OMNIBUS SERVICES LICENSING AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill arises from certain recommendations made by the Hawkins Commission on Public Passenger Transport, recommendations concerning the licensing of the routes used by buses. The Commission found that the existing system of licensing procedures followed was unsatisfactory, and in this respect they recommended that there should be a single Licensing Authority for the whole island and that this Authority should not consist of an elected body of members of the public; and they further recommended that, in setting up such a Licensing Authority, due regard must be given to the special position of the Singapore Traction Company under the Singapore Traction Ordinance. This Bill accepts these recommendations and seeks to implement them. It sets up a single Authority and a common system following very closely section 326 of the Municipal Ordinance.

I think it may be helpful at this stage if I comment on certain clauses in the Bill. Clause 3 provides that the Authority shall consist of public servants. It is intended at present that we should have three public servants as an immediate and essential step to obtain a single Licensing Authority. Later it would be desirable that we should have an expert - probably a single expert - who, after becoming a public servant, would be appointed as the Licensing Authority. That would be following paragraph 134 (v) of the Hawkins Report, but for the time being we are following paragraph 245 of the report for the interim stage.

The House may be interested to know the particular officers we have in mind for the Authority. They would be the President of the City Council, the Chairman of the Rural Board, and the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Communications and Works. This would provide that the interests of the urban and rural areas were adequately represented and that the Ministry concerned with the operation of the Ordinance was also represented.

In this connection, I should refer perhaps to one amendment I have to move. It was found after the Bill had been printed that, in fact, the definition of "public servant" would be held not to include the President of the City Council. It seems a highly legal point to me, but in any case we have cleared it up by an amendment which will make it quite clear that he is a public servant for the purposes of this Ordinance.

On the general directions in clause 4, certain recommendations are made in the Hawkins Report as to what, for the interim period, would be proper directions. These are found in paragraph 246 of the report. These recommendations would be that the Licensing Authority should not, at this stage, attempt to achieve any major reorganisation of the routes and that it should, for the time being, confine itself to new or extended routes where at present no services are provided. Further, that for the time being, licences should be limited to six months, as they have been in the past. If later we have a single expert serving as the Authority, it will no doubt be appropriate that we should cancel or modify the directions given.

Clause 5 (2) follows section 326 of the Municipal Ordinance, and the point about not exceeding one year might be queried by hon. Members who will have noted in the report that it is suggested that if we were to maintain a system of separate ownership for the different bus companies, a period of a year for the licence is insufficient and they should have a longer period so that they would have some security and encouragement to invest fresh capital. I am glad to report, however, that although this Bill and the Hawkins Report have been before the public, there is no sign whatever of any absence of applications by the bus companies to extend their routes. On the contrary, the particular urgency of this Bill arises from the fact that such an enormous number of applications are pending and should not be dealt with under the old system. It is the view of the Government, in agreement with the report, that separate ownerships cannot, as things are, produce an efficient transport system which really meets the needs of the travelling public, and consequently we should not take any action which is likely to perpetuate that system.

The proviso to clause 5 (2) may possibly raise a query somewhere, and I might deal with that now. This proviso is necessary because of sections 32 and 63 of the Singapore Traction Ordinance. I do not think I need quote those rather lengthy and complicated sections, but if anybody wants to, he can go into them. But, briefly, where the Singapore Traction Company is referred to in this Bill, both in the proviso to clause 5 (2) and elsewhere, it is because it is necessary that we should recognise that they have a charter and they have to operate under it as long as they have not been taken over. It would be highly contrary to public policy to deprive them of the charter which they have been given by law.

I shall be moving one or two other minor amendments, Mr Speaker, in the course of this debate. They are not of any great significance. They are minor consequential and drafting changes. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not quite happy about clause 3. It says here:

"The Omnibus Services Licensing Authority shall consist of such persons being public servants not exceeding three in number .

It looks as though even one person can be the Authority.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is a point which I think the hon. Member may well raise in Committee.

Mr Goh Tong Liang: I think for the Authority to consist of three persons will be -

Mr Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. Member misunderstood me. Will he please wait until we have reached the Committee stage?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, previously the licensing authority for omnibuses was in the hands of the City Council and the Rural Board. During that period we have many bus routes coming into operation, and, according to my observations, we find that some of the bus routes are confined to the city area whereas others are mainly in rural districts. The difficulty encountered by the rural people to come down town is indeed immense. Take the case of a person coming down from the R.A.F. base at Seletar to Tanjong Pagar. He will find that he has to change buses twice. Now we hope that all these difficulties will be overcome by the setting up of a single Authority which will take over the functions exercised previously by the City Council and the Rural Board.

I personally believe that any services provided should work for the benefit of large numbers of people instead of for the benefit of companies, and I hope that when this Bill comes into operation, the Licensing Authority will bear in mind this fact - that it is to license buses not for the convenience or profit of the companies but for the convenience of the people using them.

It would be interesting, Sir, to know why the powers vested in the hands of the City Council and the Rural Board previously should be transferred to a single Licensing Authority, and why a larger number of people should not be more preferable on this board. I will raise this question again when it comes up during the Committee stage and will propose an amendment to this effect. We feel, in fact, that it would be better to have more people on such a board to determine the routes of buses. We feel that not only should the people at the top of the public service be given a voice to determine the routes of buses, because they have good judgment, but also people who know the rural folks or town folks who are using the buses should also be given a voice. They are the people who are going to use the buses. They are the people who know the difficulties or the inconvenience encountered, and not people who ride to and from their offices in cars. This should be borne in mind, and that is why I feel that to have three persons to serve as the Licensing Authority is not enough.

Again, Sir, today we are coming to a stage where we are asking for equality for all. We are not fighting for any one section of the public. If a certain law is applicable to A, it must be equally applicable to B and to C and to other people. We find that, because of the old system, we have preferential treatment for one company and another kind of treatment for another company. I feel that that is wrong and that, if this Assembly is fighting for equality and shouting at the top of its voice that it is fighting for equality, then even in small matters we should also fight for equality.

Sir, we have here a company that has been given a charter, a company that is taxed at a fixed percentage. This company will be able to go ahead with expansion feeling very secure that it will recoup its capital. If this company has trouble with its workers, or if its buses get out of order, it need not lose money on that account. On the other hand, the other bus companies have to take out a licence for each of their buses; and whether the bus runs for 30 days in a month or one day in a month, the companies have still to pay the same licence fees. If there is a strike, which may or may not be their fault, they may lose, because the bus companies will still have to pay their fees. I certainly feel, Sir, that in an instance like this, if we cannot remove the special preferential treatment given to one company, it should be possible for us to move the other way round and allow the other bus companies to enjoy equal advantages. Is that not equality? Is that not what we are fighting for? When that charter or when that preferential treatment has been removed by nationalisation, then let us subject all the bus companies to the same level of taxation.

Again, Sir, licensing as envisaged in this Bill on the basis of half a year or one year is not conducive to the expansion of the bus companies, if I am to invest some money in a project, I must be reasonably sure that it will help me to go on until at least my bus is out of order or condemned; but if I have to buy a new bus at great cost and after half a year find that the licence has been suspended, then I may not want to put in as much money into the business as I would like to. I ask you, Sir, when a situation like this develops, who suffers? It is not the Government, but it is the people who will not be provided with such facilities. It is the people who live far away in rural areas who will not be able to get their buses as frequently as they should get. I believe such a matter should be looked into very carefully and the period of licensing extended.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is not a great deal I wish to say on this Bill except this. I assume that, as the Government has accepted the recommendations of the Transport Commission in so far as it has agreed to set up a Licensing Authority at the transition stage, it has also accepted the recommendation to nationalise the transport system in accordance with the Labour Front platform. That being so, I consider that the Minister should tell us more clearly what the next steps are which the Government proposes to take. It is unreasonable to keep the bus companies in suspense in this matter. It means that they are unable or unwilling to plan improvements in their services, and this means that the unfortunate travelling public will suffer. This House and the travelling public have a right to know what the precise intentions of Government are. Will the Minister tell us whether or not the Government proposes to carry out its election promises?' On the assumption that it intends to do so, we consider that the next step to take is to appoint as soon as possible a transport and traffic expert who will have to undertake the task of nationalisation.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can the hon. Member indicate how that is relevant to the Bill?

The Chief Minister: He expects a by-election!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, I was talking about the traffic expert to whom the Minister himself referred.

Mr Speaker: The question is, can the hon. Member indicate how that is relevant to the Bill?

Mr John Ede: I was going on to explain, Sir, that I thought that the sooner this expert gets down to work, the better it would be, for he should be a member of the Licensing Authority from the start so that he could direct operations from the transition stage. I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister that this key man is being looked for now, and that he will be a man of considerable practical experience in public transport matters.

Mr Francis Thomas rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Thomas, in reply?

Mr Francis Thomas: Yes, Sir. Some interesting points were raised, Mr Speaker, in this debate. We had a very fervent address to open with - that the Authority must serve the people - but it was rather confused. I do not think that the hon. Member quite grasped what it is all about, but he spoke with great enthusiasm for the rights of the people and I fully share his sentiments. I have no doubt at all that the Authority will serve the people to the greatest degree that they can be served in the existing circumstances where an inefficient past system and the very naturally competitive claims of bus companies have created what is, in fact, a very bad system where services cannot run efficiently and where the public suffers.

The hon. Member was concerned about equality of treatment for the companies, and, of course, equality is a very desirable thing; but I am afraid that if you have a millionaire and you cannot tax him, it is not practical policy that we must make everybody into millionaires, which is broadly what he was suggesting. If the Singapore Traction Company has special privileges by charter, the hon. Member's solution is that we should give all other companies equal privileges and then proceed to nationalise them! A delightful thought, that having given them extra privileges we then pay them for the privileges we have given them, and thus charge the unhappy tax-payer a further large sum of money for conceding what we should not have conceded at all! I am afraid that this is not a very wise financial policy and one which I certainly could not advocate.

He was also anxious that six months is the practice and that a year is the maximum under clause 5 (2) for the grant of a licence, and that this might prevent people from putting fresh capital into seeking to expand new routes. He is living in a happy state of ignorance. If he had referred to his own Party Members in the City Council, they could have informed him that there are no less than 63 applications now outstanding for consideration by the City Council. With this Bill already published and if he regards 63 applications under the shadow of nationalisation as intimidating the capitalists, I can assure him that they are not so easily intimidated. There is no sign at present of a drying-up of the desire of the companies to expand their services. Therefore, that particular scare on his part, I can assure him, is quite unnecessary. He need have no apprehensions as to the present situation. The companies are only too anxious to obtain more routes in order, no doubt, to reap the benefit in due course.

The Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede asked that we should state our policy. This is a favourite request which comes up again and again. I can bring out our little green booklet which says that we will nationalise the public passenger transport system, but I think I might usefully say a few words about policy in general since the Opposition are anxious for it. Nationalisation is our policy and for the purposes of this industry, that means that we must use public ownership to bring industry under public control.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suggest that the Minister confine himself to the Bill.

Mr Francis Thomas: Very well, Mr Speaker, I have no particular desire to elaborate on our policy. It can be dealt with later, but not in this debate. But if a question is put down, we can certainly provide for it.

I think there is nothing else, Mr Speaker, for me to answer in reply except to say that the need for an expert to deal with the situation is very fully realised. Nobody supposes that a body of three public officers will, by the mere fact of being appointed, become immediately traffic experts. All I can say is that they will undoubtedly be far more efficient than the very large body of popularly elected people who have been dealing with the situation in the past. The point that the larger the number of people dealing with traffic routes the better is a fantastic misunderstanding of the situation. The damage to the transport system of Singapore, the whole muddle and confusion that now exist have arisen because there has been this large number of heads all representing people of different areas and all with confused views. The result has been serious inefficiency in the transport system, because there has not been a proper means of exercising control over the licensing. I do not wish to express opinions about it, but it is perfectly clear that the transport map of Singapore at present is a mess, and as long as you continue to have the present system, you will merely get more and more into a mess. Very radical steps will be needed to get the mess cleared up and to provide a satisfactory system for the future, but those steps cannot be taken immediately. They have to be prepared for and provided for. But what we can do is to set up a Licensing Authority which will ensure at least that the situation does not further deteriorate and that we do maintain as much of reason and wisdom in the allocation of routes as is possible. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.