PRIVATE CAR OWNERSHIP (Government policy)

Encik Abdul Aziz Karim asked the Minister for Communications if it is the policy of his Ministry to discourage private car ownership and to encourage the use of public transport; if he realises that the public transport services are inadequately and poorly serving the public; and if he will not introduce sudden and drastic measures to discourage private car ownership until the public transport services are improved.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the deliberate policy of Government to restrain the growth of the private motor car population in Singapore. When new rates of taxes on motor cars were introduced in October 1972, it was then announced that the higher rates of taxes were made to discourage private car ownership and not for the purpose of raising revenue. However, the number of new motor car registrations for the period October 1972 to September 1973 was 20,459 which represented a 25 per cent increase over the new registrations for the corres- ponding period from October 1971 to September 1972.

We cannot sustain such a high growth rate except at tremendous economic and social cost. Therefore, taxes on cars had to be raised again in January this year. In the statement announcing these tax increases, the Finance Ministry again reiterated that this was not done to raise revenue but to discourage private car ownership. It was also stressed that if these increases did not have the desired effect, further revisions of the tax structure would be required until a balance is reached. I am happy to say that, this time, new registrations of private cars for January showed a 50 per cent reduction over new registrations in January last year, while new registrations in February were down by 28 per cent over new registrations in February 1973.

It is regrettably true that the present public bus services need further improvement, especially service during peak hour travel. We have authorised a Supplementary Public Transport Service with 259 vehicles (of which 253 are school and other buses and six are goods vehicles) to provide an express, limited stop service, during peak hour periods. In addition, the reserved bus lanes which have been introduced and are being extended will give buses the priority they deserve on our limited road space.

Whether or not there will be more drastic measures to check further increases in ownership of private cars depends on how many new cars will be registered this year, and in the years ahead. As incomes grow, so has the car owning group. The new taxes imposed since January, together with the steep increases in petrol prices caused by the doubling of the price of crude oil since January this year, appears to have had some effect in slowing down the growth of car owners for the time being. However, even with the present number of cars, it is already planned to have a park-and-ride scheme. Commuters will be able to park their cars in fringe car parks and take a special shuttle bus into or out of the Central Business District (CBD) during peak periods. This would help to cut down traffic congestion during peak periods. Car pooling and staggered working hours will also greatly reduce congestion during peak periods.

As at 28th February, there were 137,470 private cars registered for use on our roads. If the growth rate of 17 per cent per annum in new registrations in the last three years continues, it will be impossible to solve our traffic problems. We cannot increase our roads by a similar percentage each year. And in the CBD, the increase of road capacity is very limited, despite road widening and one-way traffic flows. The longer we delay action, the more painful and costlier the solutions will be. When car taxes went up in October 1972, all car owners were put on notice. All present and future car owners have to recognise the limits of our road capacity, especially in the CBD. By a combination of taxes on cars, parking fees, restricted entry into the CBD during peak hours and peripheral parking and reserved bus lanes, we must and can ensure maximum freedom of access to the CBD. This is essential to the vitality of the CBD and on our whole economy.

An improvement in the public bus service is vital. It is the mainstay of our public transport system and would continue to be important even after we have a Mass Rapid Transit System. This may be in the late 1980's. The Singapore Bus Service Ltd is making the effort to match the Government's initiatives to get the bus services to meet ever higher needs. This year, there should be further improvement in the number of buses on the road and their standard of maintenance. The more difficult problem is to improve performance of bus drivers and conductors. Safer driving and more courteous service need a longer period of re-education. However, courtesy is a two-way process. Considerate conduct and co-operation of the commuters is a necessary contribution to a better bus service.

Encik Abdul Aziz Karim (Kallang): Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect to you, if I were not asked to dish out all my questions, I would not have done so. But the suggestion had come from the Minister for Communications yesterday. As for now, I have several supplementary questions to raise but I shall ask only a few at a time unless the Minister wishes to dodge the questions. Yesterday he was dodging the questions I put to him, and therefore I would appreciate it if he would give me the courtesy by answering them wherever possible, in the public interest.

Are all these measures meant to encourage more people to travel in a transport service run by the profit-making private monopoly, the SBS? Are all these measures meant to benefit the privileged SBS? Is everything being tailored to favour the SBS?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will answer the question, but it looks as if it has arisen out of the subject of private car ownership, and comes back again to the SBS.

Encik Abdul Aziz: May I clarify, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Encik Abdul Aziz: In view of the fact that car owners are restrained from using their cars, and that car ownership is also being discouraged, the people will have to travel by bus. Therefore, are not all these measures only a means to encourage them to travel by buses operated by the SBS? That is the connection.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Now that the Member has elaborated on the question, I am in a position to answer him. It is true that if we discourage private car ownership, there is the tendency for people to travel by public bus. But that is only one alternative. There is also the car pooling system whereby one private car can be used to carry four passengers instead of the present average of 1.3 passengers. The second alternative is that there will be this peripheral car park scheme. Car owners going into this CBD area would have to park their cars in the peripheral car parks and then jump on to the special shuttle bus service, not necessarily the SBS. It has never been indicated that this shuttle bus service would be run by the SBS. The third alternative is the supplementary public bus service or, as somebody has called them, the school buses and lorry buses. They are available and they are a great boon to the travelling public.

The Minister for Health and Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): There are Comfort taxis too!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: My colleague has also suggested that there are Comfort taxis of the NTUC. I hope the Member is encouraging the people to travel by the NTUC Comfort taxis. There is a long string of alternatives. If people do not wish to travel by SBS buses, they do not have to. There are so many other alternative forms of transport available that the SBS will have to fight for its survival.

Encik Abdul Aziz: Sir, more people travel by bus than by taxis. Taxis are beyond the means of the majority of workers. Will the Hon. Minister not agree that the introduction of measures to discourage private car ownership will cause difficulty to some people? And to deprive car owners of the use of their cars will cause them even greater inconvenience? And to discourage people from owning cars is already a cause for some people to raise the question: why should they upkeep a private monopoly? And therefore imposing such other measures would certainly cause adverse emotional reaction.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, evidently the Member for Kallang has not taken note of the answers to his questions. He has not, therefore, asked questions relevant to the answers. He goes off at a tangent. The reply given to his Oral Question on private car ownership was that all car owners had been given notice that taxes would go up and that it would be costly to maintain a private car. And if they do not take heed of such notice, then I suppose they might go to the Member for Kallang and make a plea at his Meet-the-people sessions. I cannot afford to look at one aspect of the problem only but in the national interest, so that our City will progress economically. Just because he owns a car, it does not mean that he has the right to go anywhere he pleases. That is why we have introduced the reserved bus lanes so that priority is given to the public bus, not the private car.

Encik Abdul Aziz: Is it a bus service run by a State-owned company or by a private monopoly?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: As I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member is unable to follow the answers but keeps on talking of monopoly and nationalisation. He is obsessed by these two words. It is the duty of this Government to ensure that public transport is the best that is possible in the circumstances, and every effort will be made to ensure that this is so.

Mr Speaker: Encik Abdul Aziz, I suggest you go on to the third Question.