Hansard, 2005-10-17

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: Name From (2006) To (2006) Mr Charles Chong 23 Sep 23 Sep 29 Sep 30 Sep 17 Oct 18 Oct Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 23 Sep 29 Sep 24 Oct 30 Oct Dr Balaji Sadasivan 25 Sep 01 Oct Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 26 Sep 29 Sep Mr Ong Ah Heng 26 Sep 30 Sep Mr S Iswaran 27 Sep 30 Sep Dr Tan Sze Wee 27 Sep 04 Oct 17 Oct 18 Oct Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 28 Sep 10 Oct 26 Oct 27 Oct Mr Wee Siew Kim 29 Sep 30 Sep 17 Oct 20 Oct Encik Yatiman Yusof 01 Oct 02 Oct 16 Oct 21 Oct Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 01 Oct 03 Oct 17 Oct 21 Oct Column: 1495 Mr Chan Soo Sen 02 Oct 04 Oct 17 Oct 24 Oct Mr Chew Heng Ching 03 Oct 04 Oct 06 Oct 08 Oct Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 03 Oct 04 Oct 24 Oct 30 Oct Mr Lee Hsien Loong 03 Oct 04 Oct 24 Oct 30 Oct Mr Lim Hng Kiang 03 Oct 08 Oct 24 Oct 31 Oct Mr Lim Swee Say 03 Oct 07 Oct Mr Teo Chee Hean 03 Oct 04 Oct Mr Teo Yock Ngee 06 Oct 09 Oct 01 Nov 03 Nov 14 Nov 21 Nov 04 Dec 08 Dec 11 Dec 15 Dec 16 Dec 17 Dec Mr Mah Bow Tan 09 Oct 16 Oct Mr Lee Kuan Yew 10 Oct 20 Oct Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 11 Oct 14 Oct Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 12 Oct 15 Oct 14 Nov 23 Nov 25 Nov 27 Nov Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 12 Oct 23 Oct Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 12 Oct 16 Oct 19 Oct 23 Oct Mr Inderjit Singh 13 Oct 15 Oct 17 Oct 19 Oct 26 Oct 29 Oct Dr Lily Neo 13 Oct 15 Oct Mr David T E Lim 14 Oct 27 Oct Mr Lim Boon Heng 14 Oct 17 Oct Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 14 Oct 16 Oct Mr Seng Han Thong 14 Oct 17 Oct Dr Teo Ho Pin 14 Oct 21 Oct Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 15 Oct 22 Oct Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 17 Oct 17 Oct 24 Oct 29 Oct Mr Ang Mong Seng 18 Oct 21 Oct 07 Dec 11 Dec Dr John Chen Seow Phun 18 Oct 21 Oct Column: 1496 Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M 19 Oct 22 Oct Dr Tan Cheng Bock 19 Oct 23 Oct 03 Nov 06 Nov Dr Ong Seh Hong 20 Oct 25 Oct 26 Oct 26 Oct 31 Oct 03 Nov 07 Nov 11 Nov Mr Wong Kan Seng 20 Oct 27 Oct Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim 21 Oct 21 Oct 23 Oct 30 Oct 24 Nov 24 Nov 29 Nov 02 Dec 23 Jan 30 Jan Mr Yeo Cheow Tong 22 Oct 25 Oct Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang 24 Oct 05 Nov Mr Gan Kim Yong 24 Oct 30 Oct Mdm Cynthia Phua 25 Oct 30 Oct Mr Lawrence Leow Chin Hin 26 Oct 29 Oct Dr Ng Eng Hen 27 Oct 29 Oct Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 28 Oct 28 Oct 02 Nov 02 Nov 04 Nov 04 Nov Dr Ong Chit Chung 14 Nov 15 Nov Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 17 Nov 23 Nov 11 Dec 17 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:

5th October,2005 (1) The Deposit Insurance Bill (2) The Education Endowment Scheme (Amendment) Bill (3) The Community Care Endowment Fund Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. I wish to inform honourable Members that under the provisions of Standing Order No 102, I have on 10th October 2005, nominated the following Members to fill vacancies in the respective Standing Select Committees:

Mr Mah Bow Tan to be a Member of the Committee of Selection in place of Dr Wang Kai Yuen;

Dr Amy Khor to be a Member of the Public Accounts Committee in place of Mr Gan Kim Yong; and

Mr Mah Bow Tan to be a Member of the Committee of Privileges in place of Mr Lee Hsien Loong.

asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what new measures will be adopted by the National Environment Agency in

fighting the present dengue epidemic after receiving the advice from the panel of dengue experts following their two-week study in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during their 2-week study, the expert panel looked into the epidemiological features of the current dengue outbreak, conducted field trips to observe dengue control operations and reviewed the national framework for dengue control. The panel recognised that Singapore has one of the best dengue control programmes in the world and had also supported our outreach efforts to involve the community and the private sector. However it recommended that more research should be carried out to better understand dengue transmission dynamics and changes in mosquito's behavior, and to enhance the vector surveillance systems.

Research on Aedes Mosquitoes and the Dengue Virus

We agree with the expert panel that more research be done to enhance our dengue surveillance and control efforts. Effective prevention and control of dengue requires an active laboratory-based dengue surveillance programme to provide early warning for possible dengue outbreaks.

In this respect, studies to understand prevailing serotypes and dengue virus strains are already being carried out in various laboratories such as the Environmental Health Institute (EHI), Genome Institute of Singapore (GIS) and some of our hospitals such as Tan Tock Seng Hospital. To ensure that there is quality control for these lab tests, MOH has designated the Public Health Laboratory currently sited at Singapore General Hospital (SGH) as the national reference laboratory for all infectious diseases. It will be supported by the Environmental

Health Institute (EHI) of NEA in the area of vector-borne diseases including dengue.

As pointed out by the expert panel, we also recognise that transmissions can occur at sites away from home or go unreported. There are asymptomatic dengue cases, where a person infected with dengue exhibits no symptoms. We will intensify our research efforts and have identified a number of research projects that will be undertaken by NEA and MOH.

Enhanced Mosquito Surveillance System

We will also improve on our operational vector surveillance system. NEA has been using ovitraps as a surveillance tool to detect mosquito activity to direct its vector control work. We will now study how to enhance this to provide early warning system to residents on increases in mosquito populations in their estates. This will allow actions to be taken before any dengue outbreak occurs. A pilot study will be conducted by NEA at Marsiling using ovitraps for monitoring the Aedes population.

Continuing Medical Education

The experts also affirmed the important role played by GPs in tackling dengue. MOH will intensify its efforts to educate GPs by continuing to circulate advisories to medical practitioners and convene seminars from time to time. This is to keep the medical professionals abreast of the latest developments in the epidemiology and clinical diagnosis to prevent and control dengue. In fact, MOH has worked with the College of Family Physicians to issue a handbook with the detailed guidelines on clinical diagnosis and management of dengue patients to all physicians.

Private Sector Partnerships

The expert panel has endorsed NEA's programme to work with all the Town Councils (TCs) to put in place dedicated mosquito control programmes by November this year. In fact, 7 of the Town Councils have already implemented the programme. NEA will also work closely with our pest control industry to enhance its professionalism and to adopt best practices in fogging and other operational areas.

Need to Remain Vigilant

It is encouraging to note that our 7-day average daily number of dengue cases has progressively declined from 106 on 23rd September to 56 on 16th October 2005. But it is still too early to determine if the downward trend will continue. Dengue is a resurgent problem globally; and being endemic to the region, Singapore can expect dengue to recur on a regular basis. Hence, all of us must remain vigilant and diligent in playing our part to prevent mosquito breeding.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether NEA should change its tactics and adopt more measures in this fight against dengue epidemic immediately, such as by targeting the mosquito larvae in the prevention of adult mosquitoes. Since the experts have confirmed that fogging is not that effective in Singapore, should that not be switched to focusing on looking for and treating all potential breeding sites?

Does the Minister agree that surely killing the mosquito larvae with larvicide is more efficacious because it arrests the source of hundreds of mosquitoes at source? Moreover, larvicide can continue to be effective for more than one month.

Lastly, may I urge the Minister to act decisively soonest and issue directives on

better effective modes in this fight in view of the fact that the pest control industry is $50 million a year —

Your questions, please. No speeches.

and increasing in order to control the dengue fever and also save costs and efforts on updated techniques.

Sir, I agree with the Member that we have to tackle the problem at the source and that is why NEA has always adopted a source-reduction approach. And that approach has been endorsed by the World Health Organisation. Ever since we have been tasked to tackle this problem and ever since NEA was created, our challenge has always been to close the breeding sites and remove all breeding sites as quickly as possible. Every time, there is a case, MOH will alert us and we will deploy our officers down to where the infection has taken place, check thoroughly, both inside and outside, within the surrounding premises, to ensure that there are no breeding sites.

One of the things we did in this current challenge is that we have started carpet-combing across all constituencies. By this weekend, we should finish the exercise to explore what other potential breeding sites that may be occurring without our knowledge within the common areas, ie, outside the homes. It has revealed nothing new. We know what are the potential breeding sites. But, more importantly, we have found potential breeding habitats, in other words, there are no larvae found but water has been collecting and therefore we have passed this information back to the town councils so that they can then adopt a maintenance and vigilance approach in order to tackle this problem much quickly.

Once the pest control operators are in place with all the town councils they will then be subject to certain audits by NEA.

But before that, we will work with the town councils to raise their level of maintenance and vigilance so that they can conduct checks regularly to ensure that we remove all potential breeding habitats within the common areas of the town councils.

The expert panel did not say that fogging is not effective. What they said specifically was that fogging is not effective in breaking epidemic transmission. What we have done is that we have started a small technical committee, headed by the professional industry together with NEA, to study the effectiveness of fogging. But, meanwhile, fogging will be one of the tools that we will use in this current challenge. It will complement all other efforts for evidence has shown that fogging can kill adult mosquitoes. So we will continue to study this particular technique in terms of effectiveness but, at the same time, we will continue to use it while trying to improve the professionalism of the industry.

On her final point about working with the industry, that has always been the operating procedure for NEA. We work very closely with the pest control operators. We have over the years upgraded the skills of the pest control operators and certainly, in this current instance, I would like to thank the pest control operators because they have come forward to work very closely with NEA to ensure that they can be effective on the ground.

I am confident, with the current efforts in place, we will be able to at least put this problem under control. But, as I mentioned in my answer, we know that this is a resurgent problem globally and therefore we have to continue with the efforts we have adopted so far in order to control this particular challenge.

Sir, the Minister mentioned the study of fogging. May I ask

the Minister, in view of the present dengue epidemic, is it wise to wait for another six months' study on fogging before taking action on it, especially when fogging was already known to have unknown values with mosquito killing rate of less than 4% at best, confirmed by experiments overseas and reconfirmed by the foreign experts invited to Singapore recently?

Sir, I cannot argue about the figure because I am not so sure whether that is the correct figure, nor did the expert panel say that we should stop fogging. I think what the expert panel is trying to tell us is that we should not rely on fogging entirely.

While the study is being conducted by the technical committee, together with NEA, fogging as a practice is safe and we will continue to do fogging but we have also put in a new standard operating procedure where before any town council or any operator would like to carry out fogging they have to alert us one day in advance so that we can then monitor whether they are doing it correctly.

Sir, since we cannot get rid of dengue altogether and since Singapore emphasises on being the biomedical hub, can more research be done on disease surveillance for early warning on dengue epidemic, the genetic sequencing on dengue virus and on the development of vaccines against dengue?

Sir, I would like to assure the Member and Members of the House that that is exactly what we are doing now. We are basically moving upstream, conducting some research projects together within EHI and MOH, to study the various transmission dynamics whether the virus has mutated or not so that we can understand better this particular vector. So I would like to

assure her that the research projects that we are conducting now will bear, if we are successful, some fruits that will be useful to us in how we control this vector. But, at the same time, we have to learn from others in terms of their experiences. So, NEA, together with MOH, will remain open to the experiences of other countries so that we can understand best what are the techniques that we have to adopt in our current challenge.

Sir, I thought I heard the Minister say that there are asymptomatic cases. I would like to ask the Minister whether these asymptomatic cases are actually suspected dengue cases and we have to report these cases to the Ministry of Health. The Minister should be aware that these cases are viremic, ie, they do carry the viruses. How is his Ministry or the Ministry of Health managing these suspected dengue cases which are carrying potential reservoirs of viruses and could possibly re-infect the community?

Sir, that is exactly one of the research areas that we are looking into. We understand the difficulty with the asymptomatic cases because without the symptoms it will be difficult for us to alert the GPs on what to look out for so that we know that they are dengue cases or otherwise. One of the studies that both MOH and EHI will conduct will involve about 5,000 people, 11 years and older, and this will be carried out to determine the range of symptoms of dengue infection and the extent of asymptomatic infection in the current dengue epidemic. This study will also help to identify the risk factors associated with the dengue transmission and it is expected to be completed within six months.

One of the benefits of this research is that the knowledge of the proportion of asymptomatic cases will help us to

determine to what extent dengue cases go unreported. That is the first thing that we need to know and a high proportion of such cases will drive the shift towards more preventive measures and this will also help our GPs to determine the spectrum of clinical symptoms to more efficiently identify dengue patients.

Mr Zainudin Nordin asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources if his Ministry will consider introducing a more targeted upgrading programme for old drains in private estate, similar to the concept of the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP).

Mr Speaker, Sir, PUB has an on-going programme to systematically upgrade and rehabilitate old drains including those in the private estates. Over the last 10 years, 240 km of drains have been upgraded or rehabilitated at the cost of $194 million. This includes the upgrading of 160 km of drains carried out together with the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) at 19 private estates.

The list of old drains identified for upgrading or rehabilitation is drawn up based on PUB's catchment planning and regular surveillance programmes. In addition, the list also includes those identified by NEA and from feedback from members of the public.

Where an old private residential estate is selected for upgrading under EUP, PUB would carry out a study to identify those drains which need to be rehabilitated. The drain rehabilitation works would then be carried out in tandem with the EUP

works to minimise inconvenience to the residents.

In addition to the above drain upgrading works, PUB also carries out minor repairs to those drains which have sunken or are damaged at localised sections. These minor repair works will help to eliminate water stagnation in these drains. Recently, PUB has intensified the joint inspection with NEA. Out of about 300 km of drains inspected, PUB will carry out urgent minor repair works for 10 km of drains identified at some 250 locations islandwide within the next three months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify if the drains would be covered or uncovered? And if it is covered, is the Minister going to review the need to cover such drains or to enclose such drains, in view of the dengue fever?

Sir, these programmes cover all types of drains - small drains, big drains, covered drains and uncovered drains. And the policy now is that we will leave it to the Town Councils to open the drains, so long as it does not inhibit the flow of water.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am referring to the private estate open drains. Would the Minister consider enclosing these drains or leave them open?

Sir, most of these drains in the private estates are today open. We leave them open for a while unless there is reason to cover them up.

Sir, I would like to know how many agencies are involved in coordinating all these drains. I have heard feedback that

sometimes the drains are being built without coordination to the point where there are problems concerning the flow of water. May I know how many agencies are coordinating?

Sir, there are only two main authorities in charge of the drains. PUB is the main one. Then the smaller drains are within the Town Council estates. Those are taken care of by Town Councils. And as far as coordinating problem is concerned, there is none.

Sir, the SPS is not answering my question. Under the Estates Uprgrading Programme, the drains under the PUB will be covered. So I am asking, for the Estates Upgrading Programme, would the drains be covered or is there a review currently, because of the number of dengue cases, to leave the drains open?

Under the first few phases of the Estates Upgrading Programme, for example, the one in Serangoon, the request from the local MP was to cover the drains. Indeed, this was done. In subsequent phases, I think some local MPs also requested to cover these drains, and we will cover them. But as far as PUB is concerned, the drains should be clean and water should flow. So it is not whether it is a covered drain or an open drain but it is a maintenance problem. We can cover the drains if there is enough budget in the EUP Programme and the local MPs request for it. In the case of Serangoon, for example, the reason why the drains were covered - I remember very clearly because I was in MND - the roads are very narrow, so by covering the drains, we actually provide a pedestrian footpath, so to speak. So that was the imperative to cover the drains.

Sir, coming back to my earlier question, the reason why I

am asking about the targeted approach for the drains upgrading is that if we wait for the Estates Upgrading Programme, it will take a longer time, and it seems that if we have a concern about water ponding, could we have a more targeted approach for the drains?

Sir, we do not just wait for the EUP. The EUP is an infrastructure upgrading programme. But in the light of this dengue crisis, PUB has, together with the relevant authorities, looked at all the drains. And where maintenance needs to be speeded up, we would do so. So PUB has a 5-year programme, a medium term, a long-term 10-year programme. But in the short-term, we will go and maintain the drains, regrade the drains or patch up the drain, if necessary, to make sure the water will flow. So EUP is a different programme. EUP is an infrastructure programme to upgrade the drains. But here you are talking about maintenance of drains to make sure water flows, that the larva does not collect and the dengue mosquito does not breed.

3. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the likelihood of an avian flu epidemic breaking out worldwide; (b) what will be the impact on Singapore and how is Singapore prepared for this; and (c) are enough funds and resources being invested to develop Singapore's capabilities to deal with the avian flu.

4. Dr Geh Min asked the Minister for Health in the light of a likely increase in the foreseeable future of global and regional epidemics and Singapore's increased vulnerability to these diseases due to its dense urban population and global positioning, what long-term strategy does the Ministry have or will

develop for the prevention, early detection, effective control and treatment of infectious diseases.

Sir, with your permission, can I take Question Nos. 3 and 4 together, please?

Yes.

Global and regional epidemics are immense challenges. The world had a taste of such challenges during SARS. Past flu pandemics also provided valuable lessons. The current bird flu outbreak may trigger the next global flu pandemic. Mdm Halimah asked about the likelihood of it happening. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned repeatedly that it is not a question of whether it will happen but when it will happen. However, no one knows when that time will be. What is certain is that a major disease outbreak such as a flu pandemic will be very costly in terms of human lives as well as economic losses. International cooperation is the key to avoiding such calamities, or when they occur, to minimise the damage.

That is why we maintain very strong links with health authorities in other countries and with key international health agencies such as the WHO and the US CDC. This facilitates the rapid exchange of critical information and expertise and will help us better prepare ourselves or deal with any outbreaks. With globalisation and jet travel, we are all vulnerable to global epidemics and must collaborate with one another to manage any outbreak.

Domestically, we are progressively gearing up for such major outbreaks. Preparations can never be complete as it is not possible to know the nature or the extent of the next outbreak. With more funds and resources, we can certainly do

more. But the major pieces are in place. Let me just briefly outline what those pieces are.

First, we have established the organisational structure to deal with such crises. There is a Ministerial Committee chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs. I am a member of that Committee. The Committee is supported by an Executive Group comprising Permanent Secretaries and chiefs of key Government agencies. My Permanent Secretary heads the Crisis Management Group for Health which reports to the Executive Group. This command and control structure is to ensure a coordinated Government response to any major health threat. It was tested during SARS and further refined after that crisis.

Second, we have formulated various outbreak scenarios and planned our specific response strategies. This exercise can never be exhaustive but by thinking through them, we develop useful insights into our strengths and our weaknesses. We can then try to enhance our capabilities.

The response strategy to each disease outbreak would depend on the nature of the disease - how it is transmitted, availability of diagnostic tests and whether there are treatments or vaccines. Mdm Halimah asked specifically about our flu pandemic preparedness and response plan. We have just recently reviewed and refined it further. It is now published on our website, both to inform as well as to consult. It is based on what we know about past pandemics, nature of the flu virus, and availability of drug treatments and vaccines. We will continue to review and strengthen the pandemic plan.

Third, we have learnt extensively from the SARS experience and have significantly strengthened our capabilities

and capacity. In particular, we have augmented our surveillance and response systems, operational and emergency preparedness capabilities. This has been done through increasing manpower and other resources such as isolation facilities in hospitals.

Fourth, we have constituted our various response strategies into what is called a DORS, Disease Outbreak Response System. Briefly, this framework comprises (a) an effective surveillance system and (b) a rapid response system.

Our surveillance system has external and internal components. External surveillance continuously scans foreign and international news and health websites and information exchange networks on infectious diseases. Our internal surveillance comprises continuous evaluation of atypical pneumonia cases, laboratory surveillance of influenza viruses and through the implementation of new IT systems to rapidly capture, analyse and monitor cases of infectious diseases of concern.

Under this DORS framework, my Ministry will mount a rapid response to major disease outbreaks by mobilising teams to investigate the outbreak, analyse epidemiological findings and then contain the outbreak as quickly as possible through appropriate control measures such as contact tracing and quarantine, treatment or vaccination.

Fifth, we regularly exercise our plans. This is important to ensure that the players know what to do if and when a real crisis happens. It also allows us to learn from the exercises to refine our plans.

Finally, we must involve all Singaporeans in our preventive and response strategy. What can Singaporeans do?

When there is a specific outbreak, we will seek specific actions from the people. But, meanwhile, I think Singaporeans can do a lot on the preventive front: aim for a much higher standard of personal and public hygiene.

Let us get back to basics. Do not spread germs: so do not spit, wear masks when unwell, do not touch your face unnecessarily, wash hands thoroughly and often, keep public toilets clean and dry and please do not litter. Simple acts like these can go a long way to minimising the spread of infectious diseases.

Three questions, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is necessary for Singaporeans to get a flu vaccination, if that is useful, if not for all Singaporeans, at least for those who are travelling overseas. Will that be an advice that the Ministry of Health thinks useful for those who are travelling to avian flu infected areas to have the flu vaccination?

Secondly, my question is whether there is sufficient quantum of the Tamiflu vaccine available because there appears to be a severe shortage in the US, and the US is trying to increase production. Is there a shortage in Singapore?

Thirdly, I would like to ask what kind of cooperation exists with the countries in the region, particularly those countries where avian flu is particularly serious. The Minister did talk about international cooperation and support. Is there some regional cooperation on this?

On flu vaccination, I think let us be clear. There is the usual seasonal winter flu and, of course, there is this dreaded flu pandemic which we will not know yet what exactly will be the virus and what form it will take. For seasonal flu, the advice has always been to apply only for the high-risk group. We are in the tropics and, quite

unlike US, when winter comes, the elderly there would be advised to take a flu jab - voluntary, not compulsory - but that is the advisory. They leave it to the people to decide. In the case of Singapore, there is really not much need unless you are in the high-risk group. The high-risk group is defined as those who are doctors or healthcare workers who have to work with patients who are likely to have flu. So this is one category of the flu vaccine which varies with each season. WHO gives advice regularly, twice a year, on what is the latest cocktail of flu jabs to take.

But specific to flu pandemic, it depends on what particular virus strain will crop up. It may evolve from the H5N1, nobody knows. But if it does, the effort would be towards that direction. Currently, there is no such vaccine because we do not know yet what exactly this particular mutant will look like, but there are a lot of research efforts going in this direction. We ourselves are helping in some research efforts with our Australian partner and, hopefully, some results can show in due course.

As for Tamiflu, there is now a worldwide shortage especially now that the H5N1 has been found in Europe. You can expect a huge demand and it will grow but, unfortunately, there is only one supplier, so there is a global shortage. And every country has been advised to do some stockpile. We do. We have a certain target to work towards,

which is enough Tamiflu for one quarter of the population, which means one million courses. We are building it up progressively. We started quite early, so that was helpful. As first mover, we have some advantage here. We have built up to quite a significant proportion. Probably by sometime next year, we should build up to this targeted one quarter of the population's requirement.

The third point is on international cooperation - this is crucial. I think every

country has been developing its internal response plan. My main criticism has always been that while those activities are useful and important, I think not enough attention is being paid upstream. The pandemic will be so disastrous that I think if we can avoid it, so much the better. And to avoid it, one really should go upstream. And, here, international cooperation is key. So I am quite glad President Bush called for an International Partnership when he addressed United Nations recently. Last week, you see his Health Secretary spending a couple of weeks in this region on areas which have such outbreak of H5N1 already happening, and we hope such activities will continue. There are various forums now within ASEAN, within APEC, within ASEM. It reminded me of the Y2K crisis. Remember Y2K? It is not biological, but it is a millennium bug. But I think by thinking about it, and thinking through what are the steps that one can do to cooperate with each other and within limits, we can avoid a calamity and a whole industry of Y2K experts were built up. And now in this case, we hope that a whole industry of flu pandemic experts will also be built up. Along the way, we can teach each other, learn from each other and hopefully we can avoid this, if nothing else can postpone this, for as long as possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether his utmost task will be on the containment and the prevention of spread of the avian flu virus, especially the virulent human transmittable, should an outbreak occur? How does he plan to do it? Has he got any protocol of actions in place involving the various Ministries, drawing from our past experience of SARS and preventing past mistakes? What will constitute the key point for him to call for immediate action? And lastly, on Tamiflu, is it wise not to switch to other anti-viral agents such as Relenza, because now there is a possibility of mutated avian flu virus that

is not effective to be treated with Tamiflu?

Sir, I agree with Dr Lily Neo that prevention is better than cure. So, likewise, with the flu pandemic, if we can prevent it so much the better. In the case of Singapore, because we do not have a significant agricultural sector, the risk of a flu pandemic emerging from here is very small. Therefore, the likelihood of a cluster appearing somewhere will probably be in the region outside of Singapore. If we can have what people call forward defence - push the boundary, push our border as far as possible - so we have some interest in helping our neighbours to, if we can help it, prevent a cluster from happening or when it happens, quickly isolate and ringfence the cluster.

At some stage if there were to be a flu pandemic, a human cluster will emerge. So on a theoretical basis, if within the first 36, 48 or 72 hours this cluster is identified, we have a rapid medical team to move in, isolate, inject Tamiflu, cull the animals, and so on, it is possible to prevent this from spreading. But the first 36 or 72 hours are crucial. For that to happen, we need two ingredients: one, the moment suspicious incidents like that happen, somebody will blow the whistle; two, you have a rapid response force - doctors, scientists, together with the anti-virals that can be brought to the cluster zone. Both have to be in place for this to happen and much of the international preventive efforts are driving in that direction. Let us try to create this outcome. It is not easy, but I think we should try.

The second point is about what will trigger our reaction within Singapore. As I said, there is a DORS system and in the case of flu pandemic, we have colour

coded it. We are right now in colour green, meaning there is no efficient man-to-man transmission yet. The next colour code will be yellow. Yellow is when the first imported human case appears in Singapore. That will be yellow. And then you have the other colour codes, ending up with a very dark scenario of black. Black is when the outbreak gets out of hand and then there is huge trouble.

As for resistance to Tamiflu, these findings are not surprises because viruses are not stupid, just like dengue mosquitoes or dengue virus. They mutate, they change, and they will react and, in due course, there will be resistance to Tamiflu. There are some recent studies where laboratory testings show its resistance. It may or may not be. It will take some time and therefore part of our flu pandemic plan includes testing out other anti-virals like Relenza which Dr Lily Neo mentioned. In fact, the plan is when we stockpile Tamiflu, we will also stockpile some Relenza, so that we have some diversification.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister: is Singapore positioning herself to be the regional centre for infectious diseases, if we are not already one? And if so, do we have the medical and paramedical capacity to do this? Secondly, may I ask the Minister: are we going to expand our R&D in infectious diseases? Are we going to spend more research funds on R&D in the development, for example, of vaccines? It seems to me that with our biotechnology industry, we are well positioned to do so instead of depending on other countries for anti-virals or vaccines. And, thirdly, may I ask the Minister what lessons have we learned from SARS on weak areas which we could improve on? May I take the opportunity here to compliment the Minister and the Government on handling SARS very effectively, inspiring confidence in the public while at the same

time maintaining transparency. But it has been said that SARS -

Dr Geh Min, keep it to within avian flu, please.

It has been said that SARS is a very small thing compared to what we may face in future. So may I ask the Minister for assurance for an equally effective response?

On Dr Geh Min's question on Singapore being a regional centre for infectious disease, I presume she meant a regional scientific centre, not an incubator of infectious disease or a treatment centre for infectious disease. Certainly, particularly as we are in the tropics where infectious diseases are common. Do we have special expertise? Yes and no. I think this requires international effort. If you look at SARS when it happened, the whole international scientific community responded to it and therefore within weeks, the whole genome was mapped out. So the same thing is likely to happen for the flu pandemic. Increasingly, this is global business and we certainly should be an active player. Can we be THE player? I doubt it very much because you cannot beat, first, the billions of dollars of NIH funds in US or the number of scientific expertise there. But, in Singapore, we are building up our Biopolis and we have a life science interest and certainly we ought to be a player in this game.

What lessons we learned from SARS? Many, many lessons were learned. We did something right, we did many things which, on hindsight, we could have done it better, and we have responded to the deficiencies. Some of the capacities were inadequate, isolation rooms were inadequate which we have built up over the last two to three years, and we continue to build up. But I think a lesson from SARS is to take a commonsensical approach because the next outbreak we

can have all kinds of scenario planning, it will turn out quite different from what the scenario planners would like it to be. So there are bound to be surprises, but take a commonsensical approach. We have to understand whether the virus is airborne, droplets-based or what? How infectious is it? Fortunately, when we look at influenza virus, it is still largely droplets-based. It may be more infective than SARS but it is still droplets-based. And being droplets-based, what it means is common public health personal hygiene practices go a long way.

Mdm Halimah, last question. We have 40 more Questions to go.

Sir, the Minister mentioned that there is about enough flu vaccine for 25% of the population. I wonder, if there is an outbreak, whether there will be a problem with allocation of the vaccine. Secondly, the Minister mentioned about the need to involve stakeholders. I wonder whether the Ministry involves companies as well because there was a report which says that companies are not very prepared for the eventuality of such an outbreak.

First, a correction. When I said 25%, I was talking about anti-virals, not vaccine, because there is no vaccine yet because we do not know what kind of creature we will be fighting. So we are talking about anti-virals and, in any case, there is no need for anti-viral for the entire population; vaccine, yes. For vaccine, you must reach out to the entire population but anti-viral is only temporary prophylaxis. But you need to cover a critical mass of population, but it is not feasible nor desirable to have anti-viral for the entire population.

In our pandemic flu plan on the website, there is a significant section on business and companies; how they should

react, and some simple advisories. But, really, companies among themselves have to think it through, and I read a similar report where they found that many companies are still not geared up. My advice is for them today to check into MOH website, study the few hundred pages on flu pandemic plan and think through what are the steps that you should be preparing yourselves for.

I would like to ask a supplementary question, if I may.

We have got 40 more Questions to go. I will allow you a short one.

It seems to me that the medical profession is understandably somewhat market-driven. So we have a lot of specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology, in cardiology, in the more lucrative fields, I hate to say. May I ask the Minister if there is going to be any move to try and encourage more specialisation in epidemiology in infectious diseases, in clinical and laboratory diagnostic areas where I think we will be well advised to build up these areas.

The short answer is yes, but we are market-driven too because we can encourage and promote the courses but there must be takers. But, fortunately, for every cohort of three hundred over students, there will be some who have an interest in different areas. In fact, we have just doubled the intake for infectious diseases and hope that the trend will continue.

5. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he

can provide an update on bilateral relations with Malaysia.

6. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can provide an update on the status of the discussions with Malaysia on the proposed bridge to replace the Causeway, in the light of reports in the Malaysian media that Malaysia has decided to go ahead with its construction.

7. Dr Warren Lee asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he could provide an update on bilateral relations with Malaysia and Indonesia.

Mr Speaker Sir, with your permission, I would like to answer Questions 5, 6 and 7 together.

Yes.

Sir, to answer Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Ms Irene Ng and Dr Warren Lee, there have been several positive developments in our bilateral relations with Malaysia in recent months. High-level visits and interactions are ongoing. In April this year, President Nathan was warmly received during a State Visit to Malaysia at the invitation of the Yang di Pertuan Agong. This was the first State Visit by a Singapore President to Malaysia since the late President Wee visited Malaysia in November 1991. President Nathan has, in turn, extended an invitation to the Agong to pay a State Visit to Singapore and looks forward to reciprocating Malaysia's warm hospitality.

In April this year, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew visited Kuala Lumpur, during which he spoke to the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute's World Ethics and Integrity Forum. MM had good meetings with Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak. During my visit to Kuala Lumpur from 5th to 7th September 2005 to address the

Global Leadership Forum, I took the opportunity to call on Foreign Minister Syed Hamid and met several old friends. The following week, Minister Teo Chee Hean visited Kuala Lumpur, during which he launched the Eyes in the Sky (EiS) initiative to enhance security in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been high-level Malaysian visitors to Singapore as well. For example, Minister of Education Hishammuddin Hussein visited Singapore in June this year and had good discussions with our Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on cooperation in education between our two countries. Malaysian Minister for Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Muhyiddin Yassin visited Singapore in February 2005, during which he encouraged Singapore investment in Malaysian agricultural projects. We also welcomed Minister for International Trade and Industry Rafidah Aziz to Singapore in August. During her visit, businessmen from Singapore and Malaysia met to discuss business opportunities in Malaysia and in third countries. We welcome all such opportunities to deepen the links between our private sectors.

Apart from mutual visits, there have also been substantive developments in economic cooperation. In June this year, Petronas signed a Gas Services Agreement with Keppel Engineering worth some $3 billion, to supply natural gas to Singapore through a new pipeline. There have also been significant new Malaysian investments in Singapore, such as Telekom Malaysia increasing its stake in MobileOne to almost 24% in August.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore and Malaysia continue to work at resolving our outstanding bilateral issues. In May this year, I spoke to this House about the signing of the Settlement Agreement in the Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore In and Around the Straits of

Johor on 26th April 2005. The manner in which the dispute was settled gives us confidence that we can resolve our bilateral issues in a similar way. In this regard, as Members of the House are aware, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong visited Malaysia in December last year and in March this year to discuss some of the outstanding bilateral issues. Senior Minister Goh and Prime Minister Abdullah have had constructive discussions and agreed on the steps to move the process forward. In particular, they agreed to conduct their talks based on two broad principles:

First, that any proposal should be mutually beneficial and not disadvantage either party; and

Second, that both sides should not allow these old issues to hold future cooperation hostage.

Senior Minister Goh and Prime Minister Abdullah also agreed that it would not be helpful to publicise the details of these discussions while they were going on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Irene Ng asked about the status of the discussions on the proposed bridge to replace the Causeway. Following the agreement reached between Senior Minister Goh and Prime Minister Abdullah, senior officials from Singapore and Malaysia met on 7th September this year for further discussions on the proposed bridge, as well as other bilateral issues, and they will meet again on the 19th of this month.

Although there have been news reports in the Malaysian media suggesting that Malaysia has decided to go ahead with the construction of a bridge to replace the Causeway, I would like to clarify to this House that discussions on the bridge are still on-going and we should not prejudge the outcome of our discussions with Malaysia.

In the meantime, Singapore's position on the bridge remains unchanged. Singapore can agree to Malaysia's proposal to replace the Causeway with a new bridge only if there is a balance of benefits on both sides. And only then can the considerable costs involved in building our side of a new bridge be justified. But as discussions are still going on, it would not be helpful for us to publicise further details at this stage.

Despite these bilateral issues, I am confident that our two countries will continue to look ahead, and not allow old issues to affect our overall cooperation or to define the entire bilateral relationship between our two countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, bilateral ties between Singapore and Indonesia, I am happy to report, are also going well. Since my last update to the House in February, we have had many high-level bilateral interactions and visits. Since President Yudhoyono's State Visit to Singapore in February, there have been visits to Singapore by Vice President Jusuf Kalla in May, and the Chairman of the People's Consultative Assembly Hidayat Nur Wahid in April. SM Goh visited Jakarta in April this year and, two weeks ago, PM Lee met President Yudhoyono in Bali for an informal Retreat, barely two days after the bomb attacks there on 1st October 2005.

The fact that both leaders decided to proceed with their Retreat demonstrated their common resolve to fight terrorism together.

PM and President Yudhoyono had excellent discussions during their Retreat in Bali. This is their fourth meeting in this year alone. They have also been keeping in close touch via telephone on key issues and developments.

In Bali, the two leaders discussed a range of bilateral issues and new areas of

bilateral cooperation. Together with negotiations for an Extradition Treaty, the leaders agreed for both sides to negotiate a Defence Cooperation Agreement, and a Counter-Terrorism Agreement. The SAF has a strong history of excellent cooperation with the TNI, and the Defence Cooperation Agreement will build on this.

Singapore-Indonesia economic ties are growing. From 2001-2004, Singapore was consistently ranked among the top five investors in Indonesia. Last year, Singapore was the fourth largest investor in Indonesia, with 150 projects totalling some US$0.62 billion. Our cumulative investments between 1997 and last year amounted to S$10.8 billion. We also have close economic cooperation with the various provinces in Sumatra, and we have long been investors in Batam and Bintan. We hope that our private sector will increase their investment in Indonesia. Both sides signed an Investment Guarantee Agreement in February this year.

We are also working to improve air connectivity between our two countries. Our respective tourism authorities are working closely together, and recently co-organised various activities to commemorate the 600th Anniversary of Admiral Zheng He's voyages. At the Bali Retreat, PM and President Yudhoyono agreed that Singapore and Indonesia should work together to promote joint tourism.

We cooperate in other fields as well. For example, the two Ministries of Education signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Education in June 2005 that provides for student exchanges between our universities.

Our post-tsunami assistance to Aceh is moving forward on schedule. The Government is working with the

Singapore Red Cross Society on several reconstruction projects, including the construction of a pier in Meulaboh and the refurbishment of the Meulaboh General Hospital. We are helping to draw up an urban Master Plan for Meulaboh Town. Several Singapore NGOs are also actively involved in other projects in Aceh to help the people there rebuild their lives.

At the Bali Retreat, the leaders talked about working together on the Avian flu, about which Minister Khaw has just answered your Questions. Singapore has offered to help Indonesia in its efforts to counter the Avian flu. This includes the sharing of information, the provision of diagnostic kits and antiviral medication, as well as training on safety and preventive measures. In addition to this, PM offered the assistance of our Regional Emerging Diseases Institute (REDI) to Indonesia.

However, there remain bilateral issues that are complex and would take time to resolve. One such issue is the Extradition Treaty. Since my last update to the House, there have been five rounds of talks and good progress has been made. But it is not an easy agreement to negotiate. There are difficult issues to work through, some of which would require changing laws in Singapore and in Indonesia. The officials will be meeting again soon to continue their negotiations. Our negotiations on the Extradition Treaty will be conducted in parallel with the Defence Cooperation Agreement and the Counter-Terrorism Agreement.

We have also started technical negotiations with Indonesia on the maritime boundary delimitation between the two countries. The first round of technical discussions was held in February this year and further rounds are forthcoming.

Even as we deal with the outstanding bilateral issues, we should constantly explore new areas of cooperation. Both

PM Lee and President Yudhoyono share the view that bilateral relations should not be conducted through megaphone diplomacy, especially when negotiations on sensitive issues and future cooperation are ongoing.

Sir, the Minister said that on-going discussions are on for the bridge, but the Malaysian Foreign Minister has been reported as saying that Malaysia could go ahead and build a half-bridge, even if Singapore did not agree to the proposal. Can I ask the Minister Singapore's position on this? A related question is with regard to the unilateral approach that seems to be underlying this decision to build a half-bridge even if Singapore does not agree to it. Can I ask the implications of this on the other outstanding issues that are being discussed, as the Minister has said that both sides have agreed that any proposal should be mutually beneficial? Finally, with regard to the Minister's point about the agreement on both sides to keep their discussions out of the media, may I ask whether there has been a breach of that agreement and what would this mean for the other discussions that are taking place on the other issues on the table.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a little wary about commenting on media reports, because these are not always accurate. However, on the half-bridge, DPM Jayakumar has, in this House, clarified the position. In October 2003, we sent a Third Party Note to Malaysia on this subject. In that TPN, Singapore reminded Malaysia that a unilateral decision to demolish its side of the Causeway to construct a half-bridge must comply with the principles enunciated in the Order issued by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, an Order which was issued in response to Malaysia's application for provisional measures concerning

Singapore's reclamation works. Members will recall the problem that we had earlier. So, by that same ITLOS order, Malaysia has to comply with certain principles. And any action by Malaysia must also be fully consistent with the requirements of international law governing such matters. Our TPN pointed out that international facilities, such as the Causeway, cannot be lawfully demolished without the approval, agreement and involvement of both States. We also expressed concern about the potential environmental impacts and other impacts arising from the dismantling of the Causeway. Since October 2003, we have sent several further TPNs to Malaysia re-stating our position on the half-bridge.

Ms Irene Ng asked what would be the implications of a half-bridge, if built without our agreement. The implications would be serious. However, as negotiations for the proposed full bridge to replace the Causeway are still on-going, I do not think it would be helpful for me to talk about details or to speculate about various hypothetical outcomes.

It is true, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when SM Goh and PM Abdullah met on 1st March this year, they agreed that it would not be helpful to publicise the details of our discussions on the outstanding bilateral issues at this juncture.

It is unfortunate there have been some speculative news reports in the Malaysian media on the on-going discussions. And, when we raise it with Malaysian officials, they always deny that there was any "leak" by them. But on our side, we intend to adhere closely to what SM Goh and PM Abdullah had agreed to, that is, to keep on-going discussions out of the media glare, in order to avoid unnecessary complications.

8. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in relation to the two Integrated Resorts, (a) what are some key considerations that have to be sorted out that have delayed the release of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Marina site till November 2005 and the Sentosa site till the first quarter of next year; (b) if it has been decided that a two-stage tender will be called for the Integrated Resort sites and if the tender price will remain the prime criterion for selection of the successful tenderer, given the drag high land cost can impose on the project feasibility.

9. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) why is there a delay in the invitation for proposals for the integrated resorts; and (b) whether the social safeguards, such as the proposed $100-per-visit entry fee for Singaporeans and the 50 per cent cap on casino revenue, are also being reviewed as part of the process.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos. 8 and 9 together.

Yes.

Since the announcement to proceed with the Integrated Resort (IR) projects, STB and the relevant agencies have been actively engaging the potential IR investors and seeking their views on the draft specifications of the Request for Proposals (RFP). The investors have provided useful constructive feedback on a wide variety of issues, ranging from urban planning parameters to the legislative framework and RFP selection process itself.

As a number of these issues are very complex, the agencies have been studying the issues very carefully to see how we can best address them. We want to optimise the terms of the RFP, in order to maximise the overall benefits for Singapore whilst ensuring that it is also viable for the investors.

This is why, for instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs has come up with the casino legislative framework and, in fact, launched a public consultation exercise on the draft Casino Control Bill today. This exercise will allow all stakeholders to provide their comments to the Bill, before it is formally passed by Parliament. This will also give potential investors greater certainty when they tender for the RFP.

Ms Irene Ng has asked if the social safeguards are being reviewed as part of this process. I would like to assure Ms Ng that we have no change in the social safeguards which were announced in April this year. The Government will put in place a comprehensive and stringent set of social safeguards, including a casino entry levy of $100 per day or $2,000 per year for Singaporeans.

Ms Ng has also asked about the 50 per cent cap on casino revenue. In the Request for Concepts (RFC) exercise earlier this year, we had indicated that a surcharge may be imposed if the gross gaming revenue exceeded 50% of the total annual integrated resort revenue. The intent was to signal that the integrated resorts should have a high component of non-gaming attractions in order to attract tourism. It was not meant to be a social safeguard.

We have since decided not to impose this surcharge for the RFP. This is because in our consultations, most investors have indicated that they would not be able to generate non-gaming revenue exceeding their gaming revenue for the IRs in the initial years of their

operation. Imposing a surcharge in these circumstances will unnecessarily reduce the viability of the integrated resort project, or result in a lower level of development investment. Instead, the Government's intention that the integrated resort should be more than just a casino has already been made very clear to the investors. Proposals that do not have substantial non-gaming attractions will certainly lose out when we evaluate the tenders.

Dr Amy Khor asked about the RFP selection process. Our objective is to select the IR proposal that will maximise the overall tourism and economic benefits for Singapore, not just the value in the IR itself or the value of the land per se. Hence, we intend to evaluate the proposals based on factors such as tourism appeal, strength of concept and design, strength of partnerships and networks, as well as level of development investment. As we are still refining the selection process, we will announce more details later.

We target to launch the RFP for the integrated resort at Marina Bay by end of November 2005. The RFP for the integrated resort at Sentosa will be launched in the first quarter of next year. I wish to assure this House that every effort is being made to ensure the success of the IR project.

Given that there is considerable coordination required among the different agencies and Ministries due to the complexity of the project, and the different agencies and Ministries may sometimes have conflicting but nonetheless necessary objectives to safeguard, may I ask the Minister whether this could inevitably cause some delays in the progress of the IR project? And would the Minister agree that such coordination issues could also delay the progress of the

IR when it is operationalised and developed? If so, would the Ministry put in place an inter-Ministerial committee to look specifically into the development and operation of the IR over the medium to long term to ensure its success as well as meeting the objectives and concerns of all the stakeholders concerned?

Another question I would like to ask the Minister is if there could also be any possibility of a further delay in the launch of the RFPs, given that we are now seeking feedback from the public regarding the guidelines as to the use of the IRs. And has the Ministry actually taken into consideration the possibility of investors' waning interest if there are further delays, in view of impending competition from other countries, like Thailand?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there will be no further delays in the Request for Proposals. Have there been conflicts between the agencies? No, there have been no conflicts between the agencies, but I am sure Members of this House will appreciate that in dealing with complex issues like these, it is beneficial for all the agencies to examine the issues from different perspectives. The examination of the issues from multiple perspectives, I think, will give us a more robust and a more sensible answer at the end of it. We are almost at the end of this process, and I can assure the House that there will be no further delays and that the RFP will be an exercise which will generate the optimal outcome for Singapore.

Sir, I want to thank the Minister for the assurance that social safeguards will not be removed. But can I ask the Minister whether the 50% cap on casino revenue being removed will mean that the IRs will be dominated by gaming activities as a

source of attraction and revenue, especially in the early years, and whether this will mean that it is indeed going to be more a casino than an entertainment centre?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the IRs will certainly not be dominated by gaming facilities. To give Members an idea of scale, the floor area for gaming will not be allowed to exceed 15,000 square metres or, in fact, if you include circulation, 18,000 square metres. This is a very, very small proportion of the total development of the IR which will have, in terms of floor area, 500,000 square metres. So, there is no possibility of this dominating the development. In any case, all the investors understand that our intention is that this is not meant to be one big gambling hall. If any investor submits such a proposal, I can almost certainly guarantee that the Government will not select such a proposal. Remember that at the end of this, we are trying to ensure that an integrated resort is built, which will attract tourists, and gaming per se will not achieve that objective.

So, let us wait for the proposals to come in, and you will see the basis on which we will select these proposals.

Sir, while the Minister says that the potential IR operators may not just be concentrating on gaming because there are certain requirements for them, in terms of how much floor area they take on for gaming, but when the surcharge on 50% revenue cap is removed, what is there to prevent the operator in the future to concentrate more on the gaming part? For the other non-gaming components, like facilities, they may allow it not to be upgraded or pegged towards international standards, and we therefore lose the purpose of having an IR to attract tourists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said earlier, the amount of physical space that can be used for gaming is severely constrained. Secondly, because of the strict social safeguards, the local market is also constrained. Bearing in mind the size of the investment that we are trying to attract here, it will not be viable if they were to depend only on gaming revenue. But having said that, this is a business and we should not unnecessarily constrain the business by putting on this 50% cap when it is not practical in the first instance. If you do that, all that will happen will be that they will have to scale back their cash flows, which will mean scaling back the level of development investment and which will mean, in effect, that we will also have a scaled down integrated resort. So we have structured it in such a way that our intentions are clear, the business case is also clear to the investors - that they will have to make their money from not just providing gaming facilities but, indeed, the non-gaming facilities. And the more of such activities that they can grow, and the higher the commercial value that results from such activities, then they win and we win.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, in the consideration to remove the 50% cap on the casino revenue, on whose interest is the Government looking after? Is it the investors' interest who would not be viable or the interest of Singaporeans who might become social gamblers or problem gamblers?

Sir, I said earlier in my answer, the 50% cap is not a social safeguard. It was never intended as a social safeguard. It was an economic consideration and it was meant to send a signal that Singapore is not interested in a gambling hall. But when we say "integrated resort", we mean what we say. We believe the signal is clear. We believe that the potential investors know

what they are looking for. And, in any case, we will make the final decision on which proposal succeeds. On that point, I want all Members to understand that we are not reducing our social safeguards. This has nothing to do with social safeguards. This is about an economic signal that is being sent and we believe now that we can achieve this without having to impose arbitrarily this 50% cap.

Sir, in order to encourage the operators and ensure that in future, they would put in as much effort as possible to make the non-gambling portion of the development successful and therefore increase the revenue portion from that element, would the Ministry be considering imposing the 50% cap later on down the line?

The answer is no.

10. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats have been repossessed by banks since bank loans for the purchase of HDB flats were implemented for purchasers who do not qualify for HDB subsidized loans; (b) if the Ministry knows how many more flats are pending repossession by banks as the purchasers are unable to service their loans; and (c) if HDB has assisted any of these cases by allowing them to rent a flat and, if so, how many.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the implementation of bank origination of HDB market rate loans on 1st January 2003, banks have completed the mortgagee sale of 15 flats, as at 30th September this year. There are another 61 cases where the banks have already

secured the buyer for the flat and have submitted the resale application for HDB's approval. Together, these 76 cases constitute about 0.1% of all bank loan cases to-date, which number about 65,000.

Besides these 76 cases, there are about 100 cases that are pending mortgagee sale by the banks.

The assistance that HDB will provide these lessees whose flats have been repossessed will depend on individual circumstances and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. As at 30th September 2005, HDB has granted approval for 20 mortgagee sale cases to rent a flat.

To be considered for subsidised rental housing, households must meet HDB's eligibility criteria and must be facing severe financial difficulties.

Sir, I would like to remind all flat buyers that they must exercise financial prudence in their home purchases and buy a flat that is within their means. Those who borrow from the banks to buy HDB flats are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the banks. If they default on the loan payment and are unable to make alternative repayment arrangements, they risk having their flats repossessed.

I would like to ask the Minister how does the number of 76 cases of flats repossessed compare to purchasers who were not asked to get loans from the banks when there were only HDB loans available. My other question to the Minister is: for those in financial hardship, dire financial needs, when the flats are repossessed and if they do not qualify, say, for rental flats and exemption cannot be given, would the Ministry consider putting in place some policy or guideline as to whether such displaced owners can get HDB financing

because many of them actually have got credit rating problem and would not be able to get subsequent bank loans?

Sir, the situation before 1st January 2003 when HDB was giving out market rate loans was that there were very few HDB cases of mortgagee sales by the HDB. However, I think that is not a useful comparison because HDB, as the Member knows, has a much more sympathetic approach towards such cases. When the policy was made to open up the housing loan market to the private sector, in this case to the banks, the objective was to give buyers more choices. The buyers who took market rate loans from the banks fall into two categories: first, those who are eligible for HDB concessionary loans. These buyers could easily have got a HDB concessionary loan but they did not. One of the reasons could be because, at that time, the banks were offering very attractive rates.

Second, there is the category where they are not eligible for HDB concessionary loans. But that does not mean that they are living in the streets, or in the void decks, or in Changi beach park. They have a choice. They are not eligible for the concessionary rate loans for several reasons. (1) They could be PRs; (2) they could be private property owners; (3) they could be high income households, those earning above $8,000; (4) they could be those who have already taken at least two HDB concessionary loans; or, (5) they could have taken one loan but are downgrading. For the last category, as Members may know, we have been fairly sympathetic in looking at these cases.

Whichever category they belong to, my point is that they do have a choice and the opening up of the market rate loan to the banks has given them this choice, and 65,000 flat buyers have exercised this choice. But I must also add

that even as they are given this choice, they must exercise it responsibly, they must continue to make sure that they buy a flat which is within their means and that they are able to service the loan, and if they are not able to do so, they must also be aware that they are now subject to a contract between them and the bank, whereby if they do not fulfil their part of the contract, they may be subject to repossession. Different banks will have different policies and they will be different from the HDB. But those who exercise this choice that has been given to them must exercise their choice responsibly and must be fully aware of their consequences.

So the issue is not a comparison between the situation before and after 1st January 2003, but a comparison between the number of mortgagee sale cases versus the total number of bank loan cases, that is, between the 76 cases in relation to the 65,000 bank loan cases. This is not an exceptionally high level as far as the housing loan market is concerned, according to the banks. It is, in my opinion, not an excessive number. I do not think it is realistic to expect that there will be no such cases. But, so far, the number of cases has been within what the industry considers to be acceptable.

What about those who do not qualify for rental flats? Can there be some guidelines for HDB finance to be made available to them? In the first place, as I indicated earlier, those who are taking bank loans, who go this route, are already those who are not eligible for the HDB concessionary loans. There are many cases and they fall into one of the five categories that I mentioned earlier - the private property owners, the PRs, the high income households and those who have availed themselves of more than their fair share of housing subsidies through the concessionary loans. So I think it is difficult for us to make concessionary

loans easily available for this group of people. In the first place, they really should not be purchasing a flat if they are not able to afford it and if they do not exercise their choice responsibly and if they choose to proceed, I do not think HDB should be in a position of providing such a big safety net for them.

Having said that, of course, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have indicated in this House many times, once in a while, we do come across cases where the circumstances are exceptionally dire, exceptionally worthy of our reconsideration and, under those circumstances, we will not close the book and we will look at it sympathetically.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister at what price are the banks actually forced selling these flats and whether these prices are far below the market rate. If so, would there be an impact on the HDB property market, although the number at this point in time is actually very negligible to cause any stir? But, going forward, what really would be the impact and, also, the impact on the banks who are giving out such loans and the implications on the borrowers?

Sir, I am not privy to that information, it is a private matter between the bank and the borrower or the potential buyer. So I am not able to enlighten the Member on this. But, generally speaking, because the cases of default are not excessive and they are within the norms of the industry, I do not think there will be any significant impact on the market.

11. Mr Ong Kian Min asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the concessionary interest rate

offered by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to HDB lessees is a flat rate fixed for the term of the loan; (b) under what circumstances will the HDB adjust upwards the interest rate of a lessee's housing loan; and (c) whether the concessionary interest rate will be adjusted upwards when the HDB lessee takes up the HDB Reduced Payment Scheme or HDB Deferred Payment Scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB concessionary interest rate is currently pegged at 0.1% above the CPF Ordinary Account (OA) interest rate. The CPF OA interest rate is reviewed quarterly, in January, April, July and October. The HDB concessionary interest rate is also reviewed quarterly and it is revised in tandem with any revision in the CPF OA interest rate. It is not fixed for the term of the loan. The HDB concessionary interest rate currently stands at 2.6% per annum, as the CPF OA rate is 2.5%. So it is 0.1% higher.

When HDB mortgagors with concessionary loans are offered the Reduced Repayment Scheme or Deferred Payment Scheme, their mortgage interest rate is not adjusted.

12. Mr Sin Boon Ann asked the Minister for Manpower in light of what the Prime Minister had said recently about not discriminating against older workers looking for employment, whether his Ministry will consider developing a new Code of Conduct on Employment Practices which, while not having the effect of the force of law, will set minimum benchmarks for the conduct of employers.

Mr Speaker, indeed employers should hire workers based on their skills and ability to perform the job. Workers should not be discriminated against in terms of age, race or gender. The Ministry of Manpower, together with the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), have jointly formulated the Tripartite Guidelines on Non-Discriminatory Job Advertisements to provide clear guidelines to employers not to adopt discriminatory practices in the recruitment process but to adopt a fair approach based on merit, such as qualifications, skills, experience and other attributes relevant to the job.

The Tripartite Guidelines have been useful. Since their release in 1999, the incidence of discriminatory job advertisements in the major newspapers has dropped drastically from 30% to less than 1% today.

The Code of Responsible Employment Practices, which was jointly issued by the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), SNEF and NTUC in 2002, provides further guidelines on what constitute objective, fair and responsible employment practices. This includes not discriminating against any employee on the basis of age.

The Ministry of Manpower takes a serious view on age discrimination. We investigate complaints of such discrimination thoroughly. If employers are found to have adopted discriminatory practices, we will take appropriate actions, including counselling, warning and administrative measures against them. Most employers have been responsive to our advice and have made necessary changes after counselling.

The Tripartite Guidelines and the Code of Practices remain relevant and useful.

There is therefore no need for a new Code of Conduct for Employment Practices, as suggested by Mr Sin. Instead, we should periodically emphasise and promote the practices outlined in the existing guidelines and code. We will continue to work with our tripartite partners to promote fair employment practices through education and consultation.

What is more important is to create job opportunities for the older workers and to equip them with the necessary skills for these jobs. Equally important is to make positive changes to the mindsets of both the employers and the employees towards the employment of the older workers. The Ministry of Manpower has set up a Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers to study these issues. As part of the Committee's work, the tripartite partners are reviewing whether the existing guidelines and code need to be updated. The Committee is expected to wrap up its work by the end of the year and details of its recommendations will be announced at the appropriate time.

Sir, the Minister says the guidelines have been effective. Why are there so many middle-aged workers complaining all the time at my meet-the-people sessions about discrimination at work?

Mr Speaker, I would like to explain to the Member that some of these complaints are experiences faced by older workers when their applications have been rejected, and sometimes they feel that they have been discriminated against. But upon investigation, many of these complaints were unfounded because there were genuine requirements for younger people who are stronger for certain jobs that require the physical strength. But, obviously, for employees or applicants whose applications have been rejected,

they would feel that they have been discriminated against.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22, Written Answers to Question Nos. 14, 19-20, 30-31, 35-36 and 40 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 13, 15-18, 21-29, 32-34, 37-39 and 41-45 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 18 October 2005.]

* Will be reproduced in the printed copy of the Singapore Parliament Report.

"to amend the Moneylenders Act (Chapter 188 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (Prof. S Jayakumar); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to amend the Small Claims Tribunals Act (Chapter 308 of the 1998 Revised Edition)",

presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore",

presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to amend the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161 of the 2001 Revised Edition)",

presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to amend the Competition Act 2004 (Act 46 of 2004)",

presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to provide for the corporatisation of the Nanyang Technological University and for the transfer of its property, rights and liabilities to a successor company, to provide for certain matters relating to that company and to repeal the Nanyang Technological University Act (Chapter 192 of the 1992 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Management University Act (Chapter 302A of the 2001 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to provide for the corporatisation of the National University of Singapore and for the transfer of its property, rights and liabilities to a successor company, to provide for certain matters relating to that company and to repeal the National University of Singapore Act (Chapter 204 of the 2002 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"relating to the safety, health and welfare of persons at work in workplaces, and to repeal the Factories Act (Chapter 104 of the 1998 Revised Edition), and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by the Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to amend the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 2000 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat; read

the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Public Transport Council Act (Chapter 259B).

The Public Transport Council (PTC) Act was first enacted in August 1987 to provide for the establishment of the Public Transport Council to license bus services and approve public transport fares.

The PTC Act was last amended in 1999. The Ministry and the PTC have reviewed the PTC Act in the light of developments in the public transport industry. The Bill provides for the following key amendments which will improve the regulation of the public transport industry:

The introduction of a bus service operator licensing regime;

The introduction of a regulatory regime for ticket payment services;

The enhancement of the PTC's regulatory power to effect fare adjustments;

The formalisation of the Fuel Equalisation Fund;

The introduction of a penalty fee system to deter fare evasion; and

Other amendments to improve the PTC's operational and regulatory effectiveness.

I will elaborate on these areas and highlight key provisions in the Bill.

Bus service operator licensing regime

Sir, the PTC Act will be amended to provide for the introduction of a Bus Service Operator Licensing regime to regulate providers of basic scheduled public bus services at both the operator and network levels. Currently, the Act only empowers the PTC to license individual bus routes although, in practice, the PTC has been administratively imposing requirements and performance standards at the operator or network level.

Clause 11 empowers the PTC to license and regulate basic bus service operators, namely, SBS Transit and SMRT buses. The PTC already audits basic bus service operators on their service and performance standards, and will continue to review these standards, going forward. With the Bus Service Operator Licensing regime in place, PTC will be able to enforce such standards and licensing conditions by imposing financial penalties of up to $100,000 for any breach of conditions or standards and, in the extreme, by revoking the licence. The PTC will continue to regulate niche bus services, such as Scheme B and fare-charging condominium services, through the issuance of Bus Service Licences for individual routes.

These provisions in the Bill will further enhance the PTC's effectiveness in ensuring the quality of public bus services and protecting the interests of commuters. However, in enhancing the PTC's regulatory effectiveness, I would also emphasise that the PTC would be mindful to avoid over-regulation and unnecessarily raising compliance costs for bus service operators.

Regulatory regime for ticket payment service

The Bill provides for the introduction of a regulatory regime for ticket payment services. The ez-link card system has become the predominant mode of payment for public transport since it was first introduced in 2002. To safeguard commuters' interests in areas, such as fees for usage of ez-link cards and service standards for sales, replacement, refund and top-up services, we will introduce a regulatory regime for ticket payment services.

The PTC will, therefore, expand its scope to also regulate the two major providers of ticket payment services, ie, EZ-Link Pte Ltd and Transit Link. Clause 11 empowers the PTC to impose and enforce ticket payment service requirements and standards. Similar to the Bus Service Operator Licensing Regime, the PTC will be able to enforce regulatory compliance through financial penalties of up to $100,000 or by revoking the licence.

To empower the PTC to effect fare adjustments

The amendments will empower the PTC to effect fare adjustments, if necessary. Members will recall that the Government accepted the fare review framework proposed by the Committee on Fare Review Mechanism in March this year. Under this framework, the PTC may initiate and direct fare adjustments in accordance with the fare adjustment formula, instead of being limited to considering applications by public transport operators to adjust fares. For example, the PTC may consider a downward adjustment which could take the form of a fare rebate or a fare reduction when the formula calls for it. Clause 13 amends the Act to empower

the PTC to do so, and to set and enforce conditions of approval for fare adjustments in accordance with the fare adjustment formula, as set out in the Third Schedule.

To formalise the Fuel Equalisation Fund

The Bill provides for the formalisation of the Fuel Equalisation Fund. This Fund was set up in 1992 as an administrative mechanism to soften the impact of volatile fuel price fluctuations. Public transport operators are required to make an annual contribution to their Fund accounts when fuel or electricity prices are lower than the reference price. They can apply to the PTC to draw down this account in periods of sharp and transient increases of fuel prices to cushion them against higher operating costs. To ensure that the PTOs continue to comply with the requirements on the Fuel Equalisation Fund, clause 11 inserts Part IVC to formalise the Fund. With this amendment, the PTC will have powers to enforce annual contributions to the fund and impose financial penalties for non-compliance.

A penalty fee system for failure to pay appropriate fares

The Bill provides for the introduction of a penalty fee system for fare evasion on bus and rail services. The current Act provides for fare evaders to be charged in court. Upon conviction, offenders are liable to a fine of up to $1,000 or a jail term not exceeding six months, or both. So this is already existing. As it is a drastic step to bring an offender to court, the PTC and the PTOs have not resorted to this provision. As such, without a provision for a penalty fare, today, ticket inspectors can only require fare evaders, when caught, to pay the correct fare. This, coupled with the very low possibility of being caught, does not provide much deterrence against cheating. Even in the

case of rail, where passengers have to enter and exit through fare gates, operators have also encountered cases of underpayment, non-payment and abuse of concessions.

The two PTOs estimate that fare evasion on buses occurs on about 1.8% of passenger trips. Even though this figure may appear to be low, we should not condone fare evasion. Otherwise, the majority of commuters who pay the correct fares will be subsidising the small minority who abuse concession passes, avoid paying or intentionally underpay fares. Hence, to provide greater deterrence against fare evasion, the PTC will be introducing a penalty fee of $20 for the underpayment and non-payment of fares, and $50 for the abuse of fare concessions. Such a penalty fee system has already been implemented in cities, such as London and Sydney, where penalty fees of £20 and A$100 are imposed respectively.

Clause 14 inserts Part VA to empower PTC to set penalty fees and regulate the imposition and enforcement of penalty fees. The PTC, with the approval of the Minister, will appoint a select group of employees from the PTOs as Public Transport Officials

to check for fare evasion, and to collect the penalty fees, if applicable.

I would like to highlight that Part VA is formulated with a balanced and calibrated approach, and with appropriate safeguards to preserve the commuters' rights. Commuters will be able to appeal to the PTC if they feel that the penalty fee has been unjustly imposed. Fare evasion will constitute an offence only if a fare evader refuses to pay the penalty fee. Fare evaders who refuse to pay the penalty fee can be subject to a composition fine of up to $500 or ultimately face court action. Offenders convicted in court for the first time will be liable to pay a court fine not exceeding $1,000. Repeat and recal

citrant offenders will be liable, upon conviction, for fines of up to $2,000 or up to six months' imprisonment or both. While the penalty fee system will be a new measure, as I had mentioned earlier, court fines and imprisonment for fare defaulters are not new, as they are already provided for in the current PTC Act.

The PTC will work out the operational details of the penalty fee system, for implementation early next year. The public will be given ample notice prior to the implementation. The PTC will provide more details in due course. Sir, some members of the public have commented that since we are providing for penalties for fare evasion, penalties should also be imposed on the transport operators for over-charging. Sir, overcharging occurs when system faults on trunk bus services result in incorrect fare stages being updated. This is not a deliberate attempt by the operators to cheat commuters. In fact, depending on whether a commuter is boarding or alighting when the fault occurs, he could be overcharged or undercharged as a result. I can assure Members that the PTOs do not profit from such system faults. On the contrary, they are penalised, as they have to absorb the revenue losses from undercharging, whilst commuters who are overcharged can get a full fare refund or a voucher for a free bus ride.

Let me highlight to Members that LTA and the PTOs have worked hard to refine the Vehicle Location System on buses. This is the system that automatically updates the fare stage in the computer onboard the bus. Their efforts have significantly reduced the instances of overcharging. Cases of wrongful deduction of bus fares have fallen drastically to only 0.006%. This is a remarkable and commendable achievement for a large-scale system. But with a total of two million trips a day on trunk bus routes,

this still amounts to about 120 cases a day. As such, LTA and the transport operators will see if they can further reduce the number.

Consequential and Technical Amendments

Sir, clause 11 makes consequential and technical amendments incidental to the above amendments. The amendments cover provisions for the PTC to issue directions and codes of practice, as well as provisions for licensees of bus service operators and ticket payment services to appeal to the Minister against certain decisions by the PTC concerning bus service operator licensing, the licensing of ticketing payment services and the Fuel Equalisation Fund or the codes of practice.

Other Amendments

The remaining amendments proposed in the Bill are to refresh the PTC Act or to improve the PTC's operational and regulatory effectiveness. These amendments serve to update the procedural provisions covering the quorum of meetings and the term of office of PTC members.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.18 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Minister for including in these amendments the provisions that give effect to the recommendations made by the Committee on the Fare Review Mechanism. In particular, I am pleased that true to the Minister's promise made during the Committee of Supply debate in March this year, the amendment Bill provides for the empowerment of the PTC to proactively

direct the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) to adjust fares or give rebates in accordance with the new fare adjustment formula. This will open the possibility of a downward adjustment of fares by the PTC should the formula yield a negative value under the then prevailing conditions, and even when the PTOs chose not to apply for a fare adjustment for that year.

However, I would not go as far as to agree with PTC Chairman, Mr Gerard Ee's suggestion, as reported in the Straits Times on 11th October 2005, that there should be automatic fare revision every year, unlike now when transport companies must apply for the fare increases.

Public Transport Fares Adjustment

Public transport fares adjustment is not a simple straightforward exercise where you can plug in the numbers into a mathematical formula and out comes the result. It is different from changes in our electricity tariffs, for example, where there is an exact formula based on the long run marginal cost. Therefore, for 4th quarter 2005, where the tariff is raised from 18.26 cents per kWh to 19.57 cents, we can say that it has been increased by 7.2%. This percentage increase is then applied across the board and if the unit cost was, let us say, $1 previously, it would be increased to $1 and 7.2 cents after the effective date for every unit of electricity consumed. So if you consume 1,000 units of electricity, the new price you would have to pay is 1,000 x $1.072 or $1,072 in total.

On the other hand, the tiered public transport fares increases, whether 1 cent, 2 cents or 3 cents, approved by the PTC, are awarded to apply to certain fare stages, certain services and certain categories of commuters. For example, in the 1st July 2005 increase, adult ez-link fares for buses went up by 1 cent for the first fare band (that is, up to 4 fare

stages) and by 2 cents from the second fare band onwards (that is, more than 4 fare stages) while adult cash fares increased by 10 cents across the board. Concession fare for senior citizens during off peak hours increased by 1 cent. Child/student fares and prices of student/NS men concession passes were not increased.

Therefore, to derive the overall percentage fare increase, the PTC and PTOs use complex modelling, forecasting and projections of passenger ridership on particular services and for certain fare stages projected over the next 12 months going forward. At the end of the 12-month period, there is no certainty that the PTOs will actually realise an increase of exactly 2.4%. The actual overall increase cannot be determined until the 12-month period is over. So if the operators receive less than 2.4%, they cannot claim for the balance. Neither can the PTC claw back from the PTOs should the operators gain more than a 2.4% increase in fare revenue.

Therefore, I think the PTC should enlighten commuters on how it approves fare adjustments. And I felt that when PTC announced in its press statement on 30th May 2005 that, "The PTC has approved an overall fare increase of 2.4% for 2005. This is in line with the new fare review framework ...", and The Straits Times reported it as follows, "In approving the fare revision, the PTC allowed the maximum 2.4 per cent increase under a new fare adjustment formula ...", it gave the public the wrong impression that PTC would allow whatever is the maximum percentage increase and would tweak the various component increases to arrive at this target figure. Instead of focusing on the figure for the overall percentage increase, PTC should assure the public that the 1 cent, 2 cents or 3 cents fare increases that have been approved are projected to be less than or within the maximum

increase allowed by the formula. Sir, the fare adjustment formula sets the maximum allowable increase for that year, so that even if the PTC wants to award a larger increase, it cannot do so. It is a safeguard to protect the commuters so that they would not be hit by a disproportionately large increase in any given year.

Dual Role of PTC

It is important for the PTC to enhance its communication with the public. I would like to reflect on the role of the PTC. Under the PTC Act, the core functions of the PTC include approving bus services that charge fares, regulating bus service standards and approving bus and rapid transit system fares. The Bill seeks to bestow further legal powers on the PTC to improve the regulation of the public transport industry. Bolstered with its added powers, the PTC will indeed be in a strong position to carry out its mission of safeguarding the interests of the commuting public while ensuring the long-term viability of the Public Transport Operators. It is timely during this Second Reading of the amendment Bill to ask the question: has the PTC fulfilled, or be seen to fulfill, its role?

Judging from the adverse public reaction over the fare hikes a few years ago, the perennial complaints about poor services and long waiting times, it would seem that many commuters would not think that the PTC is on their side. The PTC has the unenviable goal of safeguarding commuters' interest while ensuring that the PTOs do not go bankrupt. This dual mission has created a niggling suspicion in the deep recesses of many commuters' minds that, between the two, the first priority and overriding consideration is that the PTOs must remain in business as otherwise there would not be a public transport system in the first place to talk about.

Hence, commuters feel that they have to accept compromises so as not to burden the PTOs unduly beyond what they can afford to bear. They feel that the PTC will only push so far and so hard and so long as these demands do not result in the PTOs going broke.

We are from time to time reassured that the members of the PTC are caring individuals from all walks of life who approach their task of looking after commuter interests with utmost sincerity. However, most commuters do not have much awareness of the deliberations of the PTC or what it is planning in their interests. There seems to be a communication gap somewhere down the line, which will easily give rise to misgivings and misinformation. Such misgivings can be avoided or at least kept to a minimum if the PTC plays an active role in communicating with the public. With the amendment Bill entrusting further responsibilities to the PTC, it is an appropriate time for the PTC to consider raising its visibility in order to increase public awareness of its policies, plans and actions.

Fare Adjustment Application and Approval

Back to the issue of the application and approval process for fare adjustments, while I do not agree with PTC Chairman, Mr Gerard Ee's suggestion that there should be automatic fare revision every year, I do believe that there is simply too much drama surrounding every fare revision every year. Under the present process, the PTOs must submit the application for fare revision by 1st May every year. For weeks before this deadline, the media will scurry around, here coaxing operators to indicate whether they would be applying for a fare increase, and there, encouraging transport experts and the public to comment on whether an increase would be justified.

Once an announcement is made that applications have been received by the PTC, we have to sit around for another four weeks of media and public speculation as to what is contained in the operators' proposals. Finally, after those weeks of deliberation, the PTC makes its long-awaited pronouncement. My point is this: can the application process be simplified and the waiting time for the PTC decision be shortened? Although a certain amount of deliberation and suspense is unavoidable, too much of it for too long a period can brew unhealthy and unproductive speculation. A shorter processing time will lessen unnecessary drama and pointless conjecture.

Fare Evasion

Now, I would like to touch on the issue of fare evasion. Based on the statistics provided by the public transport operators, the cost of fares defaulted on bus services is estimated to be $9 million a year. This is a lot of money and begs the question whether the ticketing system is too easy to fool. If my company is losing $9 million in revenue a year, I would certainly press the management to pay proper attention to find effective ways to improve the system technically to solve the problem and lessen the amount that is being lost. Every dollar recovered will go

straight to increase the bottom line. Certainly, the present system is not foolproof and there has been talk among the commuting public on ways to cheat the system.

At first glance, I applauded the move to introduce penalty fees for fare cheats. It is an intermediate penalty between asking the commuter to simply top up the ticket price and prosecuting the person in court for fare evasion as a criminal offence. The new penalty fee may be offered as it makes work easier for the transport officials by not having to prove intent because once caught, people can give all kinds of inventive excuses. In

fact, to date, there has not been any case of a prison sentence being meted out for fare evasion. To impose a penalty fee, all you need to prove is failure, not refusal, to pay. Currently, conviction in court is only for refusal to pay where it is required to prove intent, not merely failure. Offenders will be less offensive if they are accused of 'failure' rather than wilful evasion. The new provisions for a penalty fee system make it easier on the operators to penalise fare cheats, but also give the fare cheat the comfort that the likelihood of him being hauled to court is almost non-existent.

However, on further analysis, I have the following concerns. First, having transport officials to catch fare cheats is very manual and very labour intensive. If we want to create employment, this might be one good way to do it. But there are so many bus services and bus trips a day. So how much ground can a transport official cover and what is his expected success rate?

Secondly, having transport officials appointed by the PTC means additional expenses for the PTC and these would ultimately have to be paid out of public funds. Would a transport official catch enough fare defaulters in one day to justify the cost of his employment? Are the duties of a transport official only to catch fare cheats? I think he should also have other duties while on the beat.

Also, whose responsibility is it to reduce or prevent fare evasion? It is a loss of revenue for the transport operators and so it seems it should be in their direct interest to put in measures to prevent or reduce such losses and to increase their revenue. So I am not sure why the PTC is bearing the cost of doing this.

Thirdly, to deter a would-be offender from committing an offence, the chances of being caught must be high or if it is difficult to catch him, then the penalty

must be high enough to persuade the would-be offender not to take the risk.

Let us compare with the ERP system. It is a positive move that we de-criminalised the non-payment of ERP charges. There is almost absolute certainty of being caught by the ERP camera, and no one is so stupid to try to evade paying ERP charges, except maybe stalling for time by driving slowly or stopping at road shoulders waiting for the ERP hours to pass. So the penalty fee can be low and drivers would still be deterred from non-complying. But in the case of fare cheats, they are difficult to physically catch by the proposed method of having transport officials. There are so many buses and so many bus trips a day. It is like looking for a needle in a hay stack. And if caught, the penalty fee is also not substantial.

Fourthly, I submit that fare cheats are different from non-payment of ERP charges. First, a driver can inadvertently forget to insert his cashcard into the IU or to top up the amount, but a fare cheat cannot be said that he had inadvertently or by mistake tapped his card prematurely before arriving at his destination. To cheat on fares, the act and intention are clearly there, but I do admit that it may be hard to prove in court that a fare cheat actually intended to cheat.

So fare evasion has every element of a criminal offence, no different from, for example, cheating or shoplifting. No matter how small the amount, it is a deliberate act to cheat, to short change, to deprive someone of what is rightfully his to charge and collect.

Sir, the new penalty fee system is an improvement over the present one where the defaulter, if caught, is only made to pay the fare difference, and court action is rarely taken. My concern is that it will still not be effective to deter fare evasion or, worse, I hope would not invite more

people to evade fares. Nevertheless, I trust that the PTC and the PTOs will monitor the situation closely and make adjustments if need be, as failure to stem fare evasion would, over the long term, result in higher fares for the commuting public in general.

Sir, on that note, I support the Bill.

3.35 pm

Sir, I have two points to make. They are, firstly, to call on the Public Transport Council (PTC) to continue to exercise restraint in approving fare price increases and, secondly, to call on the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) not to completely abandon their role as a public service provider. As regards the first point, anyone who reads this year's Annual Report of the PTC will know that the PTC had been very stringent in approving fare increases under the old fare adjustment formula framework which was implemented in 1997. As a result, during the past seven years, the actual average fare increase is only 0.7% per year as compared to the average fare increase cap of 2.4% per year. This is in line with the Government's policy of small but frequent fare increases. The Government has learnt that it is easier to implement small but frequent fare increases rather than delaying the increases which can be quite hefty causing a public hue and cry when they are implemented.

This was evidenced in the 1980s when commuters boycotted taxis. At that time, taxi drivers raised their fares by an additional charge of $2. The taxi drivers tried to justify their fare increase by pointing to the steep rise in fuel price, but commuters just would not listen. Inter alia, this Bill establishes the Fuel Equalisation Fund. The purpose of this

fund is to mitigate the effect of any increase in fuel price and electricity tariffs. PTOs have to pay into the fund an annual contribution of such amount as the PTC may from time to time determine. We all know that due to the uncertain world situation, oil prices are politically very vulnerable. Nobody can predict when shall be the next massive oil price increase again. In such a situation, the fund may be quickly drawn down and the PTOs shall put pressure on the PTC to approve the full minimum cap allowed which was a sizeable amount of 2.4% under the old fare adjustment formula. We still do not know what is the minimum sum cap under the new formula introduced under clause 22 of this Bill. But I hope that the PTC shall continue to be stringent when exercising its powers of approving new fare adjustments after taking into account both the interests of commuters and the viability of the PTOs in the long term.

As regards my second point, Sir, I urge the PTOs, when exercising fare adjustment, to look at the plight of the very poor people in Singapore, that is, the people who are comprised in the lowest quintile of the lowest 20% household income bracket. These are the people comprising four in a family, earning only about $2,651 per month in 2003. Each month, each of these households spends a total of $2,421, of which $131 or 5.4% is spent on public transport. These households hardly have any savings at the end of each month. These are the ones most sensitive to any bus fare revision. No matter how small the fare increase is, it shall be critically felt by them. I hope the PTOs shall take note of these observations and to do something for them, maybe with the cooperation of MCYS and other NGOs to identify this group of people and give them subsidy, say, charge them less for a bus or train ride. At the moment, the help given by PTOs are too general, for example, senior citizens are given cheap fares, or 25% rebates for trunk-to-trunk rides, or the

cheap fares given to school children and NSmen. This group of people may be in fact quite wealthy and the help given to them has been wrongly directed and loses its purpose, that is, to help the poor. The PTOs must implement a scheme of cheap fares directly aimed at the people who really are in need of help.

I think it is not unfair to call on the PTOs to help the poorest people in Singapore, remembering that they do get a lot of help from the Government. Despite the fact that PTOs are constrained by the imposition of the universal service obligation (USO), that is, they cannot cherry pick their routes, they are basically monopolistic in nature and can get good returns year after year. The Government has also been really sympathetic with the PTOs and has awarded them many cost reduction measures. I shall only name the major ones for the years 1998 to 2004. In 1998, road tax was reduced from $5,500 to $1,600 per year per vehicle for omnibuses, and the estimated savings for PTOs were about $13 million a year. In 2001, the cap on the percentage of advertisements allowed on full-bodied external advertisements was raised from 20% to 40% and road tax rebates given at $100 per vehicle for omnibuses. In 2002, road tax was reduced by $200 per year per vehicle for omnibuses. In 2003, frequency of inspection of omnibuses was revised from six monthly to yearly. Statutory lifespan of omnibuses was extended from 15 to 17 years, and the estimated savings were about $6.5 million a year. Employers' CPF contribution rates were reduced from 16% to 13%. As part of the Government's efforts to help keep public transport fare affordable, interchanges and bus terminals and RTS stations are leased to the PTOs at a nominal rate of only $12 per year. At the moment, the help given by the PTOs to the public is too general. The wrong people may be enjoying the PTOs' subsidies, but not the poorest people who

are enjoying the subsidies. I hope the bus companies can identify the poorest Singaporeans and give cheap fares to them. This is the proper way to give help, that is, for those who really deserve the help.

Sir, in conclusion, I shall only comment on new sections 24(C)(5)

and 24D which criminalise one for not paying bus or train fares or the penalty imposed. An offender can be jailed up to six months or fined up to $2,000, or both, on the second time one commits that offence. It is significant that the fine is fixed at the upper limit of $2,000 or jailed for six months. New section 24D has a similar effect but in relation to failing or refusing to pay one's taxi fares. I am disturbed, Sir, that the fine is fixed at $2,000 and the jail term fixed at six months, which are also the amount and jail term that disqualify a person from standing in any election.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.46 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Sir, except for the penalty to be imposed for bus and rail fare evasions, the other proposed amendments to the Public Transport Council Act may be said to be largely in response to the persistent calls from public transport users for more oversight and greater accountability of the public transport

operators for the ultimate protection of consumers. These amendments, if properly implemented, should help to ensure higher performance standards by the PTOS and reduce anti-competitive behaviour.

Public transport companies, even if they are commercially run and answerable to their shareholders, do have a social responsibility, since they are providing what is essentially a public necessity. Moreover, with the allocation of the geographical areas within which they can operate by the Government, they enjoy near monopoly status. To quote the famous dying words from Peter Parker's uncle in the movie "Spider Man": "With much power comes much responsibility." Hence, the operators should be subject to a higher standard of public accountability and transparency.

As in so many other matters of public policy we have debated in this House, I am, however, concerned with the efficacy of operationalising these proposed amendments. Accordingly, I wish to highlight four issues.

Firstly, regulating the service standards of bus operators. The Bus Service Operator Licensing (BSOL) gives the PTC legal powers to enforce licensing conditions and performance standards, which include aspects, such as directness of journey, accessibility, bus links to MRT stations and bus timing, at the operator level. The PTC can also impose financial penalties of up to $100,000 on operators who breach any licensing conditions.

In this regard, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how would the PTC determine what are acceptable performance standards or benchmark performance standards when evaluating an application for a new operator licence or for a renewal of the licence. Would the

PTC conduct an independent audit of the level of service provided by the bus operator for every route it operates as well as the efficacy of routes within the designated geographical area of operation in addition to studies conducted by experts on behalf of the operator? How frequent would these performance standard audits be carried out for the PTC, or would it be only carried out as part of the evaluation process for the issuance of renewal of a licence? How can public feedback regarding the quality of service of the bus operator be formally taken into account by the PTC when defining the standards to be met?

These benchmark performance standards which the bus operators are to comply with should be made known to the public, and they must be easily measurable such that the PTC can impose penalties on the bus operators if such standards are breached. For instance, taxi operators are penalised, if the number of accidents that their fleet of taxis are involved in exceeds a stipulated maximum. A set of publicly disclosed transparent performance standards will give commuters the assurance that their interests are being looked after.

I would also like to ask the Minister how the public's request for new routes would be catered for. For instance, can they apply directly to the PTC to consider adding a new route? Appropriate answers to these questions would enhance the credibility of the whole PTC in its oversight of the public transport infrastructure.

I also hope that the PTC would look into further enhancing the service standards of our bus operators by requiring them to improve accessibility of the buses to the disabled, the elderly, and to parents travelling with infants in their arms or with prams. This issue of accessibility to the disabled and the less mobile elderly has been debated for years.

Even as the MRT is now being made disabled-friendly, it is timely to look into making our buses disabled-friendly also, so that our public transport system is truly integrated and accessible to all. A disabled-friendly public transport system does not only benefit the disabled community but also the elderly and those with infants. We cannot continue to give the reason that making buses disabled-friendly will slow down the other commuters. After all, such features are already widely available in developed countries for many years, and commuters do not appear to have an issue with the provision of such features. Furthermore, such an attitude would be totally inconsistent with our efforts to build an inclusive and gracious society and one in which customer service is deeply ingrained in our collective culture.

As our society ages, it is likely that more elderly could benefit from these disabled-friendly features than the disabled themselves. We need to start looking into the provision of such features, perhaps in phases, by requiring only the new fleet of buses to be fitted with these features when the old buses are de-commissioned. This would reduce the cost to the bus operators of requiring all buses to be fitted with such features at one go. In fact, these features could simply comprise buses with no steps or low steps. Of course, the LTA must also take into account the design of bus stops to accommodate easier movement and access of the disabled, the elderly and those with infants into the buses.

Secondly, penalty for fare evasion. The amendments also provide for a penalty fee system and imprisonment for repeat offenders to be imposed on bus and rail services to deter fare evasion. I would like to urge the PTC to ensure that the bus inspectors, appointed by the PTC with the approval of the Minister, exercise their powers judiciously and with an even hand. After all, this is intended to serve as

a deterrent and is not to be a witch-hunt. There would be genuine cases of, say, the elderly and the less-informed who may, unintentionally, tap their fare card earlier than they need to alight and do not know how to use their fare cards properly. These inspectors should be appropriately trained to not subject commuters to unnecessary public humiliation and be treated like criminals.

Appeals to operators as well as to the PTC against the penalty imposition should be heard expeditiously, and refunds on penalty fee be paid promptly, if indeed it is found that the commuter is innocent. The composition fines of $500 to $2,000 in the case of a court action, and provision of imprisonment for repeat offenders are harsh penalties and disproportionate to the likely fare evaded. Although it has been noted that this has not happened in the current regime, it cannot be assumed that it will not happen going forward. Hence, hauling offenders to court should remain as a last resort and exercised with much caution and great sympathy.

Additionally, I think that there should be clearly written notices in all four languages placed prominently in the buses and MRT stations and trains to remind commuters of the correct way to use their fare cards and the penalties that they could face for evasion.

Thirdly, performance standards of ticketing service providers. The PTC would also be empowered to regulate fees and charges levied on commuters, service standards for sales, refund and top-up services and so on by the two ticketing service providers. Penalties again of up to $100,000 for regulatory breaches can be imposed on the service providers. There have been many calls, as noted by the Minister, by the public to fine the ticketing service providers for overcharging due to bugs in the ez-link card system which, to date, still persist. Since the PTC can now

impose performance and service standards on these providers, it could, among others, stipulate a maximum acceptable overcharging rate due to systems error, after studying and being advised as to what is an acceptable error rate. For instance, is the error rate of 0.006%, which the MOT has reported for the period April to July 2005, an acceptable maximum rate, given that there are approximately 78 million trips made each month? Compared to the estimated loss in revenue of $9 million due to fare evasion, what is the amount that had been overcharged due to systems error? If the stipulated rate is breached, then the providers ought to be liable for penalties. This would ensure that they would closely monitor the performance of the fare card system and place priority on improving the system to minimise overcharging due to systems error.

Fourthly, fare adjustments in response to market forces. The PTC can now pro-actively direct PTOs to adjust fares or to give fare rebates in accordance with the recently-approved fare adjustment formula. Currently, they can only consider fare adjustments if the PTO submits an application for fare adjustment, which implies that it is unlikely to submit applications to adjust fare downwards, even if there are conceivable grounds to do so, for example, new and much cheaper sources of fuel that are commercially available.

I would like to ask, besides the PTC itself

initiating a review of the price: could the public also be allowed to ask for a fare review? Again, it would be helpful for the process to be made clear, perhaps by allowing the public to post such appeals on the website, with submission of the full grounds for such a revision to a review committee. The committee then can make recommendations to the

Minister, who can then direct the PTC to consider the application. Additionally, how would such an application be treated and the subsequent decision communicated to the public by the PTC?

Sir, in conclusion, I am pleased to note that the Ministry has responded to the many calls made by commuters for more explicit and transparent regulation of the performance standards of our PTOs. The amendments to the PTC Act would provide the PTC with more teeth to enforce service standards as well as penalise commuters who abuse the system. These amendments, if properly implemented, should help to further enhance the efficiency of our public transport system and also contribute to keeping costs at an affordable level. Hopefully, it could also help to go some way to address the frequent public mistrust of the public transport operators and, in the case of some, even the Government's intentions, each time the PTC reviews an application for fare hikes.

With this, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.18 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Public Transport Council (Amendment) Bill.

The key amendments, as proposed, are timely as transport matters are crucial to the support structures of Singapore in that it helps not only the economy but also the social well-being of those living in our country. The amendments contained in this Bill have been explained clearly by the Minister and I will not repeat them. These amendments are in itself well prepared to meet the specific topics that they are meant to address. However, I would like to relook at the present goals and functions of the PTC and to see how effective they have been and following that, whether these amendments to the

PTC Act will provide any improvements to the goals.

The PTC established in 1987 was tasked with the following goals:

to create a comprehensive and integrated bus network;

to assure quality bus services; and

to maintain affordable bus and train fares for the public.

Presently, to achieve these goals, the PTC, under the current Act in section 5, performs the following functions:

to receive and consider application for the issue of bus service licences;

to receive and consider application for approval of bus, taxi and rapid transit system fares;

to regulate the bus routes and bus, taxi and rapid transit system fares; and

to engage in such other activities and to perform such functions as the Minister may permit.

The amendments seek not only to regulate bus routes, bus fares and bus services. It aims to allow the PTC to control and regulate the bus services, bus service operators and ticket payment services. Control powers vested in the PTC include imposing financial penalties on the bus operators of up to $100,000 for breach of any licensing conditions such as quality of service standards. Furthermore, the PTC will also be able to levy financial penalties of up to $100,000 on ticketing service providers should they breach regulations.

This contrasts starkly to what the PTC does presently, which is largely confined to the issues of fare increases and renewal of bus licences. Furthermore, the

PTC functions are more to react to bus operators' applications rather than to engage them in finding alternative solutions to the ever changing transport network. In addition, another question that arises is whether there is a need to add on to the basic character of the PTC as a regulatory body to that of a policing role where financial penalties are now part of the legal framework. This will include the introduction of a penalty fee system for bus and rail services to try and stem fare evasion. Much has been said about it and I am sure that the application of it will be monitored closely. These proposed changes, I feel, must improve the role of the PTC in their service to the public rather than the present administrative powers.

As transport system evolved to manage the changing habits of commuters, so must the PTC change to keep up to the demands of the marketplace. The introduction of a regulatory regime for ticketing payment services and system is one such evolution to a better fare control environment, as it is a forward-looking piece of legislation that seeks to prepare the ground rules for a level playing field in the future supply of various ticketing systems and the charges associated therefrom. However, application of such powers seems to be out of place invested in the PTC in its present form. Unless the PTC is given sufficient technical and staff support to administer such powers, apart from just having additional Public Transport Officials appointed by the PTC to collect penalty fees, I do not see how these amendments can be effective enough to serve the public. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten the House on this matter further.

Under the present Act, whether a bus company has one bus or a fleet of 20 buses, it is given the same licences under Part IV of the Act. With the proposed amendments, bus companies that have a

fleet of 10 or more buses must apply and be granted a bus operator licence. The public has not seen any new competition for a while in the supply of bus services on general routes serving the public. Passengers complain that the cost of transport is greater than the cost of a meal. They complain of long waiting times and sub-standard service provided by bus operators. Added to this is the public perception that the increases in fares are justified by the air-conditioned bus interchanges, television screens and other frills that are not necessary. Although it was explained that the Government, in fact, paid for the interchanges and the advertisers paid for the TV screens, the savings or earnings received by the bus operators are not passed on to the commuters in terms of lower fares, higher frequency of buses, etc.

At the moment, two bus operators provide the majority of basic bus services to the public: SBS Transit Limited (SBST) with 178 bus services and SMRT Buses Limited (SMRTB) with 66 bus services. This is supplemented by Scheme B Bus Services with 16 licensed services and the City Shuttle Service (CSS) with only one. The CSS is part of SMRT. For premier services, SBS Transit (Express) has five bus services: Bus Plus Services Private Limited (which is a subsidiary of SMRT) with six services while other operators made up the other three services. It should be noted that the bulk of the premier bus services are provided by SBST and SMRTB. From the above it is clear that, in the main, public bus services are only provided for by two operators - SBST and SMRTB.

The introduction of competition in the provision with the possibility of more bus operators offering more public bus services plying on popular and remote routes will enable PTC to achieve and enhance its three-pronged goals. In fact,

when TIBS was introduced in 1982, its introduction was to provide some measure of competition to SBS, then the sole operator, and ultimately to improve the level of services provided by the bus operators. However, prospective bus operators smaller in size must also satisfy the conditions set out in new section 18(1) (a) to (j) and Part IVB in relation to licensing of ticket payment services, in particular section 21(1) (a) to (j). This imposition of conditions may stifle competition as the cost of compliance may be prohibitive to would-be bus operators, especially to smaller operators, who may wish to come into the transport market to provide competition by plying along fare-paying routes. So the PTC may have to see whether competitions are hampered through the presence of market powers, especially in the hands of major transport players.

Another advantage that the proposed amendment has for the public would be the powers that PTC will have in building up the fuel reserve accounts of transport operators. In these days of high fuel cost and the possibility of volatile fuel prices, the Fuel Equalisation Fund will prove useful in helping to maintain stability in transport fares. On this point, it may be necessary to note the necessity to recruit personnel with the right skill set for the PTC to determine a strike price or level that will help to maintain a strong Fuel Equalisation Fund from contributions made by the PTOs. This level must invariably be a level reasonable with the economics of running a public transport operation. Although currently a reference fuel price has been determined for the PTOs before they are required to make their annual contributions to the FEF accounts, will the PTOs in future be forced to contribute even if business conditions may not be favourable to them? Some safeguards may have to be put in place to protect the public should there be an anomaly affecting the business of the bus and train operators,

thereby affecting their contributions to the FEF accounts.

Sir, in conclusion, it seems that the amendments proposed will still enable the PTC to meet its goals in their service to the public, and the addition of new powers and functions are useful in providing improvements to future developments in transport-related needs. The amendment to the Act forces the PTC to take a more robust and interactive role in fulfilling its duties to the public. The proposals suggested are to redefine the scope and powers of the PTC and, with the added policing powers, will help the PTC to regulate for a more transparent public transport system. On the other side, the providers of public transport will be more aware of their need to balance their social responsibilities against their corporate profitability.

4.28 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this amendment Bill.

There are many factors that affect whether people choose to travel by public transport or not. Convenience, comfort, affordability and accessibility, especially in the case of the elderly and handicapped, are among the characteristics of a good transport system. Today, our public transport has evolved into a multi-faceted system where operators offer underground trains, buses and taxis, all rolled into one. The introduction of a bus service operator regime is timely. The North East Line has shown that the same transport company which runs the train services to also operate the bus services on the same route is not in the best interest of the community for the commuting public. Presently, we are still daunted by residents' requests for a service between nearby estates, for example, Sengkang and Hougang. Residents have to take two buses which

in a car, it takes less than 10 minutes. While I understand that profitability is a consideration - as the operator is a profit-making company - the PTC has an important role to ensure that the providers of public transport also have a responsibility to provide more than just the minimum service. This has serious political and social impact. The building of kinship and community bonding should not be affected by the cost and inconvenience of the country's transport system.

Next, I would like to touch on the mobility of the commuting public. If residents are not properly served by public transport, then access to employment, goods and services may be restricted. So the transport system has to be accessible to everyone, young and old and the handicapped. This is more on the provision of appropriate facilities to ensure mobility. Currently, about 30-odd per cent of our population are between 40 and 59 years, and 11% and 12% are from the 60 and 80 years and beyond. So, at least, 42% are above 40.

Our transport operators must pay attention to this demographics. While it is good to go to the aesthetics, decorating the stations with expensive art pieces, they should not overlook investing in lifts, guard rails and other facilities to ease the mobility for the elderly and the handicapped. The current escalators are too fast for the elderly, not to mention the handicapped. We should see their stunned look at the cascading escalators. Moving down the steep decline to the underground station is another hair-raising experience for them. Therefore, for these commuters, they face both physical barriers and psychological barriers. Providing lifts is one solution, and the provision is after many appeals in this House. In fact, when you think of mobility, it affects not just these people. Remember, anyone of us at any time faces mobility problem, even temporarily, because of a sprain or some other injury. So when public transport is more

accessible to the less mobile, it benefits everybody in society. And, of course, do remember that when there is a fare increase, the less mobile bear the higher cost too. Ease of accessibility by the senior citizens should be one of the most important performance standards that the PTC should look at.

Hence, I would like to call on the PTC, which not only has the role and responsibility to oversee the operators, but also review the provision of these facilities by the LTA, to ensure the mobility of the residents and the ease of accessibility of the commuters.

On the same note, I now turn to the replacement programme for buses which I understand is on a 10-year cycle. The PTC could perhaps require the transport operators to actively look at how they can incorporate facilities to make the buses more accessible to the less mobile elderly commuters. The steps on the buses are too high for the elderly. Why give them fare concession when you are extinguishing their joy of travelling, as the buses are inaccessible to them? We should start planning now because 10 years down the road, there will be even more elderly people within the community that need these lower-step buses.

I welcome the relaxation of the rules where those who operate less than 10 buses need not go through the gamut of requirements to qualify for licences. It is my hope that these small operators can offer some relief to the heartlands by running feeder services to and from the housing estates to the train stations, especially on routes where the big transport operators refuse to service. PTC should consider letting go the licensing of network of these small operators to allow them to provide this kind of services for the convenience of

residents, especially in the private estates too.

The amendment to the Public Transport Act talks about the application for revision of fares and the formula that it applies. Invariably, this is about the upward revision of fares. At what juncture will the PTC intervene to ask the transport operators to lower the fares? Is there any mechanism where the PTC can step in to ask the operators to carry out a downward revision of fares if the occasion presents itself? Secondly, will the PTC ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for non-Government organisations, like CASE, the unions, and so forth, to make representation to the PTC before they make any recommendation on fare revision? To be proactive, is there a guideline for the PTC to review the fare on a fixed interval period, and at the same time entertain ad hoc requests for review by the abovementioned bodies, for example, CASE and the unions? It is very difficult for commuters to accept after PTC has given the green light for fare hikes when the companies are generating profits. We just have the SMRT announcement on 30th June 2005 that SMRT's first quarter 2005 unaudited group profit was $23.92 million compared to $21 million for the first quarter 2004, and SBS Transit's second quarter 2005 profit was $11.59 million compared to $11.55 million in 2004.

I congratulate these companies for their profitability. But they must not do this by increasing the fares. For the PTC, it has to show more transparency and give a better explanation of how it arrived at accepting the figures presented by the transport operators when they apply for fare revision. Otherwise, any recommendation by PTC would just be blown off in the face of logic. To a shop floor worker or student having to spend an additional 20-40 cents or more a day just to get to work or to school is a

challenge. To the man about town, these may be loose coins, but to them and many others, these are not small change.

The revision also introduces the regulatory regime for ticket payment system and services. The commuters' interest should not be considered for the payment mode between the two bus and rail operators alone. But PTC should ensure that the card that is used should be an open system, suitable for all retail and other trades as well. I will give you an example. The existing ez-link card system cannot be used without ERP system which uses the Nets card. Despite that, the ez-link card is the latest introduction into the transport system. Just imagine that if the cards are seamless in our buses, our trains and our cars, we can switch modes of transport all the time and the cost could be cheaper for each card. I have not owned an ez-link card as it is ridiculous to pay $5 for deposit for this card.

Finally, the amendments introduced the penalty fee system for buses and rail services for commuters who evade the fares. I understand there is a concern as the number of evasion of fares is high. This is the result that the existing system is not robust enough to minimise evasion. Once it is not robust, then uncertainty will definitely step in. Is it a case of evasion or is it a case of innocent error? I understand that presently, in the MRT gantry, a person can walk through the gantry following the other person in a hurry, that means with the tap itself, it is able to accept two persons going through the gantry. The commuter could have tapped the system and may not be able to register as well. I would like the PTC to review the robustness of the system before the implementation of the penalty system and allow for innocent errors to be compensated by the commuters. This has happened to many of us when our cashcard is not logged in properly after taking out to pay for carpark charges in

our ERP IU console. And I sincerely appeal to PTC to really give a chance to the innocent people who have made a mistake or who genuinely have made a mistake in incurring or not paying the fare itself.

On this note itself, I would like to wish PTC the best as it is going to have a heavy responsibility to ensure that we have an affordable and accessible transport system in Singapore.

4.40 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, one of the things the amendments to the Public Transport Council Act seeks to do is to provide for the regulation and licensing of bus service operators and ticket payment services. In particular, the Bill sets out the requirements for an application for the grant or renewal of a bus service licence and provides for the PTC to take into account the needs pertaining to passenger demand in determining whether to issue a licence. In effect, the Bill expands the powers of the PTC to impose conditions on the general level of services provided by a bus service licensee.

Sir, I welcome this step. Many Singaporeans rely on public buses and many, I am sure, would welcome better services from the transport operators. This Bill would give the PTC more oversight to look into and respond to concerns raised by the public - either directly, or in the media - when it is time for the operators to renew their licences.

The Bill lists some matters to be considered by the PTC in granting or renewing such a licence and the conditions the PTC may impose. I shall not repeat all of them, but I believe something is missing in that list - the provision of bus services for people with disabilities. And I would like to echo and

support the hon. Members, Dr Amy Khor and Mdm Cynthia Phua, with regard to making our public transport system more disabled-friendly.

It is an understatement to say that the transport needs of the elderly and the disabled are not being met satisfactorily. What we have now is some level of door-to-door services, which is more expensive, and, more important, perpetuates the out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality that is being manifested in our society.

Recently, Today published letters from readers who felt it was not worth spending money to make public transport equally accessible for their countrymen with disabilities or that the needs of the able, ie, faster travelling times, should not have to take into account the needs of the disabled. This is the sorry state of our society.

Some Singaporeans - not all, but some - should finally drill it into their heads that people with physical disabilities can and do contribute equally to society. And Singapore does not belong only to the able. In other developed countries, the elderly and the wheelchair-bound may also be a small proportion of the population, but the people are accustomed to seeing them out and about and moving around. Accessibility of public transport has an important part to play in that.

For years, the Government has rejected the idea of making public buses accessible to the wheelchair-bound. Early this year, media reports suggested that various options are being explored to finally change things in Singapore. Sir, if we are to be a truly developed country and great city we aspire to be, then there is no better time than now to do something about it.

I would like to ask the Minister if the PTC may impose conditions relating to the provision of accessibility for the disabled and requiring the licensee to submit an undertaking to improve accessibility for the disabled.

Sir, we can see that steps are finally being taken to improve access of public transport for families, the elderly and people with disabilities. Train stations are being upgraded with lifts and tactile guides for the visually handicapped, for example. We should build on this.

Equal accessibility does not necessarily mean travelling times can only be compromised. That smacks of a lack of creativity in finding solutions. Travelling times can be made up in other areas, such as improving traffic flow for buses. And in any case, is compromise such a bad thing? Are we that self-centred? Is that what years of economic gain have resulted in? The Prime Minister has said that our efficiency and economic gains should not be an end in itself. I would hope that we bear that in mind the next time someone chooses to raise the counter-argument that disabled-friendly buses are less efficient.

It has been more than a year since the notion of an inclusive society and a home for everyone captured the attention of our country. Before this vision fizzles out due to a lack of momentum, let us keep it going. Let us start with this Public Transport Council (Amendment) Bill.

4.44 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I would only like to make a few observations on the introduction of the penalty fee system and I would appreciate that the Ministry could look into them.

Sir, the proposed amendments on the introduction of the penalty fee system, as

explained by the Minister earlier, is to enable a deterrent penalty fee to be imposed, so as to possibly reduce the incidents of fare evasion.

I have five points to raise. First, $9 million and transparency. Sir, it has been widely reported in the media since the September Parliament sitting that PTOs and the bus companies lose an estimated amount of $9 million a year to fare cheats.

However, PTOs and bus companies did not disclose how this figure was arrived at, apart from mentioning the ways that travellers cheat.

In the Straits Times report of 21st September 2005, TransitLink was not able to provide figures on the number of bus cheats. Sir, if most of the companies were not able to provide figures on the number of bus cheats, then how did they arrive at a figure of $9 million a year?

Transparency is the key word here. In order to convince the people of Singapore that it is absolutely necessary to impose such harsh fines and jail terms, the PTOs and the bus companies have to have transparency in their procedures on how they arrived at this amount of $9 million. They should explain in detail how they derived this figure.

Second, $9 million and auditing. I would like to ask the Ministry if this amount of $9 million could have been significantly over-stated by the PTOs and TransitLink. Did the Ministry conduct an audit to verify this amount?

Sir, before any amendment Bill is made and passed in Parliament that would empower the authorities to slap a fine or penalty charges for those who cheat on bus fares or refuse to pay cabbies, and subsequent offenders would face a fine of $1,000 for the first offence and $2,000 or a jail term of up to six months, it is absolutely necessary that the Ministry has

audited and verified the losses, as claimed by the PTO and TransitLink.

Fare evasion is not a problem peculiar to Singapore only. It happens in cities all over the world, such as New York, London, Melbourne and Sydney. In a report released by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority in September 1998 on Fare Evasion, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, after conducting an audit, found indications that the fare evasion as claimed by the New York City Transit in the calendar year 1997 of $16.8 million in lost revenue, might have been significantly over-stated by the New York City Transit. They found weaknesses in the procedures used for accurately counting fare evaders and preventing fare evasion. In this report, the auditors recommended that the New York City Transit determine the causes of the increase in fare evasion. The auditors also recommended that the New York City Transit develop a methodology for accurately counting fare evaders, as it is essential that they have accurate fare evasion data to be able to reliably determine the actual costs of fare evasion and how much should be expended to prevent it.

Sir, this applies to Singapore as well. It is imperative for the Ministry to conduct its own independent auditing process to verify the actual loss of revenue due to fare evasion.

Sir, in so far as the general public in Singapore has heard through the media, it is this large figure of $9 million. In the report in the Today newspaper on 7th October 2005, Ms Joan Chang of the Ministry of Transport explained that the estimate is arrived at based on the detection rates and the average amount of fare evaded in the case of underpayment, non-payment and concession abuse as detected through actual ticket checks.

The Minister has earlier said, "Fare evaders have a very low possibility of being caught." Hence, has the Ministry verified these detection rates? Is MOT satisfied with the methodology used by the PTOs and TransitLink in accurately counting the fare evasion, assessing and estimating this amount of $9 million? Has MOT found out from the PTOs which are the bus lines that have a high frequency of fare evasion? Has the Ministry checked with the PTOs if they have actually put in proper and sufficient measures to prevent fare evasion? The Ministry should conduct separate auditing and verification processes and make known the results.

Hence, if the Ministry has not conducted its own independent audit on this claim of lost revenue due to fare evasion, I would urge the Ministry to carry out its own independent auditing process to verify this amount before passing an amendment Bill that will empower the authorities to carry out the penalty and criminal process.

Third, wrongly fined and innocently jailed. Sir, as is well-known now, the ez-link system is full of bugs. In the Straits Times report on 21st September 2005, TransitLink reportedly said that system errors accounted for about a quarter of all refunds made in August 2005, and the rest were due to wrong usage of cards, such as commuters tapping their ez-link card incorrectly or failing to tap it when they got off the bus. However, the company again declined to provide the exact figures. Sir, it is essential that we know the actual number of cases of incorrect fares paid due to the wrong usage of the cards, in addition to those caused by the bugs in the system and the negligence of the bus drivers.

Sir, many bus commuters have been over-charged because of the bugs in the system. There may also have been cases

of commuters being under-charged because of the bugs in the system and the negligence of the bus drivers. In addition, some bus commuters have paid incorrect fares due to these bugs and the wrong usage of cards.

Sir, should the amendments in this Bill be passed today and, subsequently, a bus commuter is caught paying incorrect fare, how do the council-appointed inspectors determine at that point in time on that particular bus that the incorrect fare paid by this commuter is due to an act of cheating, system fault, fault of the bus drivers or due to the wrong usage of the card? As the Minister has said earlier, and I repeat, commuters can be under-charged due to system fault. Hence, we end up with a scenario where a bus commuter is being "wrongly fined" or even "innocently jailed".

While it seems so far that the public is tolerant of TransitLink making mistakes and over-charging and making up for such mistakes through refunding and providing free bus ride vouchers, no one can make up for the pain that is suffered by a commuter who is innocently jailed, or the hardship that is suffered by a bus commuter who has been wrongly fined $1,000 or even $2,000.

Sir, the Virginia Railway Express in the US, in their June 2005 Update newsletter, reported that conductors find themselves in a very difficult and delicate situation when they must confront a passenger who they believe may be fare-evading. Conductors have no way of distinguishing a rider who has his mind on a hundred other important things and mistakenly neglects to validate his ticket before boarding or alighting from a rider who intentionally does not validate his ticket in the hope of getting a free ride. This happens to our bus inspectors as well.

Sir, consider this other scenario. Supposing an elderly poor individual

boards a bus and, being elderly, hence a little absent-minded, forgets to tap his or her card on the card reader before alighting, is the council-appointed inspector going to fine this elderly immediately and, if unfortunately this elderly somehow keeps forgetting to tap his card, are the authorities going to lock this elderly up since, being poor, he would not be able to pay the penalty charges and the fine?

It has been said that commuters would be able to appeal to the PTC if they feel that they have been wrongly penalised, fined or even jailed. However, if the bugs in the system are not solved and the bus drivers are not properly trained and there is no idiot-proof way of ensuring that bus commuters have to tap on the card reader before they can alight, and that they have only one way of tapping their card on the reader, many such scenarios will occur and it would be creating needless paper work, wasting precious time and causing unnecessary expenses for the Government and the people.

It is a myth that such "smart cards" and ez-link cards will encourage public transport usage and reduce fare evasion. The fact is that these cards actually make it even harder for people to do the right thing and pay the right fare with the requirement to validate twice, when entering and leaving each bus. For the cost of this ez-link card contract, we could possibly put conductors back on our buses, thus creating more jobs for Singaporeans and have money left over to pay for service improvements.

Hence, before we go ahead to impose such penalty and criminal charges, perhaps TransitLink and the PTOs should look into their own system, get their systems engineers to debug the bugs in the system to make it foolproof and design a gadget to ensure that there is only one way of tapping on the card reader. This, in Chinese, is called zhi ben,

otherwise we are only zhi biao bu zhi ben. To translate, it means by imposing such penalty and criminal charges, we are not solving the root causes of fare evasion but only reducing or alleviating the symptoms.

Fourth, graduated penalty fees. Sir, the fines provided for in the amendments now before this House are heavy, relative to the $1 to $2 average fare for a multi-stage bus or train ride. Failure to pay a penalty fee for paying incorrect fare will attract a fine of up to $1,000, which goes up to $2,000 for repeat offenders. These penalty fees/fines of $1,000 and $2,000 and a possible jail term of six months are unnecessarily harsh. These penalty fees and charges will have a much larger impact on the lower income and poor families.

Earlier, we have seen reports in the newspapers of households living in darkness and households without water and electricity supplies because they could not pay their utility bills. Are we going to see more of such cases because these poor families may have been made to pay incorrect fares due to system fault but do not know or do not have the means to challenge such penalty fees and charges and eventually have to pay $1,000 or $2,000 because they could not pay the penalty fees? While one might argue that there are transport vouchers given to the needy families to help them with their transport costs, let us not forget that we recently have a transport fare hike, and these transport vouchers were introduced to counter these increases in fares. Needy families remain needy and need to save on every few cents, though they may have been unknowingly overcharged by TransitLink and PTOs many times, as people do not consistently check and record their card transactions by recording how much stored value is left in the card after each transaction.

As I mentioned earlier, fare evasion is not a problem peculiar to Singapore only. It happens in cities all over the world, such as New York, London and Melbourne. In some countries, these commuters who do not pay their fare are called "free-riders". In the UK, a commuter who cheats on his fare is called a "fare dodger". However, in many other countries, these fare dodgers and free-riders who get caught are typically penalised around 10 times the amount of fare evaded. The penalty is payable on the spot, at a police station or a transport office. In Victoria, Australia, the fine is $150. In New South Wales, the fine is $200. In Victoria, repeat offenders are subject to graduated fines. For example, fare evasion incurs a fine of $150 for the first offence, $200 for a second offence and $250 for a third and subsequent offences within a given three-year period.

Hence, Sir, I would urge the Ministry to consider this option of adopting a similar graduated fine system, instead of a fine of $1,000, $2,000 and even a jail term of six months.

Fifth, people versus profit-making organisation. One might argue that the amendments are introduced to deter fare evaders who misuse concession passes, avoid paying or underpaying fares on the public transport system, and that criminal charges, fines and jail terms are the ultimate resort.

I would argue that the criminal process should be a last resort because of the cost of costs imposed on the society as a whole, and Singapore as a whole pays for this, as is clearly stated in the Bill that "This Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure, the exact amount of which cannot at present be ascertained."

Sir, there is this expense of prosecuting offenders, the increased case

load in the courts and, presumably, more prisoners in jail. Tax dollars should not be used to foot the bill for that, unless it is absolutely necessary and justified. Why is it necessary to have laws and to use public resources and taxpayers' money to deal with fare evasion on behalf of a profit-making organisation? In this case, the tax dollars are going to be spent by the Government to protect the revenue of these profit-making companies, instead of being better spent on helping needy Singaporeans.

These PTOs, being profit-making companies, should have their own means to solve this problem and prevent the problem of fare evasion. In Singapore, it seems that criminalising undesirable behaviour is viewed as an easy and tempting solution. But that is seldom the best or even the most effective way.

Sir, in conclusion, there is this saying "zhi biao bu zhi ben". This is exactly what this Bill amendment does. It does not solve the root of the problem.

4.57 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, as many before me have raised the pertinent points, I would just like to ask a few questions seeking further clarifications pertaining to Part IVC on the Fuel Equalisation Fund, and Part VA on public transport officials.

On Part IVC on the Fuel Equalisation Fund, a point is made that any person who has been granted a bus operator's licence is required to establish and maintain such a fund for the purpose of mitigating the effects of any increase in fuel price or electricity tariff. My questions are:

For what other purposes will the monies in the Fund be applied?

To whom will the same be applied?

Given the rationale for the Fuel Equalisation Fund, can the Minister elaborate on how the Fund works?

It would indeed be interesting to know more details about the workings of this Fund. New section 22A(1)(b) states that the exact amount of annual contribution is to be determined by the Council. My questions are:

Are the criteria used to determine the amount of annual contribution relevant today and will there be a review of these criteria?

What has been the amount of contribution to-date to this Fund?

Will the public ultimately be the ones to bear the burden of such contributions, given that the majority of commuters are the lower income Singaporeans?

Is there any safeguard to ensure that transport operators will not pass the burden on to the consumers, ie, the public?

On Part VA on public transport officials, new section 24A(1) states that the Council may appoint any person or class of persons to be public transport officials. My concerns are: (1)

is there going to be a new body to whom these public transport officials shall belong? (2) Who are the likely candidates for such appointments? I suppose existing MRT employees, existing bus employees. Like my colleague Mr Ong Kian Min before me has feared, I am concerned that the Government will incur extra and unnecessary expenditure on such appointments.

New section 24C(1) states that anyone who has made use of a bus service or rapid transit system service without paying the appropriate fare for the distance may be required to pay a

penalty fee. Sir, what is going to happen to the penalty fee collected? Take an example, a commuter pays $1.00 where the appropriate fare should have been $2.00 and is required to pay a penalty fee of $5.

00. What is going to happen to the $3.00 of the penalty fee? I am of the view that it should go into the Fuel Equalisation Fund if the purposes of the fund are validly established.

Finally, extending new section 24D: "Any person who, having made use of a taxi service and without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to pay the fare as indicated on the taximeter shall be guilty of an offence." Sir, in criminal law, one must act dishonestly in order to attract criminal liability. Dishonesty requires the intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. Dishonesty is one of the ingredients forming the offence of theft, criminal breach of trust or criminal misappropriation. Should the element of dishonesty not be worded into the proposed section 24D? Or is it so plain that to do so is unnecessary? I would have liked to spell out matters clearly by adding the word 'dishonesty' into the said section and deleting the words 'without reasonable excuse'. Can the Minister comment on this?

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, let me thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. They have raised many questions which I will attempt to answer.

5.03 pm

Mr Ong Kian Min correctly pointed out that the PTC is faced with a very tough job of balancing the need to safeguard the interest of commuters on the one hand

while also making sure that the PTOs remain viable. It is a very tough challenge which I think the PTC over these years has managed to discharge very, very well. Their decisions are not meant to please everyone. As he had mentioned, from time to time, whenever there is a fare increase, there is a big hue and cry and newspapers go to town with all the coverage. Therefore, Mr Ong also asked whether we could simplify and smoothen out the process so that it does not take so long, so that the period for all this hue and cry can be shortened as well.

Sir, let me go on to the specific points he has made. Mr Ong also brought up the point that he does not agree with the new Chairman, Mr Gerard Ee, on the need for the fares to be adjusted automatically. Sir, when I spoke to the former Chairman, Mr Eric Gwee, he did assure me that the PTC will act with flexibility, taking into consideration the formula that the Fare Review Committee had recommended and which the Government accepted in March this year, and that the PTC will take into consideration all the prevailing circumstances and conditions. I think that is also what the committee had recommended, and I am sure that the PTC, under the chairmanship of Mr Gerard Ee, will also do likewise for future fare adjustments.

Mr Ong also wanted the PTC to assure the public that the quantum of fare adjustment - one cent, two cent and three cent increase - which was levied this year and for future increases as well, is below the maximum allowed under the formula for fare adjustment. Sir, I think this is a challenge in the case of bus fares, which are unlike utility fees where the bill each month could be in the high tens or even a few hundred dollars, such that you can go down to one decimal point of increase. For the bus fares - 80 cents, 90 cents - it is very difficult to have the increase right down to the

correct decimal point. I think what the PTC tries to do is to make sure that the increases are as close to the maximum as possible. So, on some of the bands, the increase may actually be a little bit higher than the maximum; on other bands, it will be below the maximum. So for a particular trip, a commuter may pay a little bit more or a little bit less, depending on where he goes. But over a period of one year, because the commuter would be taking buses almost everyday, on some trips he may pay a little bit more and on some trips he may pay a little bit less. Overall, the increase should be quite close to 2.4%. But, of course, as Mr Ong had also pointed out, for the company, whether the revenue is actually an increase of 2.4% for the year or not depends very much also on the ridership. So although we give them a 2.4% increase, if the economy is not doing well, the ridership may actually be lower and the company may actually end up getting less than 2.4% increase.

Mr Ong has urged the PTC to enhance its communication process with the public. I agree with him. PTC over the years has been making more effort to communicate better and I think they can still do a lot better too. So we will refer his suggestion to the PTC and I will urge the PTC to give his suggestion due consideration.

Sir, with regard to streamlining the annual fee review process further, I agree with him. Immediately after the last exercise, I told the PTC that they should take a look and see how they could streamline it further and reduce the review period. I think because of all the masses of data they have to go through, it takes the PTC about three weeks to actually analyse all the data. I have asked whether they can reduce that from three weeks to perhaps two weeks. That would help to reduce the time the issue is left hanging in the air. But having said that, I think that will still not prevent the press from going

to town speculating what the increase will be, because the press normally starts their speculation well before the date for submission of the application for fare increase. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to urge the media to report responsibly on this issue and not create "unnecessary drama", as what Mr Ong said, amongst the commuters with speculative reporting.

Sir, Mr Ong raised concerns whether the penalty fee system is a cost effective means of enforcement and whether it has sufficient deterrent effect. Mr Ong took the view that to deter any would-be offender from committing an offence, either the possibility of being detected must be very high, like in the case of an ERP offence, or the penalty must be high enough to dissuade potential fare evaders. Sir, I agree with him that the enforcement is actually very tough. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack, to quote Mr Ong. Unfortunately, because the ez-link system is such a large scale system with very tight transaction times, you have to tap and within a few seconds the data has to be transferred. It is really not possible to make the system any more foolproof. To do so will make the system so cumbersome that it will not be able to operate as a mass transport system. Nonetheless, I think the penalty fee system would be a great improvement over the current process where the ticket inspector can only get the fare evader to pay up the correct fare. However, I am sure if this penalty fee is not adequate, in due course, PTC can review and, if necessary, allow for an increase in the penalty fee to make it more of a deterrent.

Sir, Mr Ong also expressed concerns that having PTC appoint the public transport officials will result in PTC bearing the additional enforcement expenses. Let me clarify that the public transport officers to be appointed are likely to be the current ticket inspectors

and some drivers belonging to the operators. So, therefore, it is not PTC's job to employ such public transport officers and PTC will not have to bear any cost. In fact, because these are going to be existing staff of the public transport operators (PTOs), it is unlikely that there will be any additional cost incurred by the transport operators as well.

Sir, let me go on to Mr Chiam's points. Mr Chiam quoted the fact that for the past seven years, the fare increases have only averaged 0.7% a year versus 2.4% cap a year. I think he got the figures from the annual report of the PTC. Yes, he is correct. He has quoted the figures correctly for a change, and he felt that the low increase has been possible only because of the help given by the Government. Sir, that was a point I had made repeatedly in the House before and, if Mr Chiam had been listening, he would have heard what I said previously, which is that part of the reason why fare increases have been low over the past years - not just the past seven years but over the past 20 years - is because, firstly, we have two operators who have made continual efforts to improve productivity in their operations, and this has helped to keep the cost increases down. The second factor, which is also a very important one, is that Government has chipped in whenever we can to help reduce operating cost for the operators. For example, what Mr Chiam mentioned, the increase in the life of the bus from 15 years to 17 years has helped to keep the depreciation down and helped the bus companies stretch out the use of their assets. Another area which we have liberalised is advertising. Why should LTA or PTC be the ones to determine how much advertising space the buses should be allowed? We should deregulate that, and I am glad that it was done.

Mr Chiam took a fair bit of time to plead for help for the poor. He said that

PTC has been helping the elderly, the senior citizens and the students by working with the PTOs to give them the concession cards and that perhaps we are helping the wrong people, and we should be ensuring that the help is more focused on the poor.

Sir, I would think that the elderly and the students would be very upset if they know that Mr Chiam is calling for the concession cards to be withdrawn and the money to be used to help the poor.

Sir, helping the poor is something which has to be taken up separately from bus fares. For those who are genuinely poor, it is not just about bus fares. It is the cost of daily living that imposes a burden on them. How do they pay for their electricity bills? How do they pay for their water bills, their rental and, most importantly, the food that goes into the stomachs of the parents and children? That is why the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports has come out with this huge network of "many helping hands" to help the poor. We have the ComCare Fund. We have NGOs and VWOs, and the public also donates money to the charitable organisations to help the poor. It is better that help for the poor be based on the present system of "many helping hands". In any case, when the bus companies enjoyed their last fare increase in July this year, they came out with a donation to help the poor through the setting up of a transport fund. I think every poor family that qualifies will be able to get a voucher of $50. So that went a very big way in helping them because the fare increase is only a maximum of 3 cents which means that if you take four rides a day, it is only 12 cents - 12 cents in a month is only $3.60, or if you work for 20 days, it is only $2.

40. So that $50 transport voucher went a long way towards helping them.

Mr Chiam is very worried that, under the Bill, we are also providing for the offender to be brought to court and he is worried that the maximum fine of $2,000 or a jail term of six months are also the disqualification criteria for a potential candidate in a GE. I hope a potential candidate does not get into the habit of evading fares. Because only if he does so and he does not pay the penalty fee and, when reminded, he does not pay the composition fee, would he be brought to court. Even then, to be fined $2,000, you have to be a second-time offender. So I do not think people who are aspiring to come to Parliament are the type who are going to cheat on 20 cents bus fare. I am sure Mr Chiam does not do that too.

Sir, Dr Amy Khor touched on quite a few issues too. She asked what are the benchmarks, whether the Bill provides teeth for PTC to impose quality of service standards, and, if the PTOs do not meet those standards, for the PTC to impose financial penalties for non-compliance. First, let me clarify that PTC has already imposed a set of quality of service standards on the PTOs. It has been doing so from day one and these standards have been evolving over time in line with rising expectations from the public, in line with the improvement in the fleet size, improvement in buses, and so on. What the Bill does now is to give legislative effect to those standards that have been applied, rather than for PTC to just administratively implement them.

She asked what the benchmarks are, whether PTC would audit the standards and how often, whether public feedback would be taken in. Sir, PTC already has a procedure for auditing the bus service standards. Every year, PTC conducts an annual audit of 50% of the bus services. So each year, they will take out 50%, next year, they will do the other 50%. And when they do the audit, they will audit by checking the headway, the loading factor at peak hours, the

cleanliness, and all the other issues. It also takes feedback from the public. So if there is repeated feedback about a particular service, PTC will then send people on the spot to check on the complaint. For example, the commuter may say, "Service 123 at bus stop along road X. When it gets there, it is always full and it will not stop." PTC would then send people there to check and make sure whether it is a true complaint. If so, PTC would then work with the bus company to correct the situation. PTC would, every year, take 60 or so bus services that have attracted the most frequent complaints and re-audit them separately. This is to make sure that those complaints that were received in the past had been acted upon and that the bus operators had implemented the changes on a full-time basis, rather than just upgrade for one week and then go back to the poor service again. So PTC does have a system of checking up on public transport.

She asked whether now that PTC has got more regulatory powers we can look into improving accessibility for the elderly and the less mobile. Sir, improving accessibility to our public transport system is an ongoing thing. Members here would know that there is an ongoing process now for installing lifts in all our MRT stations. I think as at today, the vast majority of MRT stations already have lifts installed. And it is only a small remaining number where works are being done, and we expect the works to be completed next year. But for buses, they have already been introducing the low-floor, no-step buses. In fact, I think SBS has in the region of about 80 buses to-date, SMRT has about 10-12 of them. What we are working with the bus company is that all the new buses that are being ordered would have this no-step, low-floor board. Over a period of time, as the older buses get renewed, we would see the fleet increasingly become low-floor, no-step fleet, and it would help the elderly and the less mobile.

On fare evasion, Dr Amy Khor urged that PTC ensures that the bus inspectors or the public transport officials exercise their powers sensibly and flexibly because some people may actually be making genuine mistakes. For example, the elderly may tap twice at the same time, or they may forget to tap. That is something the bus inspectors have been trained to do. But before they are appointed as the public transport officials, PTC would be conducting a training course to make sure that they are properly trained to handle different situations and to be able to differentiate between those who make a genuine mistake, for example, an elderly who forgets or does not know how to tap versus someone who cheated. What I have been told is that the cases of cheating are quite straightforward. Why? One of the common ways is for a passenger to get on the bus, taps and goes to the backdoor and, when the bus arrives at the next stop, taps as if he is exiting, but in actual fact, after tapping, he just goes back to his seat and he rides from Changi all the way to Jurong for free almost. So those cases are quite easy to detect. The inspector checks the ez-link card which shows that he has already tapped out. If he has already tapped out, what is he doing in the bus? So it is an obvious case of cheating. He could not have tapped out by mistake. It is a deliberate effort. Other cases of cheating which are quite common are abuse of concession cards. They use a school boy's concession card instead of using an adult card and tap. So such cases are very straightforward. It is straightforward cheating and therefore I think the bus inspectors would have no trouble differentiating between those who make a genuine mistake versus those who deliberately cheat.

She also urged that hauling offenders to court should be the last resort. That would indeed be so. In fact, it is already so because the provision of bringing fare

evaders to court has already been in place since 1987. Because this is a very serious step and one which has been used as a last resort, the PTOs and the PTC have not been bringing anybody to court. They will continue with this practice of using this as a last resort to persuade fare evaders to pay up.

She asked about overcharging due to the system faults. She asked if 0.006% is really acceptable. I think anyone who is operating a system, especially a large system that handles millions of transactions everyday and is subject to the rough and tumble movements of buses driven on roads will know that 0.006% in fact is a remarkable achievement. Nonetheless, as I have said just now, LTA would continue working with TransitLink to see whether we can improve it even further. The vehicle location system works by determining the location of the bus and once that is determined and the system detects that a change in fare stage is required, a signal will be sent to update the fare stage on board the bus computer. Sometimes, as we all know, even those of us using mobile phones, from time to time, we do get a failure in the signal communication. When that happens, you may get an error message going through and therefore the fare stage may not be updated. So if it is not updated, some people who get up at the failure point would be recorded as having got up at the earlier fare stage and therefore would be charged more. But others who are getting down at the failure point would be charged based on the previous bus stop and that means such persons would actually be charged less. So it works both ways. What the experts tell me is that this signal failure is something which is not easy to overcome completely. But I think we have to still try.

On fare adjustment, she asked whether the public can ask for fare

reduction, and whether a committee could be set up to review such requests and recommend them to the PTC. Sir, we should not be in a habit of setting up committees to advise committees. Can the public ask for a reduction? Yes, the public can ask for a reduction. They can always make a request to PTC and PTC can take a look. If there are good reasons, PTC would do a proper study. But as we all know, labour costs tend to go up. When times are bad, labour costs do go down. But even in bad years, the labour costs for many people were still going up. Spare parts keep on getting more expensive. Now, the fuel price is double what the bus companies were paying two years ago. I think the chances of the fares going up are there. When the fare adjustment formula calls for a fare reduction, the PTC will not hesitate

to enforce one.

Sir, Mr Andy Gan spoke on a number of issues, some of which I have already replied to. He said that the new legislation will result in more constraints for new public transport operators. I do not think that is the aim. The aim is to use the new legislation to regulate the two existing public transport operators. The smaller operators who are running Scheme B, etc, will still be left as they are. They will not be involved at all.

Mr Gan also talked about the Fuel Equalisation Fund. He stated that it requires skilled people to determine what should be the strike price. We do not intend the Fuel Equalisation Fund to be rocket science. This Fund has already been in existence since 1992 and the basis for the Fund is a very straightforward one. We compute what is the reference price for fuel. What takes place in this case is that we take the previous five years' average fuel price as the reference price for fuel. If the actual price of fuel is below that reference price, that means the PTOs will have savings. Those savings will then be paid into the Fuel

Equalisation Fund so that, when the prices spike, the PTOs can then request for part of their funds to be drawn out to pay for the increase in fuel price. So, it is to act as a cushion against fuel price fluctuations. We, therefore, do not need to have very skilled people calculating what should be the strike price on a daily basis.

Sir, Mdm Cynthia Phua commented that a good bus service should be convenient, affordable and accessible. I agree. Mdm Phua also stated that having the same operator operate both the train and bus is not the best solution and quoted the case of Sengkang. I can assure the Member that there is nothing wrong with having the same operator operating the train and the bus, because SMRT also operates the North-South and the East-West train lines as well as their bus company, and it has not resulted in a conflict of interest between the bus and train operations. That is because the arbiter, at the end of the day, is PTC. It is not the individual operator who says, "I am going to run that service and nobody can force me to do otherwise." It is the PTC that determines where the bus services should be.

Sir, Mdm Phua also asked that we improve accessibility, given that 42% of Singaporeans are over 40 years of age and, therefore, we must make sure that our public transport systems are accessible. Sir, as I mentioned just now, the buses are becoming increasingly so. For the trains, we are already putting the lifts in place. So, for the elderly who are afraid of the speed of the escalators, I would recommend that they take the lifts. Of course, if they are around the stations where the lifts are not yet ready, then they will have to be a little patient with us for another few more months while the lifts are being installed.

Sir, Mdm Phua also asked that small operators be allowed to run feeder

services, especially on routes where the PTOs are not operating. We do allow that. In fact, many condominiums have arranged for shuttle bus services from their condominium to run to a few condominiums, enroute to an MRT station, and we have allowed that. So, if Mdm Phua has any case of that nature, please do let us know.

Mdm Phua also mentioned that she is disappointed that the ez-link and cash cards are not the same and, therefore, for a person who takes public transport and who drives a car, he would need two different cards. Unfortunately, the technology is different. We have gone onto the ez-link card, which is a contactless smart card because of the speed of transactions. You just tap and, within a second or two, you can already go on, whereas, with a cash card, you have to slot it in. It takes a bit longer. And for a mass transport system, every second counts. So, we have had to go to the latest card that is available, which is the ez-link card. But that is not to say that the ERP system, ie, the in-vehicle unit, may not in the future evolve to one that also uses a contactless smart card. I will not discount that.

Regarding fare evasion, Mdm Phua said that the system is not robust and that is why wrongdoing can take place. As I have mentioned just now, the cases of genuine mistakes are quite easy to sort out. What has happened is that there are people who are deliberately cheating the system, by tapping out before they even intend to get out, and by underpaying, because many people are still paying by cash. So, instead of paying for the whole journey, they pay for perhaps two fare stages, when they are going all the way to the end. So, these are things that a fare system can never catch. At the MRT station, even if a person gets through, he is still supposed to tap. Tapping is a deliberate action. The fact that he sneaks

past means that, if he gets to the other end, he also has to sneak past another person. So, it is also a deliberate attempt. Again, it is a balance, ie, how fast do you want the gate to close, because you may end up closing onto an elderly person who is walking slowly through the fare gate, if it closes too fast. So, we have to draw a balance between how fast to have the gate closing versus disallowing cheats from sneaking through quickly.

Sir, Ms Eunice Olsen also called for the buses to be provided with greater accessibility. As I have mentioned, this is indeed what we are doing and I am sure, in the years ahead, she should be a lot happier with the state of our buses.

Sir, let me now go on to Prof. Ong Soh Khim, who made a long speech on the penalty fee system and asked whether the $9 million figure is correct or incorrect and whether we should audit it. The fact is that, as long as there are cheats, we should not worry whether it is a $9 million or $7 million loss. So what if it is a $7 million loss? It is still a lot of people who are cheating the system. That is what counts.

Prof. Ong asked how the data was obtained and whether MOT has verified it. Sir, first, the data was obtained by the bus companies using ticket inspectors. They spot-check buses in the midst of a journey. From the bus load of passengers, they know how many people are on the bus. If any cheats are found, they will know how many people cheated and, therefore, over time, we compile the figures: how many people were inspected and, of that group of people who were inspected, say, 10,000 or 20,000, how many turned out to have evaded fares. So, that is how the data was obtained. Have we verified it? No, because, as Members have mentioned, we should not

be wasting money doing things which are unnecessary.

Sir, our aim is to reduce the number of fare cheats. Even with the system of penalty fees, I am afraid we will still have fare cheats, because the chances of being on the same bus as a bus inspector, or what we call a public transport official now, are extremely slim, as any bus commuter will tell you. So, despite the $20 penalty fee, I think we will still have fare cheats. It is our hope that, instead of 1.8%, it will decline to a much smaller number. At the end of the day, can we completely eradicate this problem? The answer is no. And this is the same situation that happens all around the world. There are always some fare cheats. But let us keep the number as low as possible.

Sir, it was only at the end of Prof. Ong's speech that I realised why she was so worked up by the amendment, ie, because she saw the court-imposed penalty of $1,000 for the first offence and $2,000 for the second offence, as part of a graduated penalty fee system. The fines imposed by the court are not part of the graduated scheme of penalty fees. It has to be a very, very drastic fare evader for any of the PTOs or the PTC to want to send him to court, because we have had this provision since 1987, ie, 18 years already, and we never once had to resort to bringing anybody to court. So, I do not see this provision as being one that is going to be used frequently. In fact, I hope we have it in the books but it is something which we will not have to use.

But Prof. Ong made the interesting suggestion that we should adopt a graduated penalty fee system of perhaps $150, $200 or $250. Sir, definitely, we will keep that in mind when we review the penalty fee quantum in the future.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked about the Fuel Equalisation Fund, how it works and

what the criteria for contributions are. Sir, I have explained part of that already in terms of the criteria for contribution and what it is used for. Mdm Ho asked what is the quantum now. SBST (Bus) today has an FEF balance of $34 million. SBST (Train) has zero. SMRT Bus has a fund of $8.4 million, and SMRT Train $10.3 million. Will the public bear the cost of contribution? Sir, this comes from the savings, because the fuel price is lower than the reference fuel price. So, actually, they save on the fuel. Therefore, the public is not made to bear any part of that cost.

Mdm Ho also asked about the Public Transport Officials, whether there is going to be a new body for this group of PTOs. Sir, there is not going to be a new body for them. Who are going to be the PTOs? They are going to be the existing staff of the public transport operators. So, we do not see any fresh funds being expended either by PTC or by the transport operators on this new group of PTOs.

Mdm Ho asked where the penalty fee would go to. Sir, the penalty fee, for the time being, is going to the public transport operators to help offset the cost of training all these people, as well as the cost of employing them. However, as the numbers caught are so small, I do not think we are going to get much penalty fees. What we are looking for is a deterrent effect, to reduce the number of fare evaders, rather than looking at collecting the penalty fees.

Mdm Ho also asked a legal point, ie, whether the word "honesty" should be inserted into the relevant clause in the Bill. I am not a lawyer, and we have left it to the AG's Chambers to draft the Bill. I am sure they have taken all the factors into consideration and they do not require

"dishonesty" to be put in. In any case, if a person goes in a taxi and jumps out without paying, I do not think we need to worry whether the person has been

dishonest or not. The fact is that he has taken a ride and he has refused to pay. I think that, by itself, is a telling point already.

Can I make a clarification with the Minister? Sir, I did not at any time in my speech say that I would like benefits given to some commuters to be withdrawn. If I gave that impression to the Minister, I am sorry that I put it that way.

Sir, as regards the penalty of six months and $2,000 fine, my objection is the same as Prof. Ong Soh Khim's. For a 10 cent or 20 cent evasion, the penalty is $2,000 maximum or six months' jail. These are for the second time offenders. To me, that is very high. Why for a 10 cent or 20 cent evasion you are going to fine the person $2,000? That is certainly very high. My objection is on the harsh penalties. So I implied that there might be another reason - to trip the Opposition or whatever.

Sir, I take objection to the Minister for being so personal and asked me whether I would cheat on 10 cents or 20 cents. I think that is very unbecoming of him as a Minister.

Sir, on his first point about giving the wrong impression that he objects to the concessions being given to the elderly, I think that was the impression given to me. If it was not his intention, then, of course, I accept his explanation.

Sir, on the $1,000 and $2,000 penalty to be imposed by the court for first time offender and second time offender respectively, as I mentioned just now, that really is the last step available should a fare evader refuse to pay the penalty fee. If he refuses, he has the ability to appeal to the PTC or to the PTO. If he appeals to the PTC, the PTC will review. And if the PTC finds that the penalty fee which was imposed has been

imposed correctly, PTC will then require the fare evader to pay up. If he still does not pay, then PTC is able to offer a composition fine. And if he still refuses to pay, then the matter will be brought to court, and it will be for the fare evader to explain to the court why he evaded the fare, or maybe that he did not, that he made a mistake. But it would be up to the court to decide. So, it is something which we have not resorted to previously and, as I said, we do not have to resort to this clause.

Mr Chiam linked that $2,000 fine and six months' jail to the criteria disqualifying candidates from running for election. So I told him that was not the intention. Just as we do not expect potential candidates for Parliament to evade fares, we do not expect Mr Chiam to also evade fares. I am stating a very clear statement that I do not expect him to do so. It is not that I said that I am expecting him to do so, just as I do not expect any of our colleagues here to do so. So he should not worry about that penalty of $2,000, as provided for in this Bill.

Sir, I refer to the Minister's reply earlier. He said that the Ministry did not verify the $9 million loss in revenue due to fare evasion. And the Minister also said that it does not matter whether it is $9 million, $7 million, $5 million or even $1 million. I would like to say that it does matter as it determines how much will be spent to prevent fare evasion, because we should not be wasting unnecessary money and effort to carry out all these penalty and criminal procedures and charges if the fare evasion is not serious. Sir, in Chinese, it is called yong niu dao sha ji. We need to know whether it is a niu or a ji. We should not be using a knife to kill a chicken.

Sir, I am sorry I cannot match Prof. Ong on her Chinese quotations. All I can tell her is that if she had been listening properly, she should have heard me say repeatedly, including in my reply just now, that the Public Transport Officials to be appointed are going to be the existing employees of the public transport companies and, therefore, we do not see any additional expense being incurred in enforcement because the ticket inspectors are the ones who are enforcing against fare evaders at the present moment. The same group will now be called Public Transport Officials and be given authority to impose a penalty fee. She asked whether we have verified. The PTOs gave us the data, and we have checked the data. Based on the data, the figure of $8.5 million in fare evasion is correct. Did they go out and verify each time a ticket inspector is out inspecting? The answer is no. But we have looked at the figures, and we have checked the figures, the figures do amount to $8.5 million. As you know, ticket inspectors only do a sample check. They do a random check and they do not do a 100% check. So if you want the figure to be exactly, 100% correct, they have to do a 100% check, which I think is a waste of time.

So, let us agree that there is a problem - it is a problem that exists both in Singapore and elsewhere - let us find our own ways to help reduce this problem.

Mr Chiam, are you raising a clarification?

Sir, I want to clarify with the Minister.

Please make it short.

Sir, in my view, I think it is bad taste of a Minister to

mention the personal name of a Member of the House, whether or not he would or would not cheat on 10 cents or 20 cents. Even if he did not put it that way, I think it is bad taste - anything that has to do with the implication of dishonesty, with money, or with a Member.

Sir, if he takes offence at my remark that I am sure that he would not cheat, just as all the other Members would not cheat, then I withdraw my remark. I apologise to Mr Chiam for making him feel upset with this remark.

Thank you.

Mr Low, are you seeking a clarification on the Minister's reply?

Yes. Sir, in relation to the $9 million, I wonder whether the Minister also has figures on the amount of over-charging by PTOs via the ez-link card. The other clarification is in relation to a remark made by Mr Ong Kian Min about whether or not the Minister will agree that the PTC should review its fares yearly. I think he has not answered that.

Sir, using the ez-link system, LTA can have an estimate on how many have been overcharged, and it knows the occasion of overcharging. This is why I said that the number of incidences has dropped to 0.006%. On the amount, I do not think LTA has been able to get the data because you have to go into every ride of each passenger, you have to know when he got up, when he actually got down. And I think that is a task which is almost impossible. But LTA knows that the fare stage has not been

properly updated because from the data, it knows that it was updated here, it was not updated there and it skipped one updating. But knowing how much was overcharged would depend on who got up there, how many fare stages he covered and his actual physical alighting point. So LTA is not able to obtain that.

Sir, on his second point on the review by PTC, every year, PTC, using that formula, will review the fare adjustments. If the fare adjustment formula results in a fare increase, I am sure the PTOs themselves will submit an application. But where the formula requires the fares to be reduced, the legislation today will give PTC the authority to proceed to review the fare adjustments, and if the formula shows a reduction, then PTC will have the power to order a fare reduction or a fare rebate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Yeo Cheow Tong].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Adjourned accordingly at One minute to Six o'clock pm.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM