PROVISIONAL MASS RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 5.15 p.m.

The Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Culture (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Mass Rapid Transit system for Singapore was first mooted in the late Sixties when Government launched the State and City Planning project to prepare a conceptual plan to guide land use and urban transport development. When the project was completed, Government decided to examine further the feasibility of the MRT system. The engineering and economic feasibility study was then undertaken. This has since been completed under Phase I and Phase II Mass Transit Study. The Phase III study on preliminary engineering design is now under way. It is scheduled to be completed in June this year.

All the studies carried out so far have concluded that an all-bus system will not be able to cope with the projected transport demand in the late Eighties. They have also confirmed that an MRT system is feasible in Singapore. It appears inevitable that in the longer term we will need an MRT.

But an MRT system cannot be regarded purely as a transport project. It is a very complex and costly project. When implemented, many other sectors, besides transport, will be affected. Because of the huge capital required to build it, Government has the responsibility to ensure that the money is well spent, for money diverted to MRT means money diverted from other public projects. It is therefore prudent that, before taking a firm decision, Government must consider care- fully its viability and its impact on development planning and the economy.

In the meantime, there are preliminary works which have to be done before actual construction of MRT can begin. These are, for example, the safeguarding of MRT routes, further detailed engineering investigation, detailed land survey and site investigation, comprehensive traffic study and preparation of financing strategy and development strategy for implementation. There is also a need to build up the nucleus of staff with MRT expertise which is lacking in Singapore.

Pending a firm decision to build the MRT, it is necessary now to set up a Provisional MRT Authority to carry out all these preliminary works and to recruit the necessary staff, so that when a final decision is taken, construction works can begin with minimum delay. This Bill seeks to establish the Provisional Authority for this purpose.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 5.20 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been much talk about the MRT and the Hon. Minister has just said that "the Mass Rapid Transit System was first mooted in the late Sixties." It is more than ten years now. As far as I can trace the records, I think we have spent a lot of money on feasibility studies. There was a Report on the Singapore Mass Transit Study presented to Parliament in August 1974 [Hansard, Vol. 33, col. 979] contained in Paper Misc. 3 of 1974, which is a Report in Brief on the MRT system. Over the years further studies had been made, and just now the Minister for Communications mentioned that Phase II study has been completed. Since the Report on Phase I of the Study was presented to Parliament, my question is: why was the Report on Phase II not presented? Was it because of the fact that the Study was sponsored by the World Bank and there was some hitch over the release of the Report? I think it would surely be proper for the Hon. Minister to enlighten the House as to why the Report on Phase II of the Study, even though it may well be a brief report, could not be presented to Parliament, considering the fact that more than $8 million of public funds have been spent on the feasibility studies.

The next question I would like to ask the Hon. Minister is on Phase Ill of the Study which, he says, "will be completed sometime in June 1980." The House takes note of his assertion that this will be completed by June 1980. Nevertheless, there appears to be some contradiction in the Minister's statement in that he still talks of engineering studies. I suppose these will be the detailed studies and the ultimate plans.

Now, I welcome the introduction of this Bill to establish the Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority which will, among other things as pointed out in the Explanatory Statement,

"do all such things as are necessary or expedient (including the making of studies and the carrying out of works and services) in the planning and establishment of such a system, pending a firm decision of the Government."

My question is this. A lot of time, effort as well as public funds have been spent. Whilst I am aware of the enormous costs and the practicability of implementing such a decision, if at all, the Study shows that not only do we need an MRT system but that it is also a viable project. I can well remember, Sir, the remarks of my good Friend, the Member for Khe Bong, when he stated that "the MRT should be a service to the people." It should be a service and not a project out of which the Government intends to make a profit.

I would now like to deal with some of the clauses in the Bill. I am surprised, Sir, that the Hon. Minister did not explain certain important clauses in the Bill. For example, clause 4 provides for the setting up of the Provisional Authority and how it is to be constituted. My question is whether we will have a Board comprising competent officers. To which, the Hon. Minister may say, "Look, we are not competent enough; we do not have the competence regarding the MRT for various reasons." But I have already pointed out on earlier occasions that we can look at other MRT systems now being run in other countries and also look more closely at the MRT that is now being built in Hong Kong.

I move on to clause 7. According to the Explanatory Statement, clause 7 sets out the functions and powers of the Provisional Authority. Sub-clause (2) sets out four functions and powers that the Authority will have. What I would like to point out here is that a big premium will be placed on land along which MRT stops or stations are being planned. In other words, the value of land designated for MRT stops or stations, whether it is landed property or building complexes, will be greatly enhanced. Why can we not include another paragraph (e) to the sub-clause to ensure that no speculation is allowed?

I move on to clause 12 which empowers the Minister to make grants to the Provisional Authority out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. I notice that there is no provision in FY 1980.

Dr Augustine Tan: Not to worry.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Well, an economist sitting behind me says, "Not to worry." I think he is just repeating what some Members have earlier said, "pay out first and then come to Parliament for approval." Whether that is good practice or bad practice, money has to be spent and the Minister has the authority under the Bill. I think Parliament should consider favourably on this aspect. But I am trying to see the link between clause 12 and clause 13, because clause 13 relates to the borrowing powers of the Provisional Authority. I am unable to reconcile the provisions in clauses 12 and 13. Clause 12 empowers the Minister to make grants from time to time, subject to such conditions as he may impose on the Authority, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. But is it really necessary to have clause 13 to give the Provisional Authority the borrowing powers?

In clauses 12 and 13, there are two phrases concerning the functions of the Authority. Clause 12, line 2, states, "to carry out its functions," clause 13, line 5, states, "for performing its functions . . .". I think we have to be more precise. I am not an English language expert, but I would like to seek clarification on this, Sir.

Sir, all in all, I think clause 17 takes care of the operations of the Authority because even though the Provisional Authority has certain powers, it still has to get the approval of the Hon. Minister concerned for making regulations.

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister as to how soon a decision can be made or arrived at so that we can implement and set up the MRT system in Singapore. He has given the reasons earlier. But if all the pointers are correct and with the passage of the Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority Bill, the next step follows quite easily, I hope.

On that note, Sir, I give my full support to the Bill, though it should have been introduced much earlier.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the title of this Bill is a little strange because it is called the "Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority Bill" and yet clause 7 (1) says:

'The Provisional Authority shall do all such things as are necessary or expedient in the planning and establishment of a Mass Rapid Transit System in Singapore for the conveyance of passengers.'

It is really the Mass Rapid Transit Authority that we are setting up, not a provisional one. I think this is strengthened by clause 13, to which attention has been drawn by the Member for Punggol earlier, on the borrowing powers that this Provisional Authority will have. Sir, if we pass this Bill right now as it stands, the Hon. Minister could go ahead and implement the system without having to come back to this House for any further authorisation. I am rather concerned, Sir, because to throw back an argument which the Hon. Minister has put out at the outset, namely, that this is a huge project involving billions of dollars and this is a project which is not only involved in transportation but affects many other facets of life in Singapore, among which are physical planning in Singapore, I think the Minister should come back to this House before he steps out and borrows billions of dollars in the name of Singapore, with the massive consequences that he seems to be very much familiar with.

Sir, I would also like to ask him whether, in the matter of physical planning, the planners are already taking into account the possibility that we are going to have such a system in the future. This is to ensure that planning consideration is given to areas of concentration along the lines or tracks of whatever railway system that is going to be laid in the future, thus ensuring an adequate volume of traffic for the proposed system.

Secondly, Sir, in respect of feasibility studies, two of which have already been done at a tremendous cost of $8 million - this is the figure which I heard earlier - I am just wondering whether we have insisted on a Singaporean input into the feasibility studies which have been done so far. Or have these studies been done solely by foreign experts? Sir, there are experts and there are experts. We should get our own Singaporean people into the project so that our people can learn, can ask questions, and make sure that things do not get out of hand.

Finally, Sir, presumably, whatever system that we implement will take quite some time in the future. In the meantime, what plans does his Ministry have for ensuring that the transportation system will be adequate, that there will not be undue congestion on the roads, that public transportation will be upgraded accordingly in accordance with the increasing demand?

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, considering the amount of money that has been spent on all the feasibility studies that have been carried out so far, and since my hon. Friends have spoken on the Bill, I wonder why the Minister does not intend to send this Bill to a Select Committee.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank some of the Members who have supported this Bill, although the Member for Mountbatten has suggested that it should be sent to a Select Committee.

As I have explained earlier in my statement, this is a very straightforward Bill. Phase 3 Study is going to be completed by June this year and the recommendations will be submitted to Government for a decision. Pending a decision, further studies in detail have to be looked into before the system could be implemented, if the Government decides to proceed. At the same time, we also want to hold back the core staff who have been working on the MRT studies all these years together so that, when a decision is made, they are all there in the Authority. Otherwise, this core staff will go back to their respective departments on completion of the Phase 3 Study in June this year, and worse still if they leave the service and go elsewhere we will lose this core staff that we have trained over these years. This covers the point raised by the hon. Member for Whampoa about the local input. I can assure him that all the years that we have been involved with the Mass Rapid Transit studies with UN Fund and with the World Bank Fund, we have all the local counterparts working hand-in-hand with overseas consultants. This is to ensure that once we decide to proceed, not only at the implementation stage but also subsequently in the operation of the system which is more important, we have as much experience and knowledge as possible that can be absorbed at this stage.

I would like to assure the Member for Punggol that only men who are competent and are able to contribute to the workings of the Authority will be appointed to the Provisional Authority.

The Government is fully aware of the high speculative effect the details of the MRT proposal will have on premium of land, especially around the proposed MRT stations. I am sure appropriate measures will be taken as soon as a decision to proceed with the MRT is made. This also covers the point raised by the Member for Punggol about the publication of the Feasibility Study Report. All the Study reports are highly confidential because any revelation of details of these reports could lead to a lot of speculetion.

For the Phase 1 Study, only a brief report was published and presented to the House. As regards the Phase 2 Study sponsored by the World Bank, as suspected by the Member for Punggol, the World Bank has disagreed with some of the conclusions of the consultants contained in the Report, and therefore the Report cannot be published without the agreement of the World Bank. It is also partly because of this that the Phase 3 Study has to be carried out to resolve the differences between the World Bank and the consultants, and to study other areas of engineering and detailed design so as to assist the Government to come to a decision.

The Member for Punggol raised the question about the various types of engineering studies, and asked whether there was any contradiction in my earlier statement. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was no contradiction. Many types of engineering studies have to be carried out. The earlier and current engineering studies are to assist the decision-maker to come to a decision as to whether we should have a MRT. The other detailed engineering studies which will be conducted by the Provisional Authority will be required for the implementation of the system. So there was no contradiction on that score.

The Member for Whampoa asked about the grants. He expressed the fear that this Provisional Authority, given the power, might happily proceed with implementation without having to come back to this House. As stated in the Bill on Expenditure of Public Money:

'This Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure, the exact amount of which cannot at present be ascertained.'

When the exact amount is ascertained, I have no doubt that we will come to this House for approval.

The practical aspect of the procedure is that we need the Provisional Authority at this stage, pending a decision from the Govern- ment whether to proceed or not to proceed. If Government decides to proceed, then a proper authority or a permanent entity will have to be established, not only to carry out the implementation but also the consequent long-term operations of the system as well. That may take time. In the meantime before a decision is taken to proceed, pending the establishment of a permanent body, the Provisional Authority may have to do things which it considers necessary for exigencies, before other factors, such as the speculative effects mentioned by Members, set in. I do not know if that clears the Member's point.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I am afraid the Hon. Minister missed my point. Clause 3 in Part 11 of the Bill is very clear. It reads:

'There is hereby established the Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority which shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession . . .'.

So the provision is very clear for the Authority. My question relating with regard to clause 13 is this. Since there is provision in clause 12 for the Minister to make grants to the Provisional Authority, is it therefore really necessary to bring in clause 13 which gives the Provisional Authority the borrowing powers? The Minister has not answered that point, Sir.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, I thought I have just explained that in the very last part of my reply. If I may take the Member through the process again. Let us assume that this Bill is approved and we have a Provisional Authority. Somewhere during the life span of the Provisional Authority, the Government decided to proceed with the MRT system. To proceed with the MRT System, we need a permanent body eventually to take over, and as advised by the Member for Whampoa, we must come back to this House for the setting up of a permanent body.

Dr Augustine Tan: You introduce a new Bill.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: That is right. That takes time, Meanwhile, pending this process of setting up a permanent body, due to exigencies the Provisional Authority may have to do the necessary things, e.g. borrow funds, acquire interest or properties to safeguard the interest of the permanent body which is responsible for the system.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, the Minister has made quite clear his intention in this Bill, and that it is really a preliminary kind of planning. At the same time, in the drafting of this Bill, whoever drafted this Bill has put in much more than he intended. If we look at clause 7, sub-clause (1) of the Bill, it says:

'The Provisional Authority shall do all such things as are necessary or expedient in the planning and establishment of a Mass Rapid Transit System in Singapore for the conveyance of passengers.'

Sir, I am not a legal man, but plain English usage would suggest to me that this clause empowers this Authority to go ahead and implement such a system if it had a mind to. Of course, we trust the Hon. Minister for Communications. We do not think he is a wild man. But at the same time a bad precedent has been set in this House. We have to get our legal terms spelt out properly.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: May I draw the hon. Member's attention to clause 8 of the Bill which empowers the Minister to give in writing general or special directions to the Provisional Authority and requires the Provisional Authority to give effect to such directions. I am happy to note, however, that he has such confidence in me. I would like to assure him that such wild things will not happen.

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 Ong Teng Cheong].

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