MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM (Decision)

Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Culture whether a firm decision has been made by government with regard to the proposed Mass Rapid Transit System.

The Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Culture (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has not as yet made a decision on the MRT. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to elaborate on the developments that have taken place and how we intend to proceed from here.

As hon. Members are aware, the Hansen Review Team which was recently asked to examine all previous MRT-related studies has finished its task. They have disputed the findings of earlier studies. They state that an MRT is not inevitable and that we will be able to manage quite well in the 1990s and beyond with buses - provided we redesign our bus system in the radical manner that they have proposed. But they have not been able to substantiate their views in a con- vincing manner. Serious operational implications, such as high-boarding volumes in the Central Area, have not been considered.

It has therefore been decided to do further quantitative work to settle, conclusively, this issue of whether an all-bus system will be able to cope. This will be done as part of the Comprehensive Traffic Study to be undertaken by the Provisional MRT Authority.

This Study, which is scheduled to start in January, will be conducted in two phases. Phase A, which will take about 6 to 9 months to complete, will examine in detail the Hansen Team's proposed all-bus system to see if it can be implemented, and if so, with what consequences. Other all-bus systems thought to be comparable or superior to the Hansen Team's system will also be evaluated. In addition to looking at the operational details such as commuter travelling times, bus fleet size and so on, the Study will do an economic benefit-cost analysis that will rank the various all-bus alternatives in their order of merit.

Phase B which will be done concurrently with Phase A will take about 2 1/2 years. It will do a refined analysis and examine the basic MRT system established in Phase III of the Mass Transit Study to see how it compares with the all-bus system. In addition, at least two other limited but possibly more cost-effective MRT configurations will also be analysed. All these systems will then be subjected to a benefit-cost and financial analysis and ranked in order of merit.

Notwithstanding all that I have said, we should not forget that the MRT is more than just a transportation issue. Its implementation has wide implications, and a decision can only be taken after all factors have been carefully considered.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst the House appreciates the due care and caution taken by the Hon. Minister before making a decision on the proposed Mass Rapid Transit System, however the study has taken a period of not less than eight years. And it will be longer than that because the Minister disclosed to the House just now that another Comprehensive Traffic Study will be carried out in two phases, Phase A and Phase B, which will take some 30 months or so. In short, can the Hon. Minister indicate to this House how much more money will have to be spent on such further feasibility studies on the MRT? And when a firm decision on the MRT has been reached, how much will it cost Singapore, not forgetting the fact that by that time, the cost of setting up the MRT would have doubled, if not trebled?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, at this stage, I am afraid I am not able to tell the hon. Member what the cost will be with regard to the Comprehensive Traffic Study that will be conducted over the next 30 months. The proposal has yet to be submitted by the consultants. When the consultants have made their submission, the Provisional MRT Authority will have to evaluate the proposal and negotiate before actual work on the Study could be implemented. Therefore, it is not possible at this stage for me to give any indication.

As for the quantum or additional cost involved in the delay on the decision of the MRT, this again is something which is difficult to quantify. We do not know at this stage whether there will be any technological breakthrough in respect of construction techniques, in rolling stocks and other control systems. This is something that no one can tell at this stage. Who knows, maybe by waiting for another year or two, there could be some technological development that would lead us to control systems or construction methods which are cheaper than what we have or are available today. So this question is one that I am not able to answer now.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: What is the cost of the study?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: I mentioned earlier that it is too early for me to tell him the cost of the Study. Maybe I will be in a better position to tell him after the consultants have made their submission.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, the MRT is a service to the people of Singapore. If at all consultation is necessary, why not consult the people of Singapore instead of the experts, so that the Government need not have to pay for the consultation!

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, I think I have answered the same question by the hon. Member some months ago. No doubt the MRT is an essential service and that in the long run it may have to be provided whether we like it or not. But it is a large-scale investment, and therefore we have to ensure that the money is wisely spent so that the maximum economic advantage is achieved.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, I am still not convinced. The funds come from the people. Therefore, we should consult the people. If the people say, "Yes", then we spend the money. What is wrong with that?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Government, we have a duty to safeguard the money of the people.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten): Sir, bearing in mind that, as a Government, we have a duty to perform, can I ask the Minister this question. If he decides to go ahead with the MRT, what is the biggest thing that can go wrong that is holding him back from making such a decision? On the other hand, why is he taking so long to decide on the all-bus system? Is there anything that is very attractive that is holding him back from making a definite decision?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, the decision is not merely whether we should have an MRT or we should not. It is more a question of when do we need an MRT. If we do, in what configuration the system should operate? As Members have been exposed to the public debate on the issue, I am sure Members will appreciate the complexity of the subject. It is not just whether we need an MRT or we do not, but a series of issues or factors which are involved.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, the Minister seems to be afraid of making up his mind whether to go ahead with MRT or not. So there must be something that is holding him back. Can we just know what it is?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we ourselves also would like to know what it is all about. As I have said, this is a complex subject and I myself have expressed in this House some months ago that my personal view is that it is inevitable that we will need an MRT in the long-run. But it is a question of when do we need an MRT, and as Members have expressed concern, the longer we delay the higher the cost will be. On the other hand, technological advancement may achieve a breakthrough in certain aspects of the system, and that may save us money or give us a better system that we do not know at this stage.