts, our bus drivers would pray very hard at every bus depot hoping that there would not be any accident. They work very hard. If we want them to have a decent living, we have to give them decent wages. I think that is only fair. If this small increase in bus fares can contribute to better standard of living for our bus drivers, I think it is worth it because we want to have a world-class transport system in Singapore. So, I hope that every Singaporean could clearly understand the situation. No government would like to go against the wishes of the people. Every government would wish to help its people, if not at least the people of the next generation. Of course, the bus drivers nowadays do not want their children to become bus drivers. Our Government has been forward-looking. We have to make sure that Singaporeans have a good future ahead. We cannot be so calculative and feel unhappy because of a slight fare increase. At the media, we can see and read about the discontent of our people. Some people have written very sincerely and earnestly in the newspapers on the issue of fare increase. Like many older generation of Singaporeans have said: "Although life is difficult every day, we nevertheless manage to get by." The basic problem is that increase in bus fares, for that matter, any price increase, is always painful and unbearable. More importantly, we must have enough water supply to stay alive. We want our Government to pool its resources to make sure we have the water supply we need. This is much more important and crucial than the debate on the 3-cent fare hike. I support this amended motion.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Motion. There is a lot of unhappiness and unease among the populace on the bus fare increase. But, surprisingly, while many may think that the grouse is about the quantum of increase, this is not merely the case. I agree with Dr Wang when he said that the majority of the people are not as upset about the 3-cent unit fare increase. To the embattled members of the PTC, within the constraints that they work under, this speaks well of the diligence that the PTC members had put into the exercise. I believe we should applaud their resolution in maintaining the long-term view through the principle of small step increases. However, despite what the hon. Member, Mr Ong Ah Heng, said about not raising small issues in this Chamber - whether it is dirty toilets or bus services - we feel that we must address and bring up the unease. Let me just categorise the unease into two key areas, which are that of timing and process. In terms of timing, there are two aspects. One is that of the macro, which is injecting an increase when most in the economic milieu are still smarting from the impact of the downturn, and have yet to taste the fruits of any improvements. Yes, as all may say, this is not the first time that there has been an increase in bus fares. And, yes, we would all agree that this would not be the last time either. But everyone knows the cry is, why do it now? Can it not wait another half a year? The general perception is that the rush in the increase seems to smell of more to come in other areas. Hence, more worrying is, what else is next? This brings me to the second part of the timing issue, ie, that this issue comes on the heels of all the other announcements of escalations. As such, we are often confronted with the question - one come, all come, how come? Next, the process. There is a perceived insensitivity on the part of the regulators, manifested in the outcry at the lack of time for feedback to be properly obtained. Secondly, there is a perceived opaqueness under which the decisions were arrived. But all said and done, we must however realise that we do have an approach that worked before. The PTC and its independence must be preserved. While we look into the timing and the process, let us not destroy the very foundation that gives us the public transportation system that we have today, which we are extremely proud of. Hence, to be constructive, rather than a review, I support Dr Tan's amendments which highlighted key factors that have to be taken into consideration. I would like to take this opportunity to make several suggestions. First, the deliberations of the PTC should be on public record. In this way, people who are interested can satisfy themselves of the substance of the deliberations as well as the thought process. They are not uncaring. In this particular instance, what appears to be hiding behind the CPI + X formula for substantiating increases just would not do, especially where for most of the seven out of ten Singaporeans that are affected, they do not see any CPI increase in their incomes and their X could well be negative. While one can understand fully Senior Minister of State, Khaw Boon Wan's explanation, that the CPI +X is a strong motivator to the operator to push for productivity in the face of such an escalation ceiling, it would not be entirely out of place if we exact some concessions this time round. So, can we push the boundary? The level of service quality and the attendant cost should also be based on what the bus commuting public want. Whether it is frills or no frills, let it be determined empirically. I know we have a system where people go to bus interchanges and from there, they go outwards. And my point about the Sengkang bus service is why stick to that? Why not offer point to point, which people want. Even in the airline industry, there is a struggle between hub and spoke, and point to point. You need not do point to point all day round. As for my market, I do not have a market, offer point to point at the time when people want to go to the market. So, you do not run it all day round. So, ask the commuters. Let it be determined empirically. It would seem that in the present economic context, the commuters may want our public transportation system just to be reliable. Regular intervals, good coverage and be safe. TVs and airconditioning on buses and interchanges, whoever pays for it, just would not get the thumbs up. It is very hard to accept that with airconditioning, operating cost would not go up. Just compare food court versus natural air kopi tiam prices, this would show up. Why not have a forum where the needs can be determined. While it may not satisfy every one all the time, at least there is a gauge of what the consumers want as determined by the travelling public for themselves, whether it is 8 minutes interval or 12 minutes interval. Let us not sweep all these under the banner of "rising expectations", because these can be managed. I believe people can accept that shorter intervals will mean more buses, more drivers and hence higher costs, especially in instances when increased frequency does not stimulate higher ridership. Just go to Shenton Way and ask some of the people in the high-rise buildings during lunch-time. They probably wait 8-10 minutes for the lift to get from the top floor to the bottom floor, and to get on a lift. Is that high expectation? Do we put in more elevators? I re-read the public statements put up by the PTC last year when there was no direct price increase. At that time, it too had the dilemma of balancing operators' viability and commuters' interest. The increase was turned down. Yet, the operators made money. I think the argument is not whether the operators should be viable. There is no disagreement here. They must be viable. Rather, the question is whether enough has been done to eliminate wastage and drive productivity in order to reduce cost. And it will go a long way if Dr Amy Khor's request to see the compelling evidence of imminent non-viability is produced. That would silence many critics. There should be some means of injecting competition, thereby subjecting the operators to even sharper cost discipline. And to echo Mr Ravindran's point, there must be in place alternative means of assurance and independent verification, if market forces are not fully in play. In summary, the call is for more transparency in the process and better communications. In addition, service levels should be based on some market-based consumer derived benchmarks, and let them decide for themselves. And further, for more competition that would blunt the inexorable increase in cost. We need to tackle these issues as enhancement but, in the meantime, we must be reminded that we have a world-class public transportation system that we all ought to be proud of. Let us work together to enhance the pillars and the foundations on which they hang on, rather than undermine the very basis for the PTC's authority. Sir, I support the amendments to the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Dr Tan Boon Wan. I have to admit that after yesterday's animated debate that we saw in the House, it is not going to be easy to up the tempo but, nevertheless, Dr Tan Boon Wan has risen to give a reasonable and realistic touch to the original Motion. I would like to give my take on the proposed amendments and overall issue of the public transport fare. Sir, in the proposed amendments, he has rightly taken into consideration PM Goh's support for the principle of PTC granting small increases. Similarly, he has put into context the concerns of the people in the present environment of uncertainty and economic slowdown by urging the Government to ensure public services remain affordable. These amendments are laudable and I think it should be supported. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard over and over again in this House about the difficulties facing all Singaporeans at this moment. The depth of the impact of economic recession on the lives of our citizens is further emphasised by the recent announcement of more job losses and increases in the request for financial assistance. Sir, we cannot, and should not, under-estimate the effect of the slowdown in the global economy on their livelihood. Many of my constituents that I met during grassroots functions and block visits expressed the concerns and worry. With the perceived spate of increases in the charges for basic services, they are just waiting for the last straw that would break the camel's back. They are at a loss of what is happening. They view the recent increase in the bus fares as contradictory to the overall effort to lower cost and tighten their belts during these hard times. I believe that many Members have already expressed this eloquently, and I am just echoing their sentiments further. On the other hand, Sir, we also have to admit that the job of the PTC is not an easy one. They have to find a balance between the public interest without undermining the viability of the transport provider. The framework of regulations that we have in place has worked well for us. But in our usual continuous quest to improve and to do things better, I think we should widen the representations in the PTC to include members from the unions, political leaders, grassroots leaders, and dare I suggest, student leaders too. Let us be fair and give credit where it is due. Several Members openly admitted that the PTC has done reasonably well. We all understood that PTC has been given the responsibility and the unenviable task to do, we should have the confidence on the members and not undermine their role and integrity. Furthermore, we should not judge them on a single unpopular decision, but rather look at their track record over the period of their existence. Let us improve the processes and make it more transparent, but not destroy PTC's position. Mr Speaker, let me tell you an experience that marked me for a long time. This happened in 1986 when I was studying in Paris, France. It was my first winter and it was very, very cold. I was taking my usual train ride back to my hostel. I was about 3 kilometres away from the destination when the train stopped at the station. I noticed that it was longer than usual, but thought nothing of it. To my surprise and shock, after about ten minutes, there was an announcement that said that the train was not going to move because the driver had gone on an abrupt strike. Little did I realise that I was given a shock introduction to a common thing - things that happen in Paris, ie, public transport strike. Needless to say, I had to walk back to my hostel. Let us not take things for granted. We do have a good transport system. It may not be the best, but it works, albeit with some minor hiccups now and then. But it works. It is the envy of many people around the world. Does this happen by chance? No. Apart from the infrastructure that we have, there are thousands of public transport workers that run it and make it all happen for us everyday. Like Mdm Halimah, I would also like to thank them for their effort and good work. Let me also take this opportunity, Sir, to remind the transport providers that they have to continue to improve and not let the commuters down. This fare increase, though small it may be, is done during difficult times. Thus, transport providers must, in good faith, provide their best and reward their loyal commuters by some other innovative means. Lastly, Sir, let me reiterate my support to the amendments to the Motion proposed by Dr Tan Boon Wan.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Today, I am going to tell a story about a song I heard in my car a few nights ago. In fact, this is a song, not a story. A lady had made a request for an old song entitled "A Couple's Duet" to be broadcast over the radio programme. This is a pretty old song, one that was recorded some 50-60 years ago. The song started with the wife singing, "Prices going up day by day, trouble and worries for us who have to pay and pay." She then went on to lament on how the prices of everything had been going up, how difficult it was for her to run the household. She complained that her husband was useless and unable to earn enough money to support her and the family. The husband then replied that he had his grievances too. He said the market was bad, his job was insecure and he had to bear with the whims and fancies of his employer. No pay rise, and his job could be lost anytime! Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very old song, some 50 years old, and it was about the chaotic situation in China at that time. I really do not know whether this lady had requested for this song that night by coincidence or by design. Of course, Singapore's economy is in a recession and unemployment rate is rising. But it is still not as bad as it was in China during those chaotic days. Yet, the lyrics of this song seem to reflect some of the worries of our people today. We have heard speeches by many of our Members in the last two days. They are actually reflecting the sentiments of the people and this is something that we, as Members of Parliament, ought to do. Some Members have raised some suggestions. Here, I would thank Minister Mah and SMS Khaw for their clarifications. They have clarified some of the misunderstandings of our people and to let the people realise that the Government actually cares for them. And these policies are farsighted and the intention is good. Mr Ong Ah Heng has also very eloquently and emotionally analysed the various acts of the Government which were done with the interest of the people at heart. But why is it that this issue has aroused such a vigorous reaction by the people? I think it is because we have not done enough in our communication with our people, and we have not been thorough enough in explaining to our people. This is what Mr Arthur Fong had mentioned just now. In order to improve communication with our people, I think we have to look into various matters. Let me give Members an analysis in my capacity as a psychiatrist. Actually if we want to treat our patient effectively, there are three steps to follow. First, we must build up a good doctor-patient relationship. Secondly, we have to understand his problems by talking to him and listening to him. Thirdly, we must set the treatment target and then give specific, feasible and well-paced treatment to the patient. How do we build up the relationship between the doctor and the patient? There are three important elements. First, the doctor must accept the patient. Second, he must support the patient and, thirdly, the doctor must assure the patient and build up his faith in the doctor. For example, many of my patients suffer from anxiety disorder. They have a lot of worries and bodily symptoms. They say, "Oh, I am going to have a heart attack now." "I have breathing difficulties, I cannot breathe," etc. More often than not, I would find nothing physiologically wrong with them. I know it is a matter of psychology. In fact, there is nothing wrong with them. They just worry themselves sick. In a way, these patients are somewhat like the people in Singapore nowadays. They all understand the reason for this round of fare hike. To the people, this 3-cent or 5-cent increase is a potential worry. This is a signal of something more serious to come. We must learn to accept their concerns, give them the necessary support and reassurance, and then gradually build up their confidence. Only then can we change their mindset. Secondly, we have to listen to their problems and understand their concerns, just like a doctor who has first to understand the problems of his patient before he would make a diagnosis. So, similarly, in this issue, we have to understand what are the things that the people are most concerned with. Their concern is not just the 3 cents or 5 cents. I disagree with Mr Ong Ah Heng when he said that this was a small matter. This is not just trivial as they may appear to be. In the minds of the people, there is this anxiety that an avalanche of price increases is forthcoming. On the one hand, the Government is asking them to exercise wage restraint; yet, on the other hand, there is a whole series of price increases. They feel that the burden is getting very heavy, too heavy for them to bear. Thirdly, we must set up our treatment plan. This plan must be specific and feasible, and it must be a long-term plan to treat the disease. While we are dealing with this issue of fare adjustment, we want to see an all-win situation - a situation where everyone is a winner. We have to consider the interest of the people, the interest of the companies and the interest of the Government. The people's interest is that as mentioned by many of my parliamentary colleagues who spoke before me, quality service at reasonable prices. I shall not repeat this point. Secondly, the companies' interests. Of course, the companies want to make profits. We cannot deny that. They must make profits, failing which they cannot survive. The only thing is that they must make their profits in a reasonable manner. Thirdly, the Government's interest. That is our long-term target. We want to set up a world-class transport system. This is a long-term plan which must be a major premise in our consideration. At the same time, we should also maintain the independence and professionalism of the PTC, so that this element of check and balance in the operation of our public transport system will not be eroded. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree with the amended motion by Dr Tan Boon Wan requesting that PTC take a comprehensive, overall view of the situation whenever they consider any application for fare increase. Now, what the people want to know is whether or not the PTC has considered the present economic downturn and unemployment situation in Singapore. They want to know whether PTC has thoroughly examined the operation of the two companies, and whether they have made every attempt to improve productivity rather than pushing the burden to the commuters. On this occasion, this round of fare increase, they have given labour cost as a factor for the increase. The public is not yet convinced of this. My colleagues have already spoken on this. I am not going to repeat it. Over the last 10 years or so, the PTC has done very much and, I am sure, they must have given this matter very full deliberation before they made this decision. Why is it that people still have so much worries about its decision? I feel that on this occasion, when dealing with this issue, perhaps the PTC has not perfected its communication skills with the people. I think if there is more consultation with the interested parties and with more thorough studies and better communication, I am sure we will not hear so much voices of discontent among the people. I suggest that the Ministry of Transport consider improving the way in which PTC operates and the way it communicates with the people, so that people can see, hear and feel that the PTC is also protecting their interests. In addition, I also suggest that the Ministry of Transport consider appointing some bus or MRT commuters to the PTC to enhance the scope of its representation. This will increase the voices of the people in PTC. At the same time, whenever they make any major policy decision, they should adopt a more consultative approach to collect feedback from the people, so that they can increase its transparency. Having spoken on the communication part of PTC, I would like to talk about the competitiveness in the public transport market. In our process to remake Singapore, we keep hearing this expression of "leaving no stone unturned". So in our public transport system, should we also take this opportunity to turn the stones? The present method of operation of public transport system has been used in Singapore for many years. It has raised the standard of our public transport to an enviable situation. We have a world-class transport system now. But now these two companies are each having a comfortable share of the pie. There is no competition between them. How are we going to improve their productivity? I, therefore, suggest that the Minister for Transport should give consideration to open up this market so as to improve the competitiveness of the operators. I hope that the Minister will not give the usual routine answer to this question. If the methods proposed in the past are not feasible, it does not mean that there is no solution to it. I think if there is a will, there is a way. We should jump out of the old framework and think out of the box, and be more creative in the way we operate our public transport. There are so many talents in the Ministry of Transport. If we add this up with the feedback from the people, I am sure we could come up with a solution to effectively open up this market. I think this is very relevant to our situation, particularly to Singapore which embraces a free market economy. For example, the opening up of the communications market has led to a greater variety of services being provided by the operators and a higher quality of service. If the Minister is worried that by opening up the public transport market, we will revert to the chaotic situation some 30 years ago, I do not think this would be the case. The environment nowadays is quite different. The quality and expectations of the people are higher now. I am sure that the Ministry of Transport is able to properly plan and arrange in such a way that the market can be opened up smoothly and successfully. I am sure there will be more pros than cons in the opening up of the public transport market. This will generate a check and balance over the operational cost of the players. In addition, it will also cause the companies to be more sensitive towards the feelings of the commuters. Since I started my speech with the lyrics of a song, I would also end with the ending line of this song. It says, "With the cold winter coming to an end, there will come a gorgeous spring." So long as the people and the Government are willing to put in a concerted effort together, I am sure we will have a better and more beautiful spring ahead of us. I support the amended motion.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.10 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fare hike has been hotly debated as it touches a raw nerve among the more than 62% of Singapore's commuting public that relies on public transport. What was found most unpalatable was the manner in which the fare adjustment was decided upon and its timing. Although the Public Transport Council (PTC) rejected the applications for an across-the-board increase in fares last year, it has approved some of the fare adjustments proposed by the operators this year. Fare increases of between three cents and 10 cents would bring the operators extra revenue of 2.2% to 2.5%. This figure is lower than what the PTC formula would have allowed for. Annual fare revisions are subjected to a cap based on the formula of change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) + X. The X has been set at 1.5% for five years from 2001 to 2005. If fares had been raised every year, based on the formula, the quantum of fare revenue increase would be approximately 13%. The PTC has exercised its role well in the past and must be complimented for that. These fare adjustments, implemented recently, will help to defray what operators said were higher running costs, including manpower costs. Understandably, there will be costs involved in providing and maintaining an efficient transport system and fee adjustments may be inevitable, as so humorously explained and illustrated by my colleague, Mr Ong Ah Heng. However, it may be time for us to re-evaluate PTC's formula for approving fare hikes, as proposed in the amendment to consider factors like viability of public transport operators and affordability of commuters. According to analysts' estimates, the increased fare revenue for the operators could add up to $11 million. Even without the fare hike, the companies are still making profits. Last year, the SMRT made a profit of $56.8 million and, this year, the company is expected to ring in higher profits. A profit is still a profit, regardless of the margin. Operators may not enjoy healthier bottom line without the hike, but under the current economic conditions, companies who manage to turn in profits should count themselves very fortunate indeed. The criterion for fare adjustment is too narrowly focused on the bottom line of operators; other pertinent factors, like prevailing economic conditions and unemployment, should be given more weight in this equation. Secondly, PTC is better advised to put in place mechanisms for soliciting public views and feedback before implementing any fare adjustments in the future. Instead of being forced to make frequent clarifications and justifications after the fact, they could introduce the public earlier into the decision-making process. This would also give commuters ample notice of the impending change. The timing of the fare adjustments raises some concerns as well. In the face of unemployment, high retrenchment rate and a slow economy, the timing could not be more ill planned. Lower-income households have seen their disposable income shrinking on the one hand, and the cost of living increasing on the other. A double "whammy" you could say. The hike is coming six months before the GST increase by 2-percentage point, another burden for the lower income. The quick succession of cost increments is overwhelming for the lower-income group. The pockets of the poor, especially the retrenched, will be hit hard by these incremental increases. To some, these amounts are trivial; to many others, they add up. Nonetheless, the full impact should not be blamed on the transport hike alone. The timing of the hike reinforces the public perception that the Government is upping cost of basic items now, before the new GST is due. Some believe that PTC should only decide on fare changes after the ez-link card system completely replaces the magnetic fare card. By then, it would be able to ascertain if the new and fairer system, where cheating is eliminated, has any real impact on the bottom line of operators. The fare hike would be an easier sell to the commuting public then. After all, they are the paying customers. Sir, these comments carry the sentiments from the ground. The ordinary folks whose means of commuting is by public transportation will face the brunt of the hike. As Advisers to the GROs and MPs of our respective communities, we will explain the rationale for the hike, but we must also be able to represent the views of the ordinary folks on policies impacting their finances with a view to influence and shape improvement in future policy making. The dilemma that this House is faced with today on the transportation hike, provides one of the most unavoidable lessons of having to deal with disapproval of others and, in this instance, whether we are for or against the Motion. That praise and blame are all the same; it reminds us of an old cliche, that we will never be able to please all the people all the time. Even in a landslide election victory in which a candidate wins 70% of the vote, he or she is left with 30% of the population that wishes someone else were the winner. Indeed a humbling truth! The truth shows up all the warts and wrinkles on our face. How do we respond? Pretend we do not see them, or accept them, and still stand head and shoulders above others. Sir, the truth is that everyone has his own set of ideas with which to evaluate a situation, and our ideas do not always match those of others. For some reason, most of us struggle against this inevitable fact. We get angry, hurt, or otherwise frustrated, when people reject our ideas, tell us no or give us other forms of disapproval. Personally, I find myself yo-yo-ing between praise and blame. One of my children is happy with my action, the other struggles against it. Someone says I am a nice MP because I understand business and strategic considerations in this fare hike incident. Someone else thinks I am not, because I have not been effective in reversing the hike. This back and forth, approval and disapproval, happens all the time. In truth, we would always prefer approval over disapproval because it is easier to deal with. Where do we go from here as responsible Members of Parliament? How do we deal with the challenge of the unhappy lot? We have to find a balanced approach and take a longer term perspective towards resolving a national issue that understandably embraces a bigger agenda. Sounds like a pie in the sky because, in reality, we have to face the daily grumblings and woes of those affected who will unceasingly question the timing of such an action and the high handed approach of the PTC. All said, I am encouraged by the amended Motion that will, at least, demonstrate to the ordinary folks that Parliament is a responsible and caring one, and will not hesitate to temper pains with necessary actions. The amended Motion will signify to the public that, indeed, Parliament is not hearing impaired. That much more credibility this amended Motion would give to the MPs in the eyes of the ordinary folks. Instead of walking out of this House with drooping shoulders and hanging down heads after two days of intense debate, the MPs would be able to walk out of this House with their shoulders thrown backwards and heads held high and straight. I would urge that the PTC take heed of the proposed amendment for a more relevant set of criteria to be put in place. The MPs and the Government, on our part, will take the role of clarifying and explaining to the ground to get their buy-in through better communication. On this note, I support the amendments to the Motion.

Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Debate resumed.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the transport fare revision. Many Members have spoken on the original Motion and the amendment as well. They spoke with deep feelings, reflecting the unhappiness amongst many Singaporeans over the recent fare revision. I fully understand and empathise with the sentiments expressed by the Members and by the general public as well. Like the other Members here, I too had to face unhappy constituents and community leaders. Sir, it is good to have the chance to thoroughly discuss this issue in the House. For Members to not voice the sentiments of the ground, especially when the unhappiness appears to be so widespread, would undermine our credibility as representatives of the people. The Members have raised many valid points and questions. But there were also many misconceptions. Some MPs, like Mr Ong Ah Heng and Mr Iswaran, have eloquently helped to enlighten the House, and I commend them. Sir, I would now like to present some of the pertinent facts and further clarify the various issues. By having the full facts and picture, we can then discuss the public transport policies in a rational and logical manner and arrive at the right conclusion. Sir, when I got the Motion, I thought I had better prepare myself and asked PTC for the full details on how they came to the decision. I shall start with the question on the need for the fare revision. Is it justified, and why now, and not six months' time, or even a year later, as some MPs have suggested? Let me first inform Members that what I have ascertained is that PTC does closely scrutinise the financial performance and the increase in operating costs of the public transport operators in the preceding year, when considering the fare increases for the current year. They also do take into consideration the state of the economy, how is it impacting on the people, especially the commuters who form the lower level of the social economic group, and they try to make sure that the interests of both are safeguarded. By looking at the actual facts, the PTC is then able to make a decision based on the performance of the previous year, and not on projections for the current year. Because, if the PTC were to base the fare increase for this year on what the public transport operators have projected as the increase in cost for this year, their figures will be very hard to answer for or justify. So PTC has taken the right approach. Let us scrutinise the cost increase of the previous year in order to consider whether or not to allow an increase this year. Sir, the PTC found that, in 2001, the operating costs of the operators had increased by 6.9% on average. The recent fare revision, as Members know, will increase the revenues of the bus companies by 2.3%. The revision will, therefore, only partially offset the increase in operating costs. I must also inform Members that costs had also gone up significantly in year 2000 by 8.5%. But because we were in recession last year, PTC decided not to allow an across-the-board increase to cater for that large increase in costs. It only allowed feeder bus services to increase the feeder fares by 10 cents. And this resulted in a general increase of 1% in the bus companies' revenues. Sir, this means that over the past two years, despite the economic downturn, costs for the transport operators had gone up by over 15%. But with this year's increase of 2.3%, total fares for the two years together would have gone up a total of only 3.3%. The PTC has, therefore, looked after the interests of the commuters very well by not allowing the PTOs to pass through to the commuters much of the impact of the cost increases. Wage Costs Sir, Members have asked - surely wage costs would have gone down? Based on the figures I have quoted, what has led to the increase in the costs? The PTC has explained that the main cost factors were, indeed, wage costs and service improvements. Public transport is very labour intensive, with manpower costs making up about half of the PTOs' total operating costs. In the year 2000, average wage costs for transport workers went up by 8.3%, partly because of the 2% CPF restoration. Mr Tan Soo Khoon had asked whether the PTOs exercised wage restraint last year, just like SIA. I am very happy to inform the House that, last year, the transport companies, workers and executives did indeed exercise wage restraint. As a result, wages last year went down by 3.4%. But because of the 4% CPF contribution restoration, this pushed the wage costs up by 0.6% for the bus companies. That meant that over the two-year period, wage costs for the PTOs went up about 9%. This is despite the downturn. Sir, some Members may be surprised by this. Let me now quote to Members the figures from the Ministry of Manpower. MOM's data shows that wage increases in Singapore averaged 6.6% in 2000, and 1.1% last year. Total increase for the two years was 7.7%. And if we include the 6% CPF restoration, total wages for the employers would have gone up by about 13.7%. Therefore, the PTOs, transport workers and executives have actually exercised wage restraint by holding the increase in wage costs to only 9%, well below the national average. Sir, we have heard from Mr Ong Ah Heng. We have also heard from Mr Ng Ser Miang. But I think Mr Ong Ah Heng's views should be well listened to, because he represents the workers and he knows what life is like for them. We must be fair to the transport workers. They have taken a wage restraint last year, but we cannot continue to deprive them of what other workers are enjoying. Otherwise, good workers will not want to work for the transport companies and, in the end, commuters will be worse off. And, as we have heard from Mr Ong Ah Heng and Mr Ng Ser Miang, the bus companies already have huge difficulties recruiting bus drivers. Today, even in the midst of the recovery, when we hear many people are looking for jobs, there are still 200 bus driver's jobs going a-begging. Service Improvements Sir, another key component of the cost increase is service improvements. The key service improvements are those that are made to meet requests from commuters for more frequent services, and new bus services to serve new HDB towns. Unfortunately, service improvements do not come cheap. As a guide, it costs the operators $500 per day to run an additional bus, and this amounts to $200,000 a year. So, each time we ask for the frequency to be increased, to add in more buses, each bus will cost the company $200,000 a year. If that additional bus leads to a higher ridership, that is all right. But, unfortunately, it is usually the same pool of people who take that service. So, the additional frequency may not lead to a comparable increase in revenue. What about the introduction of a new bus service? Sir, the PTC tells me that it costs $3.5 million a year for the bus companies to introduce a new service. Over the last two years, the PTOs had a net increase of seven new services. Productivity Improvements Sir, some Members have also pointed out that the PTOs should try to improve productivity rather than rely on fare revisions. After all, that is the common thing that every company does. When it is faced with a downturn, it will look for better ways to improve productivity. As Minister Mah and SMS Khaw had explained, we do expect the PTOs to do more to improve productivity, but we must also be realistic. The easy improvements have all been made: one-man operation in the earlier years; next, the bus companies went on to larger capacity buses. That helped to improve the productivity of the bus drivers. But there is a limit to how much bigger the buses can go. We have got double-decker; we cannot go triple-decker. So, there is a limit now to the easy increases in productivity. And the bus has only one driver. We cannot cut it down to half. Maybe one of these days, in the far future, we may have driverless buses, just like we have driverless trains. But that day is going to be very far in the future for us to even think about. So productivity is going to be a difficult challenge, but we will nonetheless push the bus companies to strive for it. Profitability Sir, another hot topic inside and outside the House, in fact, a very hot topic, is the profitability of the operators. Mr Iswaran had given us a good lecture, and I hope Members have heard clearly what he had said. Yes, the operators are profitable. Yes, they are making millions of dollars. Should the simple conclusion then be that since they are making plenty of money, they should not be allowed to increase fares? Some Members even go further, and argue that the PTOs are providing a public service and, therefore, they should not be profit-making. The question we need to ask is: are the companies indeed profiteering? Are the profits excessive or are they reasonable? And should we squeeze them until they are losing money and are on the verge of being commercially not viable before we allow them an increase? How would this enable them to provide a satisfactory level of service to the commuters? How would this serve the long-term interests of the commuters? Sir, let me again give Members some facts. Members will recall that the operating costs of the PTOs went up by 6.9% in 2001, while fares only went up by 1% last year. Consequently, the profit margins of the operators dropped significantly last year. The after tax profits of SBS Transit dropped from $51 million in 2000, to $40 million in 2001. TIBS fared badly, dropping from $8.4 million in 2000, to only $2.7 million last year. Similarly, SMRT, which did not enjoy a fare increase last year, saw its profits drop by almost half, from $111 million to $67 million last year. Yes, they are still profitable and are still making millions. ROTA But profits must be measured relative to the level of the investments needed. The figures are huge. SBS has total assets of over $500 million; TIBS has over $270 million; and SMRT, $1.4 billion, ie, $1,400 million worth of assets. Yesterday, we had a long lecture also from Mr Tan Soo Khoon on the return on equity (ROE) of SBS. ROE is really not a good measure of how effectively a company is using its assets. The better measurement is ROTA, or Return on Total Assets. ROTA is calculated by dividing the earnings before interest payments by their total assets. Of the three operators, SBS had the best ROTA, of 8.6 % last year. In comparison, TIBS had 2.9% ROTA, and SMRT, 4.8%. I think the financial analysts will tell us that the rate of return for SBS in 2001 is fairly healthy, but the rate of return for the combined SMRT/TIBS is on the low to very low side. In actual fact, the performance of the two bus companies would have been even lower, if not for two Government measures that we implemented in 1998. Let me go into these two measures. Road Tax Reduction The first is the vehicle tax rationalisation exercise. This was part of the Government's cost-cutting exercise. But it was also to offset the impact of the ERP on public buses. The road tax for buses was reduced from $5,500 to $1,600 for the single-decked buses, and to $2,000 for the double-decker buses. Arising from this, the two bus companies enjoyed a combined savings of some $13 million a year. SBS alone accounted for about $10 million of the savings. Extension of Bus Lifespan Sir, the second important measure was the extension of the statutory lifespan of buses from 12 to 15 years. This was again done in mid-1998. This means that for three years, from 1998 to mid-2001, the bus companies had a double benefit. First, they could continue using buses which would otherwise have to be disposed of. These buses are fully depreciated, ie, they could use assets which, in effect, were already free. Second, they were able to save the money which they would otherwise have to use to buy the new replacement buses. This means that they saved on the depreciation, plus they were able to earn interest on the money which they did not have to spend. To show Members the large amount of money involved, SBS spends about $80 million a year to replace its fleet of buses. In terms of savings on depreciation, and the interest earned on the money which they did not have to spend, it comes up to $10 million or thereabouts a year. And because this is additive, ie, every year another batch is saved, and they have the additional benefit from that batch saved. The savings alone for the third year, ie, in 2001, is about $25 million. So, just for the year 2001, they could save $25 million just on this measure. Sir, these two policy changes have helped enhance the profitability of the bus companies, not because of fare increases or productivity improvements. These two measures alone would have saved them a lot of money. In fact, one only has to look at their financial performance in 1997 to get a sense of how well the bus companies were doing without this assistance. In 1997, SBS only earned $21 million and had a ROTA of only 4.4%. Without the Government coming in, they were earning only 4.4% ROTA in 1997. TIBS made only $1.7 million, and had a ROTA of 2.3%. And that was after they had a big fare increase of 8.5% that year. If we look at those figures, I do not think, fundamentally, that the companies are really doing that well. Sir, what is more important for the public is that because of these two Government measures, we had helped to prevent a price hike in 1998. And in 1999, the bus companies were even able to pass to commuters the savings from the 10% CPF cut, which they did through a 5% fare rebate. Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Dr Tan Cheng Bock had asked about this. Yes, they did do their part. Sir, however, the impact of the lifespan extension began to diminish from mid-2001. That means, from then on, they would have to start replacing their buses, because the extended buses would have reached 15 years of age already. This means that this year, which is the full first year of impact, cost must go up quite significantly. As I mentioned just now, the impact of the lifespan extension is $10 million a year. Sir, the more fundamental question would be whether the transport operators, who are providing a public service, should even be making money. Sir, it is wrong to think that just because they are providing a public service, they should not be profit-oriented, because profit-oriented is not profiteering-oriented. We must remember that any operating entity, whether it is for profit or not-for-profit, must earn a reasonable return if it is to provide a satisfactory service to its customers. This is even more so for the transport industry, which is a very asset and capital-intensive industry. It needs to have enough revenues to cover operating costs, and to generate enough reserves to renew its operating assets. Luckily, the present PTOs are profit-making, so they have reserves. If they are not-for-profit operations today, the full impact of their cost increases over the last two years would have to be passed through in full to our commuters. Sir, some Members questioned why the PTC has to ensure the financial viability of the PTOs. After all, other companies are not guaranteed of viability. As Dr Wang Kai Yuen has rightly pointed out, this is because the public transport sector is a regulated sector, and we have to regulate it because there are only two operators. We, therefore, have to regulate them to prevent them from making excessive profits. Sir, these two are definitely not normal companies, in the sense of what Mr Inderjit Singh had talked about yesterday. Normal companies are able to set their own rates based on what the market can bear. When times are good, they can up their product price by 10%, 15% or 20%, whatever the market can bear. I am sure that if the PTOs have this freedom, fares today would be much higher, at least 50%, if not double. But because we regulate them from having excessive profits, the regulator also has the obligation to look after their commercial viability. Otherwise, who would want to invest in such a sector, or even lend money to them? Parliament recognised this in 1987, and that is why we charged the PTC with the responsibility to also ensure the viability of the operators. Sir, there seems to be some misunderstanding about the CPI + X formula which is used to regulate the operators. Some Members seem to be under the impression that because we have the formula, the fares are automatically given. The fare increases are not automatically given, and the PTC has been very careful about that. This is the formula that PTC uses to determine what is the maximum that they can approve for the fare revision, should the PTC decide that a fare revision is warranted. Some Members have asked what is "X". It seems to be a magic figure. Why is it 1.5%? Sir, "X" takes into consideration the manpower cost increases and productivity improvements. In deriving the wage increases, PTC took a look at the historical levels and tried to project forward in terms of what is the expectation for the future. PTC also took into consideration the point that the bus companies must achieve productivity improvements. So PTC discounted the amount of the salary increase factor that should be provided in the "X". That is how it arrived at a level of 1.5%. If you look at it, other than the last two years where, because of the recession, the wage increases have gone down, I think 1.5% is, in fact, a very conservative estimate of the impact of labour cost increases, taking into consideration productivity improvements. Sir, another point is whether the operators should even be profit-driven, ie, make profits but do not be profit-driven. Sir, as SMS Khaw Boon Wan had pointed out yesterday, it is good that the operators are profit-driven. This motivates them to innovate and to look for ways to improve productivity and, hopefully, that would flow down to the profits. Otherwise, if they are paid on a cost-recovery basis, there is really no need for them to crack their heads and do better. But while their job is to be profit-driven, the key that Members must remember is that we still have the PTC guarding the goalpost on behalf of the commuters. Timing of Fare Increase Sir, let me move on to the issue of timing. Questions have been asked why now, why not later? After all, we are just recovering from the recession. Members have admitted that there is never really a good time for a fare increase, let alone finding the best time. Even when the economic growth is strong, fare increases invariably attract tremendous amount of criticisms. We have established the PTC, and we have given it the responsibility to safeguard the interests of the commuters. In this, it has done very well. As I mentioned, it also has to be fair to the transport operators. We cannot have a situation of "heads I win, tails you lose". The key is to ensure that the PTC is able to study what has led to the cost increases faced by the operators, and whether these are valid factors. Have they made good efforts to improve productivity? And after satisfying itself that an increase is warranted, to proceed to allow an appropriate fare revision. And if the economy is weak, as the PTC has realised, to keep the fare increase to the bare minimum - again, in this case, it has done so. Sir, one of Mr Tan Soo Khoon's arguments against an increase now was that our economic recovery is still very shaky, and may not even hold. I think the economic data released by MTI this morning does give us something to cheer about -- not very much, but it is still something to cheer about. Our real GDP grew by 10.3% in the second quarter, and this compares very well against the first quarter growth of 8.4%. So 8.4% growth in the first quarter, 10.3% in the second quarter. Of course, we cannot guarantee that the rest of the year will be even better but, at least, at the present moment, the trend line is certainly looking good. And even if it holds at this level, we would have done well. Sir, some have argued that the timing is bad because of the high unemployment. I agree with that argument. Yes, many Singaporeans are unemployed and many have been retrenched, and others are fearing for their jobs today. Like all Members, I am concerned. But whilst we are concerned, we should look to see how we can actually focus our help towards those who really need help. Trying to help them with a blunt instrument, like holding the fare increase, is not going to help them very much. Let us look for real ways. This, indeed, is what the Government has been doing, together with the unions and the employers. There are many schemes available at the various levels. For example, the unions have been playing a very big part. They have been actively helping their retrenched workers to go for retraining and skills upgrading, so that they can get a new job. Hopefully with higher level skills, they can even get better paying jobs. For those who are having financial difficulties, the unions have also chipped in to provide some financial assistance. At the Government and community levels, there are also multiple schemes available. Some examples are the recently introduced Economic Downturn Relief Scheme (EDRS) and some old schemes like the Rent and Utilities Assistance Scheme (RUAS) and, of course, the good old Public Assistance (PA) for those who are genuinely unable to work. At the community level, there is a network of "Many Helping Hands". Many CCCs are providing financial help through their welfare funds. I know, because I monitor what we do in our GRC and the five MPs in our GRC do give up quite a fair bit of aid through our welfare fund. Even our PCF kindergartens are chipping in to waive, either in full or partially, kindergarten fees. And starting from 1st January next year, those facing financial hardship can also tap on the Economic Restructuring Shares (ERS). I think for a family of four, it would provide quite substantial help. So, it is better that we look at ways to help those who are directly in need, and do it in a meaningful and substantial way, so that they do not have to worry about the one or two cents that they have to pay for the bus fare increases. But while we have a lot of schemes to help the unemployed, how would this affect those who are employed? Would it be a big impact on them? Sir, to do that, we have to look in terms of how the fares have gone up for the last few years. As I mentioned just now, the fares have actually lagged behind salary increases. But if we look over the past 15 years, the increase in the cost of travel has lagged even further behind the national wage growth. Just now, Mr Ravindran asked for actual figures on how much the fares have actually gone up by. Salaries have gone up by 136% over the last 15 years. But how much have the fares actually gone up by? Sir, I will quote him the average bus ride of 8 kilometres. In 1987, an 8-kilometre bus ride cost 90 cents. Today, that same ride, with the recent increase, would cost $1.03, an increase of 14% over the past 15 years. If we look at the train ride, the train ride has gone up a little bit further, because 1987 was the start of the MRT system. The train ride has gone up 30%, from 80 cents to $1.04 today. I think Members would agree that these figures are very reasonable and well below the salary increases enjoyed by Singaporeans. Another point which Mr Iswaran brought up is that affordability is not just about percentage increases. Affordability is how much the families are paying as part of their family expenditure. And has it gone up today, or has it gone down? Sir, I have only two sets of figures, 1998 and 1988. In 1988, public transport formed 5.1% of household expenditures. In 1998, ten years later, it has not gone up. It has gone down to 4% of household expenditures. So the impact of public transport on the family pocket has actually diminished over the last 10 years. Sir, Dr Amy Khor stated that there is now a perception that the PTC has tilted fully in favour of the transport operators. Sir, she is totally wrong, and the ground perception is also totally wrong. The data has shown otherwise. On the contrary, Members and the public should be thanking the PTC for having protected the commuters so well. And I think we also should thank the transport operators for being productive and efficient and making the low fares possible. But some Members may ask, "How can we be sure that the fares are reasonable?" They may be affordable, but are they high compared to elsewhere? Are they reasonable? Sir, we can compare against, say, Hong Kong, which has a similar standard of living. The population is similar, except that they are double ours, and we all know in the public transport sector, economy of scale is important. Yesterday, Mr Tan Soo Khoon also brought up the example of the Kowloon Motor Bus Company (KMB). He quoted some figures and all that. Sir, let me go on to the Kowloon Motor Bus Company. KMB is bigger than SBS. KMB has a total of 3,700 buses compared to about 2,800- 2,900 in SBS. But, despite the advantages of a bigger population, a bigger bus fleet, I am glad to inform the House that our bus fares are still cheaper. Let me give Members some comparison. The fare for a 3 kilometre ride for KMB is 80 cents. This is in Singapore dollars, not Hong Kong dollars. This is almost 30% higher than our new starting fare of 63 cents. And this is the good part. For a 35 kilometre trip, which is our maximum, KMB charges S$3.05 cents per ride. Those of you who ride the bus will know that in Singapore, for that distance, our commuters only pay $1.53 cents, half the price of KMB. Sir, Mr Tan also touted the competitiveness of the PTOs in Hong Kong. He said that when the new MTR extension was opened, the MTR reduced prices to undercut the bus fares. And then KMB countered attack by also reducing prices, and offering free meals. I cannot remember. Is it KMB or is it MTR?

MTR.

MTR. And he said that our PTOs should therefore not hide behind the skirts of the PTC, and only know how to increase fares. Sir, if only SBS and TIBS were able to charge the same high fares as Hong Kong, I am sure that when they heard that yesterday, they must have been groaning away about how lucky they are in Hong Kong. I am sure that if they can charge the same fares as in Hong Kong, they will also have plenty of scope to offer special discounts too. If I am charging 50% more, I will be very happy to offer a 20% discount, and end up looking good all the way to the bank. Sir, Mr Tan also mentioned that in Hong Kong, the bus operators give value for money. If charging up to double what the Singapore bus companies are charging is giving value for money, then I think Singaporeans are going to be in trouble. The fact is that Singaporeans are already getting the best value for money from our bus operators. First, minimal price increases over the last 15 years. I quoted 14% increase for the average bus ride. When I think of my hawker food prices, the bus companies have been even more competitive than my hawker who has charged me a lot more over the last 10 years. Sir, second, we have a quality of service that other bus companies envy. Comfortable air-conditioned buses, with few breakdowns. Yes, there are breakdowns, but I can assure you, in Singapore, the breakdowns are far and few in between. Of course, the commuters would like the bus companies to do better. And I think the bus companies should continually endeavour to do so. But there is always the cost implication. And I would urge commuters to exercise caution and prudence. The more you want, unfortunately, must end up in you paying more. So, let us have a better balance between wanting more, wanting better services, and being prepared to pay. Conclusion on Fare Increases Sir, let me now sum up on why it was necessary to increase the transport fares. First, costs have gone up by 15% over the last two years, and because of the recession last year, PTC rejected the request of the PTOs for a general fare increase, and only increased fares to allow a 1% increase in revenue. This year, PTC again moderated the increase to 2.3%. And while the PTOs are still profitable, the rate of return is only moderate, to very low. But the indicators are that this increase of 2.3% will only allow them to partially cover the expected cost increases this year. It is therefore unlikely that the bus companies would be able to achieve the spectacular results of the last three years. Sir, as such, the PTC has decided to increase the fares by 3 to 5 cents per ride for those who are using ez-link card or the magnetic card, and 10 cents for cash. The PTC has made the decision. The Ministry agrees with the PTC because we also feel that, whilst the timing may not be the best, the increase is certainly not excessive. Sir, PTC has also adopted the principle of granting small fare increases rather than having a big and very painful increase once every few years. All price increases inflict some pain. We all know that. The PTC's approach is a less painful one. I would therefore urge Members to support the PTC's principle of small fare increases on a regular basis and avoid having to impose a larger one later on. The PTC has taken its decision after taking in all the relevant factors. The Government accepts the PTC's decision, and I hope Members will also give their support. ERP Exemption for Buses Sir, let me move on to some of the other points brought up by Members. ERP exemption for buses. Some Members have asked that we exempt the buses from the ERP system to encourage more people to switch from private to public transport. The objective of the ERP system is to manage congestion through road pricing. Buses, like other vehicles, also contribute to our congestion. They therefore must be subject to the ERP charges. Otherwise, to exempt them will only help to distort the usage pattern. Let me give Members an example. When going to Orchard Road, one can either use the train or he can take a bus. The train does not cause any traffic jam. It just goes underground. But buses do. We should encourage more people to ride trains instead of buses, and encourage the operators to run more trains rather than more buses. Sir, the ERP which buses pay, and which trains do not, is the way to do that - through the price signal that it sends. In any case, the ERP charge per passenger is very small, compared to the ERP charge per car passenger. So, imposing the ERP on the public buses, I think, will not discourage people from switching from their own cars to public transport. Sir, Dr Tan Cheng Bock had also mentioned that the ERP charges would not result in higher cost. He had asked me whether it is true. Sir, he is correct. It is true. As I mentioned just now, we have reduced the road tax significantly to more than cover the cost of the ERP charges. The bus operators would only incur about $4 million a year in ERP charges. We had reduced the road taxes by $13 million a year. So it more than covers the ERP, and the bus companies have no grounds at all to complain about having to pay for the ERP. Competition Sir, let me move on to another hot topic, which is competition. Many people, both outside and inside the House, take the view that public transport costs are high today due to the lack of competition. Minister Mah had already explained yesterday why competition in the transport sector would not work, and so had Senior Minister of State Khaw Boon Wan who also compared the bus industry to the telecoms industry. Sir, we need not go any further than to look at SBS and TIBS. Yes, they are not directly competing with one another, but they are running a similar system with similar cost structure. SBS enjoys greater economies of scale. SBS fleet is about 2,800. I think the TIBS fleet is about 800. So, SBS is about slightly over three times the size of TIBS. And because SBS enjoys economies of scale, they have lower operating costs. As a result, SBS made after tax profits of $39 million in 2001, compared to TIBS' profits of $2.7 million the same year. Therefore if we introduce full competition, yes, it may look exciting, but what would be the actual impact? You are going to get fragmentation, you are going to have small companies - companies that may be even smaller than TIBS. Are they going to have lower cost than SBS, especially with SBS' sunk cost? A lot of the assets they occupy are assets which they bought many years ago when prices were much lower. I think not. I think those small operators are going to end up with operating costs even higher than TIBS. And if we have competition, we must not regulate the way we are doing today. We must regulate with a very light touch and allow flexibility in pricing. If we do that, I think the smaller operators must eventually end up charging more because their costs are higher. Therefore, I do not think that this will end up benefiting the public. But having said that, and although our current bus industry framework has served us well, Members will remember that in the last Budget debate, I informed the House that my Ministry is open to the idea of competition. We are, for a start, prepared to allow additional players to operate feeder services in the HDB estates, and we will do that on a pilot basis. Why feeder services? It is because the area is defined. It is easier to monitor. It is easier for the users to actually compare between the two. Sir, any new operator who wants to do so will have the chance to compete on an equal footing with the incumbent, and they need not implement the new ez-link system in order to interface with the system. They can save the expenses of the ez-link system if they wish to do so. But as there is a measure of uncertainty in the outcome of the pilot, any new operator who wishes to participate in this scheme must first seek the support of the community in which it is to operate in. And I think the community must be led by the MPs. So if the MPs agree, they can talk to the operators and they can then come to the PTC and present their proposal to the PTC. And I am sure the PTC would be very happy to give due consideration. Role of PTC Sir, let me move on to the big topic of the role and the composition of the PTC. As Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Dr Amy Khor have noted, the PTC has to operate within the parameters set by the House. One of the key duties of the PTC is to review applications for fare revisions. In carrying out this role, it must safeguard the interest of commuters. But it also has to ensure the viability of the PTOs. Because fare revisions are always unhappy events, Parliament set up the PTC as an independent regulator. This way, the Council is not subject to lobbying or pressure from either the public, the PTOs, or politicians. Indeed, this is what the PTC has done every year, since it was formed 15 years ago. It has taken its role very seriously. The Council subjected every request for fare revision to rigorous and thorough analysis. Mr Ravindran asked whether they have think-tanks and all that. Sir, PTC has people from industry with expertise to analyse company reports and company operations, who are able to sift through a whole ream of details to get to the real picture. And after having done all these analyses, its decisions have always been more than fair to commuters. I have mentioned all the figures just now, so I shall not repeat them. Sir, I can assure Members that the PTC's job is a very difficult one. I know, because each time I meet the Chairman, after PTC has finalised its decision, I can see the worry lines on his forehead. He and the other Council members certainly do agonise over their deliberations and final decisions. They take their responsibilities seriously, as they should. Sir, the PTC is an important institution, one that has served the people very well. We should take care not to undermine it, as this would be tantamount to also undermining the interest of the general public. That is why I support the amendment by Dr Tan Boon Wan. Having said that, I must say I also agree with the views of the Members here that PTC's communication process can be improved upon. I will certainly ask my staff to work with PTC on how to achieve this. Composition of PTC Sir, Members also spoke about the composition of the PTC. Some asked if the Council members took public transport. Membership in the Council cannot be based on whether one uses public transport. Having said that, again, I understand that several of the members do use public transport regularly. In fact, one of them does not even own a car. Because the PTC has a heavy responsibility, we have always chosen Council members very carefully. They are usually people of high repute in the different sectors and different professions, and include senior managers, accountants, professionals, social workers and a union representative. They bring to the Council expertise needed for the deliberations to be carried out professionally and properly. These are people who have busy schedules. And I can assure you this is not a very popular job. I cannot remember who mentioned it just now. But we do have a tough time looking for the right people to serve on the Council. Yet, they have agreed to take the time and effort to serve on the Council. Sir, I have noted the suggestions of Members to review the Council's membership and to see if we can strengthen it further, eg, with additional union representatives and grassroots leaders. We will also look into whether we should continue having the transport operators as Council members. I will ask my staff to look into the various suggestions.

Mr Yeo, you have just about 5 minutes before your hour is up.

I am finishing, Sir. Just a few more minutes. Sir, many Members have spoken about the unhappiness of the public over what they perceive as price increases for a whole slew of public services. The Government is indeed aware of the need to keep public services affordable, and not to increase prices unless absolutely necessary. Some of the items mentioned, like utility prices, are really out of our control. Oil is the main determinant of the cost of generating electricity. So, when oil prices go up, the price of power goes up. But when oil prices go down, I am sure Members have also seen that power prices do go down. Sir, Members may like to know that despite all these increases that we have talked about, MTI estimates that inflation rate this year will still be close to "0". Although the items may be many, in actual fact the impact per item is not very large. Whilst this hike may increase it a little bit, there will be other cost reductions elsewhere, and we will end up with about "0" inflation.

4.37 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, point of order. I do not want the Minister for Transport to rush through his reply like a high-speed train. May I seek your consent and general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 45(8), to remove the time limit to enable the Minister for Transport to finish his speech?

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon. Members present to so move? Hon. Members indicated assent. Resolved,

That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 45(8) in respect of the Minister's speech. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Sir, let me now move to some of the points raised by Members. Let me start with Mr Tan Soo Khoon. I have replied to most of his points. He has also talked about the willingness of the school bus operators to forgo a fare increase now, despite the increases in insurance premiums, and that they will only look into it in the future. I checked into the fares charged by the school buses. They range from about $30 to $120, depending on the distance travelled. These are much higher than what the public bus services charge. For example, a primary school student can enjoy unlimited rides on our public buses any time of the day for a cost of $22.

50. As such, if I were a private bus operator, I would also be very worried if I have to increase my fares, especially if the fare increase is likely to be large. The speculation in the newspapers is that the fare increase is likely to be between $10 and $40. Sir, this is not a 2.3% increase. The fare increase is likely to be in the region of 30%. If I am the private bus operator, I will also shelve the 30% increase today, especially after all the complaints about the 2.3% increase. Sir, Mr Tan Soo Khoon has also given some suggestions for the public transport operators to look into. And so has Mr Zainudin. They have asked the PTOs to look for innovative ways to reward the loyalty of commuters. Sir, the PTOs are all here upstairs. I am sure they have heard and taken note of Mr Tan's and Mr Zainudin's suggestions, and I will leave it to them. Mr Chiam See Tong gave some feedback about the ez-link card. He said that the feedback given to him is that the card is giving a lot of trouble, and there is a 20% failure rate. Sir, with 20% failure rate, the transport system will break down!

From one particular complainant.

May be one particular complainant. Sir, the fact is that the failure rate today is about 1.5%. But 1.5% is still high. I am not happy, and I have asked TransitLink and the operators to look into it as quickly as they can, and to bring the figure down rapidly. But when I look at the magnetic card when it was first introduced in 1990, I was told then that the failure rate, when it was introduced, was one in ten or 10%, even higher. In comparison, the ez-link card is not doing badly, but there is plenty of room for improvement. So we will pressure them to bring the quality of the system up. Mr Low Thia Khiang suggested that we nationalise and subsidise public transport. A lot of Members have joined in to disagree with him. I shall not belabour the point. Sir, to nationalise the two operators - SMRT and SBS - today would be sending a very, very wrong signal to investors all over the world. We will be one of the few countries in this day and age to go out to nationalise a company. And we should also not subsidise public transport operations, because public transport has a consumption factor in it. If we subsidise, we are going to distort usage, and we are going to encourage even more usage. With our roads already being clogged up, I think we should do our best to minimise usage rather than encourage usage by distorting the usage. Mdm Halimah Yacob urged that we treat feeder services differently from the trunk services because many people in the heartland use it. Sir, yes, I sympathise with them. But we have to look in terms of what are the resources needed to provide the feeder service. Is the feeder service requiring resources which are very different from the trunk services? The answer is no. In actual fact, the feeder services are still charging a flat rate of 63 cents today, despite the length of travel. In that sense, the feeder bus riders are being treated specially compared to those who are on the trunk services. Sir, let me now move on to Mr Yeo Guat Kwang. He urged the LTA to allow the bus operators to keep their rental income to offset the cost of maintaining the interchange, ie, to give the bus companies the same treatment as SMRT. The two sets of assets - the land and the investment - come under two different treatments. And that is why for SMRT, we are able to give the entire premises to SMRT and let them operate it as if they have leased the entire asset. Unfortunately, for the bus operators, we are not able to, but we are looking into it. Prof. Low Seow Chay said that the 3 cents increase for a rider who pays 60 cents is not a small increase, it is a 5% increase. Sir, I agree with him, but we have decided to do it as an across-the-board increase, with equal pain for everybody, ie, no matter how far you ride, the same increase applies. We could do it on a percentage basis, but I think that would be a little bit messier. In any case, for those who are taking the trunk rides for 60 cents, I would like to inform the House that the 60 cents charge for air-con services has not been changed since 1984. So, those people who have had the privilege of riding short distances have enjoyed the same fare for over 17 years. The 3 cents increase in this present fare revision is a very fair one for them. Ms Irene Ng mentioned about the Fuel Equalisation Fund. Sir, the Fuel Equalisation Fund was set up to help the operators in times of violent and short-term fluctuations of the fuel price. So, in this way, if it goes up very quickly and it impinges on their profitability, they can tap into the Fund for some relief. This is because we do not want the bus companies to be changing their bus fares every few months, just like we do for the utilities. It will be very confusing. So, this is meant to be a stabilisation fund, and it should not be used to subsidise the fuel cost, because the fuel prices are going to remain high, I think, for quite some time to come. Ms Ng also tried to promote cycling as a cheaper alternative. Sir, I also like to cycle as a form of exercise, but only when I want to have a good sweat out. In Singapore, there are two reasons why cycling is not really feasible as a normal means of transport. First, our weather is very, very punishing. Even with the breeze blowing in your face, by the time you arrive in the office, you are already all hot and sweaty. Secondly, to promote safe cycling, we need to have cycling lanes, specifically set aside for the cyclists, which is what Ms Irene Ng had also mentioned. Sir, unfortunately, in Singapore, we are already scrambling to look for space for an additional car lane, let alone an additional cycling lane. So this is an idea that is not really feasible in the context of our local environment. But as a weekend activity, yes, and I would urge MND to provide more riding lanes, to link up the different parks so that those people who do it as a recreational activity, like me on a weekend, can cycle from one park to another. I think this is a very good idea. Sir, several Members have asked why do we not defer the fare revision until the ez-link system has been implemented because of the speculation that it is going to cut down on people cheating the bus companies, and therefore is going to lead to an increase in revenues. If this is true, it would impact on this year's operating cost, and that would be good news for commuters next year. So, let us implement the ez-link system and see whether there are actual savings coming from the system. If so, next year's fares may not have to increase. Sir, let me go on to some other points. Ms Braema and Mr Arthur Fong asked that we look into providing buses that are friendly to the disabled, buses that will kneel down in order for those who are in wheelchairs to board the buses. This is a concept which is applicable only if that bus service is not meant to be a high capacity service. In Singapore, we need to move the buses along as rapidly as we can. In fact, the PTC and the bus companies are always looking for ways to see how we can speed up the time taken for people to board the bus and to come down from the bus. That is why we have the ez-link card, and why we have the bigger doors in the public buses. I think this system will not be applicable for Singapore, as it stands today, because for the bus to tilt and for the bus driver to come down and all that, it will lead to tremendous delays. I think it is better for NCSS to work with MCDS to come up with an appropriate system for transporting the disabled. But, nonetheless, I will request the bus operators to continue to see whether they have another solution. Conclusion Sir, I think I have finished with the replies. Let me now conclude. We have heard from many MPs reflecting the unhappiness at the ground level. The accusations are very wide ranging - from the Government not listening to the people, an uncaring PTC, an uncaring Government, as well as profiteering by the bus companies. Sir, I can assure Singaporeans that the Government does listen carefully. The Government also has a big caring heart about the welfare of Singaporeans. That is why when the Asian economic crisis hit in 1997, the Government quickly moved to put together a package of measures to help relieve the pain. It also put in place a wide-ranging package of measures to help upgrade the skills of workers and help them remain relevant and employable in the years ahead. Similarly, when it comes to public transport, the Government has also devoted a lot of resources and energy to make sure that we have an excellent land and public transport system. Those who have travelled abroad will know that our public transport is one that is hard to find elsewhere, in terms of quality and price. We have heard the unhappiness, and we can certainly empathise with the sentiments. But it is important for public policy to be made on the proper basis, based on the long-term interests of the people and the nation. We must state the facts clearly and accurately. And where the perceptions are wrong, we must be prepared to explain and clarify. This debate has certainly provided plenty of opportunities for all of us to do so. This is not the first time that a fare revision has taken place, and it will definitely not be the last. The PTC and the bus companies must therefore improve the communication process so that the rationale for the fare revision is clearly understood, and the people know, in no uncertain terms, that the PTC has once again safeguarded their interests. Sir, we have a good regulatory and physical public transport system in place. It may not be the best, as some Members have pointed out, and therefore there is always room for improvement. This we shall do. But we must proceed carefully, as our public transport system would not have developed so well, in terms of both quality and pricing, if the fundamentals were wrong. Sir, Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendment will reassure the public about the role of the PTC, while preserving the Council's independence. I am happy to support his amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendment. When speaking on this motion, I asked myself whether this debate moved by Mr Tan Soo Khoon has achieved the objectives that he and a group of us have set out. We have listened to the Minister. He has given a lot of explanations. It is not only by him, but by the former Minister for Communications and the Senior Minister of State for Transport on the need for the price increase. A lot of explanations have been given and we do hope that the public will receive these explanations well. However, I am not so sure whether people understand the CPI + X factor. I know the Senior Minister of State for Transport has said that if we really understand the formula, all things will be solved. I think there will be another session for this. We have set out three objectives. The first objective is to let the Government know of the sentiment and the feel of the ground. We have achieved this in this debate. I guess we have done very well hearing from all my parliamentary colleagues. We could feel that they have expressed the true feelings of the ground and, to sum it up, do not take them for granted. And the Minister has already given us his assurance that they will listen, and we do hope that the message has been put across to them. We also have another objective, which is to let the transport operators show to the ground that the efficiency is not at the expense of the general commuter. Again, judging from the numerous suggestions and requests made by Members of Parliament in this House, I think the message has also been put across to them. We also want to let PTC know that we want more transparency. And, again, judging from all the various suggestions, I think the message has already been given to them. They will know that this is an important request, coupled with a better communication process, as suggested by the Minister, would put things right in future. There are two limbs to this original motion and Dr Tan Boon Wan amended the first limb. He also included, in his amendment, PM's call for his support for the principle of PTC granting small increases. I think we have no objection to that. As for his other amendment in lines 5 and 6, we also have no objection, except that we would like to see the order of the two factors that he put to this House reversed. Can I refer Members to his amendment? Item 3, the third and the fourth lines, it says, "to take into consideration relevant factors such as the viability of the public transport operators and affordability of the commuters." I think the reverse is more correct. Because if we were to look at his amendment, it would seem that we are favouring the transport operators. For us, our concern, as Members of this House, is that the commuters should come first. So we will reverse the order - "affordability of the commuters" should come first, followed by "viability of the public transport operators.". The amendment, however, fails to address two important issues which have been dealt with at length by Members of this House. One is the state of the economy. I do not want to discuss this at length because so much has been spoken and so many figures have been given. We all know the state of the economy. The other one is the unemployment situation. Figures have been thrown out - 88,000 from the Deputy Prime Minister in the Budget debate, and my colleague, Mr Tan Soo Khoon gave a figure of 100,000. So, the unemployment situation is an important consideration in any future fare increase by the bus operators. Sir, I would like to make an amendment to Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendment, to take into consideration all the three points that I have brought up. Can I refer Members to lines 5 and 6 again? With my amendment, item (3) of

"In lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words, "to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares", and there to insert the words, "when reviewing requests for fare increases, to take into consideration relevant factors such as the state of the economy, the employment situation, the affordability of the commuters and the viability of the public transport operators;".

Dr Tan, before you proceed, can I ask Dr Tan Boon Wan whether he accepts the reversal of the words "affordability" and "viability"?

Yes.

Could you now move your amendment, Dr Tan?

Sir, I beg to move an amendment to item (3) of the amendment moved by Dr Tan Boon Wan, as follows: In Item (3), line 3, after the word "as", to insert the words, "the state of the economy, the employment situation,". I hope Members will support this amendment.

It has been proposed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, as an amendment to the original amendments, after the word "as", to insert the words, "the state of the economy, the employment situation,". I propose that the debate on the original amendments and the amendment to the original amendments be proceeded with simultaneously. Therefore, Members can speak on both these amendments at this debate. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when Dr Tan Boon Wan moved his amendment, Dr Tan Cheng Bock and I, together with a few others who had supported my original Motion, had a quick discussion. I promise Members I would not take too long, but I think Dr Tan Cheng Bock could not have put forward the reasons for moving his amendment more eloquently. I will not repeat what he has said, but I would like to say, after listening to the Members who have spoken on Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendment, that it is important for us to focus on the process of decision making by the PTC. After listening to the response of Mr Yeo Cheow Tong, I think that the concern has been addressed, especially with regard to the question of timing. The sentiments expressed in this House in the last two days have been that the timing was perhaps a bit off. And when we spoke of timing, we were referring to the very difficult economic situation that confronts the country and our people. We were also very concerned with the fact that there were so many people who were out of job. I think the addition of the words put in by Dr Tan Cheng Bock does address the concern. I will, therefore, go along with the amendment moved by Dr Tan. I hope the House will agree, and we can then proceed with the debate on the amended Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the amended Motion. Sir, I rise to oppose both amendments. Yesterday, when I spoke on the Motion in the House, I pointed out that the crux of the issue on the increases in public transport fares and other increases in public services is the result of the attitude and policy of the PAP Government in providing public services. Although the Minister for Transport has explained the rationale, I am still not convinced that this is the best model. With a nationalised organisation to run the transport services, I believe that it may be more efficient with economies of scale, and we remove the profit factor, which I think is the reason why a lot of people feel uncomfortable that the operators of public transportation should be making profits. Sir, unfortunately, the Public Transport Council has become a lightning rod in this debate. Although I do not entirely agree with the original Motion moved by Mr Tan Soo Khoon, I am prepared to be counted to support the Motion in its original form, to urge the Public Transport Council to review its decision on the increases. With the PAP Backbenchers moving the Motion, helping to play the role of the Opposition, I suppose they are qualified to join the Opposition, as the Member for Nee Soon Central said. I hope that it would help to provide the Motion, with more muscle and bite, to force the Government to do something, and to lower the cost of living for Singaporeans at this difficult time. Sir, now it seems that my expectation is a bit too high. Dr Tan Boon Wan's proposed amendment to the original Motion not only watered down the original amendment, but has the effect of asking the House to support the current increases of public transport fares, by noting the Prime Minister's support for the principle of the Public Transport Council granting small increases. So he has, in fact, changed the intention of the original Motion. Although Dr Tan Cheng Bock has moved another amendment to the amended Motion to take into consideration the economic and employment situation, the fact remains that the amended Motion would endorse the PTC's approval for the increases. This would endorse the increases in public transportation fares, which was not the original intention of the Motion. Sir, I would not support the amended Motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I saw the glass of water appearing on the table for the Minister, I realised that he would have a lot to speak. So, after he had spoken, I thought many people would leave the Chamber and go to the toilet, but my guess was wrong. Minister Yeo has given us a lot of explanations and figures, and has also solved many of our puzzles. Actually, the atmosphere is now more relaxed. To speak immediately after the Minister has spoken is a real challenge. I have thrown away my original script. Honestly speaking, I do not know what to speak about now. So, I will take this opportunity to convey a message to the Government. Actually, the people's perception of the Government is very important. The people should not misunderstand the concept and intent of Government's policy. As we know, the generation gap between parents and children is a result of misconception and, recently, there was a documentary on the famous celebrity Disc Jockey in Taiwan, Billy. His father was a military officer and from young, he was frequently punished by his parents. As a form of protest, he did a lot of mischievous things against the family. The gap was very wide between him and his parents. It was only when he was suddenly taken ill and his parents took great pains to look after him that he realised how much his parents had loved and cared for him. He began to realise that his perceived feeling that his parents did not love him was wrong. So, we should not allow such misconception between the people and the Government to exist. I do not wish to see our people do something just to spite the Government. Like what Minister Yeo and the Senior Minister of State Mr Khaw Boon Wan have said, in this round of fare hikes, there is a lot of misconception among the people. Have there been some shortcomings in the form of communication between the Government and the people? Just now, the Minister has said that the PTC needs to do something to improve its communications with the people, and he urged the Council to work harder. I am very glad by what he said. The PAP Government's rule of Singapore has brought prosperity to Singapore. Its farsightedness and efficiency are well known to everybody. But the Government's style of "more work, less talk", "more deed, less speech" has created some misunderstanding among the people, and people have some grouses against it. I want to commend Minister Yeo and SMS Khaw for taking great pains to explain the policies. I think it is very good. I suggest that all the public departments and institutions should increase their transparency, and the Government should also review its style of communication and connection with the people. Actually, I wanted to reflect the sentiments of the people but, at this point of time, I think it is no longer necessary, and I do not want to waste the time of everybody here in this House. But allow me to raise just two points. I am a Member of the Tanjong Pagar GRC. As we know, there are quite a lot of senior citizens in Tanjong Pagar GRC. In my recent visits to the residents, many of them complained to me that the bus and MRT fare hikes were making life difficult for them. Why do we not give some special consideration to these people, some form of concessions for these senior citizens? They had contributed much to our nation in their younger days. I think the Government should let all the people in Singapore know that in making improvements to our public transport system, we should also look into the welfare of our people. In this way, we can make the people appreciate that the Government and the people are on the same side. Finally, I hope that, in future, the Government will make more efforts to explain its policies to the people, to show its care and concern for the people. A good government would not only lead our country to a higher level in its economic development, it should also have greater care and concern for the people. I think this is what Singapore would want in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Transport's speech and the facts and figures stated therein are appreciated and noted. I can only hope that, in future, parliamentarians will have all or most of these facts and figures in advance. Perhaps, the relevant Ministries could give parliamentarians summaries of what are given to Ministers or Ministers of State for better and informed debates in Parliament, and for parliamentarians to reflect on what is given to them, so that the understanding within Parliament would be of a higher standard, and misunderstanding or misinformation would be minimal. However, Sir, what is the issue before this House? For that, I would like to state that the primary purpose of the Government providing public transportation for citizens and people residing in Singapore is for the commuters to have easy access from one destination to another, with speed and as cheaply as possible. All other perks are not mandatory, and are discretionary in nature. To make this possible, ie, relatively an inexpensive means of transport, there must be emphasis on avoidance of luxuries, and to provide just the basic necessities. In adopting this method, there will be a relative reduction of the cost of running buses and the MRT. The issue is not whether bus and MRT fares should or should not be increased. As costs increase, bus and MRT fares would inevitably increase. The issue in this House is whether fares should be increased now, in times of hardship and recession.

Mr Chandra Mohan, as a point of order, I hope your speech is leading to the amendments that we are dealing with now, and not a general speech about fare increases, because we are dealing with amendments now. Could you confine your speech to the amendments, or your speech leading to the amendments?

I would support the amendments, but with these observations in mind. Can these transportation companies and entities hold on until next year when, hopefully, there will be better times? If my speech would lead to something that is not relevant to the amended motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will stop here. But as far as the amendments are concerned, I would support what has been proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we read in the newspapers how our people have been queuing up for the National Day Parade tickets. This is a sign of patriotism. We read also about people queuing up for an HDB flat, and this is to get their money's worth. Now, we have Members of Parliament queuing up to speak on this motion concerning fare increases. This is to reflect the feelings and sentiments of the people. I believe, on this occasion, we have the highest number of MPs speaking in this House on one single issue. I agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock that this round of fare increase has a great impact on the unemployed people. Many MPs have elaborated on why fare increases should not be implemented now. The Minister's reply is that if we want to have a better public transport system, we must be prepared to pay more. We know that the rationale for the fare increase, but there are more than 5.5% of the workforce or 120,000 people who are out of job now. Taking four persons to a family, we are looking at 500,000 people who are not having any income and are probably making every effort to look for jobs. They cannot walk all the way, and surely cannot afford to travel by taxi. So, the most appropriate mode of transport would be by bus or MRT. Although the increase is only 3 to 10 cents per trip, it adds up when you have made several trips in a day. However, whether we like it or not, the price hike is already implemented. It is a fait accompli. Nevertheless, I hope that the relevant authority would do something for these people who are affected. Could PTC implement some sort of rebates to these people? The bus operators can surely afford them as they are making huge profits. The launch of the ez-link card system has enabled the bus companies to collect huge sums of money as pre-payment for the fares, and these would generate huge cash flows for them to run their business. They would not need to borrow money from the banks. Furthermore, with the reduction in corporate tax rate, they should pass on this benefit to the commuters. Perhaps, the bus companies would consider giving a rebate of, say, 3% for those who purchase an ez-link card worth $50, and 5% for a $100 card. My point is that in this round of fare increase, those who are paying by cash have to face higher fare increase. This is not fair. The poorer senior citizens do not buy the ez-link cards simply because they could not afford to make the up-front payment. Some do not use it because they are old and do not know how to use it. We should educate them and help them to get used to it. They should not be penalised. I support the amended motion.

Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the amendment to my amendment. I agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock's amendment. I think it strengthens my amendment with the additional two factors. I would also like to reply to Mr Low Thia Khiang's observation that I have diluted the original Motion. The purpose is not to dilute the original Motion. I see the purpose of this Motion as an opportunity for MPs to reflect the feedback they get from the ground, their concern about the increase in fares, the economy, and so forth. In the discussion that we have heard these two days, this purpose has been achieved. MPs have very frankly expressed the concern of their residents and how they feel. Therefore, my purpose of moving the amendment is to protect our institutions because we must not inadvertently, in asking for a review, question the integrity of the PTC, and inadvertently also dilute all other institutions that Parliament has set up. And, in the process, it also questions the integrity of Parliament. As Mr Iswaran has said, if we start questioning our ability to make good decisions and start reversing the decisions that we make, what would international investors, who come to Singapore think, ie, the decisions we make in Parliament will not stand up to scrutiny.

Sir, I just want to seek a point of clarification from the Minister. The Minister mentioned that the 2.3% fare increase only allows the PTOs to offset part of the projected cost increases. I would like the Minister to clarify what are the key areas of the cost increases because I would like to find out whether it is true that these cost increases are mainly from statutory costs, as stated in the SBS' reply published in the newspapers.

Sir, I do not foresee any increase in statutory costs this year.

I shall now put the question on Dr Tan Cheng Bock's amendment first. It has been proposed that as an amendment to the original amendments, after the word "as", to insert the words, "the state of the economy, the employment situation,".

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted", put, and agreed to.

We now come to Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendments. There are three such amendments. I will take them in the order they were proposed. The first amendment is: "In line 3, to leave out the word "and".

Question, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out", put, and agreed to.

It has been proposed as an amendment: "In line 5, after the word "fares", to insert the words, "and noting his support for the principle of Public Transport Council granting small increases,".

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted", put, and agreed to.

The consequential amendment of inserting a comma after the word "meet" shall be made. It has been proposed as a further amendment: "In lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words, "to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares", and there to insert the words, "when reviewing requests for fare increases, to take into consideration relevant factors such as the state of the economy, the employment situation, the affordability of commuters and the viability of the public transport operators;".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted", put, and agreed to.

The Question now before the House is the Original Motion, as amended. Original Motion, as amended, put, and agreed to. Resolved,

That this House, being aware that Singaporeans are suffering from the effects of a recession, mindful that many Singaporeans, in particular the unemployed, are having difficulties making ends meet, agreeing with the Prime Minister that this is not the best time to increase bus and MRT fares and noting his support for the principle of Public Transport Council granting small increases, (a) urges the Public Transport Council, when reviewing requests for fare increases, to take into consideration relevant factors such as the state of the economy, the employment situation, the affordability of commuters and the viability of the transport operators; and (b) further urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the prices of public services are not unreasonably increased during these difficult times.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have had three long days of debate. A few Bills had been introduced on Monday. I propose that Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 22nd July 2002. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 22nd July 2002." Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes to Six o'clock pm to Monday, 22nd July 2002.