MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1985 TO 31ST MARCH, 1986

11.21 am

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply (8th Allotted Day).

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head I (cont) -

Resumption of Debate on Question (27th March, 1985),

"That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates." - [Dr Ow Chin Hock]

Question again proposed.

The Minister for Communications and Information, Second Minister for Defence and Second Minister for National Development (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): Mr Speaker, Sir, when we adjourned yesterday, we were talking about the necessity to ensure that the growth of cars does not far exceed the growth of roads in Singapore because if that were not so, then we would in the very near future end up with massive traffic jams.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has suggested that we should try to follow the examples of some other countries where they have subsidies for their public transportation service and, I believe, he quoted the example of Britain.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): I have not quoted any country, and I said -

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Some other countries? You favour subsidy of bus systems?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, when I said "subsidy", I did not refer to any country in particular. Now, my point was that the ROV has collected surplus, massive surplus of revenue, and the amount used for road construction is only a fraction of it and, therefore, there is this excess amount of money. Therefore, I am suggesting if the Minister would consider using part of this money to subsidize the needy, because this principle of subsidy by the Ministry is not new. I have already pointed out that, in fact, the Ministry has already subsidized the Singapore Bus Company, and so it is just to carry this subsidy, perhaps, one step further, in view of expensive taxi fares and the unavailability of other means of transport.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, the subsidy of buses is a subject that is a great favourite of some Members of this House; and many countries practised it, often to their detriment.

Sir, I would like to read an article from the February 1985 issue of a journal known as Mass Transit that headlines "British Bus System: Going, Going, Gone?"

Sir, I will read extracts of it to give us a feel for the sort of problems that we will encounter if we are to go in that direction following the British:

'Mid-way through 1984, the British Government announced intentions to place two hefty slices of its bus transit business on the open market [in other words to go privatization and stop subsidies].'

The first thing that is going:

'Going is the massive National Bus Company which operates 14,349 public service vehicles throughout the length and breadth of England and Wales and, in doing so, accounts for something like 1.5 million passenger rides a year [and here in Singapore we are talking about 2 million passenger rides a year].'

The second thing that is going:

'Going are the bulk of Britain's publicly owned bus services all over the country.'

The third thing that is going:

'Going are the Passenger Transport Executive authorities established throughout Britain to run metropolitan bus operations outside of London.'

And gone:

'Already gone is the British dream for the efficient public transit system served by sophisticated buses, operating socially essential services. Gone, too, is another British dream for guided busways, new light rail transit systems and introduction of trolley bus systems.

Government plans, outlined last July, are based on sensible free-market principles [sensible free market principles], says London Transport Secretary, Nicholas Ridley.

"Subsidies for buses in many of Britain's major cities are at an unacceptable level. In a nation where massive metropolitan subsidies are neither necessary nor unavoidable [neither necessary nor unavoidable] and where fares have been held to artificially low levels ... there will have to be major changes."

First and foremost will be the change from nationalized bus services to privately owned ones [from nationalized bus services to privately owned ones]. Ridley is urging industry members to accept competition as a spur to efficiency. We must get away from the idea that the only future for bus services is to contract painfully at large cost to taxpayers and ratepayers.

"Competition provides the opportunity for lower fares, new services, more passengers. For these great gains half measures will not be enough."'

Sir, this is Britain, a country held in great esteem by some of our Members in this House. They have been practising subsidized transportation for a long, long time. We have been very fortunate in that we have avoided that system, and this is their conclusion after very many years of practice. Are we still thinking of subsidies of a public system?

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir also suggested that if we get our cars to move faster, there will be less traffic jams. I think it is something interesting, something that we should tell those who are caught in traffic jams to drive faster and they would get out of traffic jams. I cannot see how it can work when you are stuck in a traffic jam. How are you going to drive faster when the capacity of the road has been exceeded? When everybody is stuck, how do you drive faster?

Of course, we can talk about increasing the speed limits along the expressways. Our speed limits are already fairly high, 70 km per hour for some and 80 km per hour for others. But each time we do something like that, ie, to increase the speed limit, we must also take into account the much greater risk that motorists will have to undertake. Because internationally, it is well established that there are greater fatalities on roads with higher speed limits, that if people drive faster, there is a greater tendency for a greater number of deaths. So it is not feasible for us to keep pushing for higher and higher speeds because in the long term that would not be to our advantage.

The Member for Potong Pasir has also raised the question of the funding for the MRT and, again in the process, he has distorted it. Sir, we have said many, many times that the Government has put aside capital grant for the building of the MRT and that passengers will not have to pay for it. Of course, we know that eventually, when the MRT is constructed and the MRT will be going into Marina South, the land value of Marina South will be greatly enhanced. This is because, as it is right now, it is like any other piece of reclaimed land. The density allowed for a piece of reclaimed land is dependent on a number of factors, one of which will be the accessibility for people to move in and out. If we want to house large numbers of people within a given area, there must be plans to show that the movement of people in and out of this area can be facilitated. With the MRT, that can be done easily, and hence it is expected that the plot ratios for Marina South will be very much higher than if there were no MRT. So passengers will not be asked to pay for the capital cost of the MRT, and that has been stated many, many times.

I now move on to comments by the Member for Kebun Baru. The Member has suggested that we look at other methods in order to help solve our traffic congestion. Sir, we have been looking at other methods. I want to refresh the memory of Members of this House that last year, from January through to about March, for three months, the Ministry of Communications has been writing to the newspapers explaining the various options that we have looked at, that have been put to us, again and again and again, Sir, I will read to you some of the press cuttings to demonstrate that this process of explaining to the people has been going on.

Let me just pick at random some of them. "Our policies must help curb the car population. The test will be on three main criteria. They must be simple, equitable and effective", starting on the 23rd December 1983 in the Singapore Monitor. We talked about the advantages in having evening ALS, reported by the Straits Times, 31st December 1983. Then we talked about the problems should traffic peak reach a critical situation, headlined, "When Traffic Woes Reach a Peak", Straits Times, 7th January. "It's a Two-Way Traffic at Transport Dialogue", Straits Times, January 1984, referring to the various sessions that we had with the community leaders. "Bird's eye view and a fish eye view of transportation", more views collected and discussed. "Raising parking fees can reduce peak hour travel", one of the suggestions that was made and considered and the advantages and disadvantages were explained. "Mileage tax, road tolls, not the ideal answer". I believe somebody has raised this question of road tolls in the recent debate. "Tolls on more congested roads, the fairest method", not always true. "Will bus lanes and sharing help", the answer is yes. We went on to implement some of those suggestions to improve our public transport. And we collected many suggestions from the public, and so on.

Yes, one more idea which I should just mention. Somebody proposed, I believe it is the Motor Traders, the use of a hovercraft to help meet the morning transport peak.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is a good idea.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Would you like to operate it?

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): That is no answer.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: We have looked into it. I do not think anybody in his right mind could think that the hovercraft is a practical solution to our massive land transportation problem.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The answer is, "Would you like to do it?"

An hon. Member: He is exactly like a mouth-piece!

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, the problem of taxis was discussed thoroughly in the Straits Times dated 11th February 1984 entitled "Taxis Not the Solution to our Traffic Congestion Problem". And so on, Sir. We have been discussing these problems over the years again and again hoping that in the process our people will get a better appreciation of the problems that we are confronted with and thereby achieve a greater sense of reality as to what can be done in a limited place like Singapore, given the shortage of land, given such severe competition for the land that we have by all the various Ministries, the Ministry of National Development desperately needing land to build homes for everybody. We heard about the catchment requirements in order to ensure that we have water for ourselves and so on. So to the Member for Kebun Baru, I would like to thank him for his suggestion that we should continue to look. We have. If Members have any more new ideas, we will continue to look at them.

The Member has suggested the idea that we should have custom-built buses for mothers with babies. I will ask the SBS to look into the suggestion and see if there are such buses. But we do have buses with wider doors and lower steps. This may, to some extent, help solve the problem. But if there are any special buses designed specifically for mothers with babies, we will be happy to look into them to see if they are suitable for Singapore.

Sir, another proposal is to replace one vehicle with another, an old car for a new car. The system is, in fact, being practised in the form of ARF and PARF. What the Member may be suggesting is something more extreme. If he could give me more details, I will be happy to ask my Ministry to study the details to see what are the advantages and the disadvantages.

The Member for Kebun Baru also suggested that bus commuters would like to be able to travel very quickly from their homes to their place of work. So would everyone else. But I think we must put our feet on the ground and maintain a sense of reality. It is very unlikely to run a bus service that is able to take you from your doorstep to your place of work as quickly as a car. To expect that is to expect something that borders on the impossible.

But for other trips, there have been examples, like the contest that was done by the Straits Times recently. The Straits Times, 22nd March, carried an article "Guess who got downtown last?" This was a competition between three journalists, one took a bus, the second a taxi, and the third drove his own car. There were, of course, handicaps and penalties built into the contest. I think the results are interesting because it clears the myth in the minds of lots of people. I will quote some of the relevant paragraphs:

'A taxi, a private car and the new CBD lunchtime bus shuttle (that is a new idea) ran a "race" yesterday from busy Orchard Road to downtown Shenton Way.

The Straits Times wanted to pitch the new loop bus service, launched earlier this month by the Singapore School Transport Association (SSTA) and Tan Chong and Sons Motor Co, against the more personalised forms of transport.

One reporter who boarded an SSTA bus opposite Liat Towers gave it top marks for speed, comfort and convenience. He arrived at the Telok Ayer Market within seconds of the second reporter who took a taxi.

The surprise "loser" was the third reporter who drove his own car.'

Why? Because he had to look for a parking lot. He had to walk some distance from the Market Street multi-Storey car park to the meeting place. "Their Verdict: the impatient will find the bus shuttle service the most convenient and cheapest way to commute between Shenton Way and Orchard Road."

Sir, some of these ideas are working out well. We hope more of such ideas will come in, more of these intermediate mass transportation systems will be adopted by Singaporeans and, hopefully, our massive traffic congestion problems can be put off for another few years.

The Member also wants to know the speed of our buses. I will give him some average figures but average figures, of course, hide those that are above and hide those that are below. The average travel time from Orchard Road to many of the housing estates is approximately five minutes more than by cars. This is because they are able to take advantage of the very many bus lanes that we have drawn over the last few years. 11.45 am

For Shenton Way the average extra time taken from Shenton Way to the various housing estates is approximately 10 minutes more. Again, thanks to the bus lanes. And we will be putting in more bus lanes this year, 1985, all with the purpose of giving bus commuters the slight advantage of faster travel.

Sir, the Member for Boon Lay has indicated his satisfaction with the assurance I have given earlier in the House that, if the incomes of taxi drivers were to go down instead of going up which I am sure it will, then my Ministry will review the matter. But he has now come back with another request, that part of the diesel tax be put aside for contributions to CPF, Medisave, and so on. Sir, we have to be realistic in our approach to problems in life. The diesel tax is an attempt to help us solve our massive problem as a result of the large discrepancy between the cost of petrol at $1.51 per litre and the cost of diesel at 56 cents. That is part of the tax that goes to the Finance Ministry.

Taxi drivers are self-employed. If they get the extra income, which I know they will, I would hope that they would be able to put some of it into CPF, into Medisave. This would be for their own advantage. It would also be for the advantage of their families.

The Member for Boon Lay also wants us to continue to improve our bus services. Sir, we have been doing that for a long time. I can give him some statistics of what has been done over the past years. We know, Sir, that 87% of our people live within 400 metres of a bus stop. That is a very, very high figure for any country. We know also that 91% of people going to work do not have to change a trunk service. Of course, the ideal would be 100%. But when you are dealing with 2,3 million people, the ideal may be a little difficult to get. But we will keep trying.

Sir, I will just give a brief outline of the bus service that has been improved over the years. Just to illustrate to the commuters. What do they want? For them, a convenient bus service, one that is easily accessible, within walking distance, close to the terminal or close to the interchange, and a service that will see him to his final destination in the shortest time possible. Good service, no breakdowns, extensive coverage, short travel time. These are what our commuters want, and rightly so. And with the increasing affluence of our country, we must expect that the expectations of our people, even of the public transport system, will also rise. Therefore, a reliable bus service must be able to get the passenger to his destination as quickly as possible. Buses should have a very high frequency, between five and 10 minutes. They should not break down all the time. They should not be severely overloaded. And this, I believe, we have achieved to a very large extent.

Sir, today there are two major bus companies in Singapore, TIBS and SBS, providing an extensive network of buses. During specific hours of the day, particularly during the peak hours, the bus services along high demand lanes are supplemented by other schemes, the CSS and the Schemes A and B. At the end of 1984, there were 3,136 buses operating on 283 services with nearly two million passenger trips a year. This is a vast improvement of more than 50% when you compare it with 1972, 12 years ago. Buses are also much bigger, capacity much larger. In 1972 there were only 2,103 buses, and they were operating only 142 routes. So there has been a great change, but the change has not met the expectations of our people, which has risen much faster. Sir, I can give more details of comparisons of what we have done over the last ten years for buses, and how the situation is very much better than it was before. But I do not need to belabour that point.

Sir, we have also added, as I mentioned earlier, new types of mass transport systems, particularly the air-conditioned buses and the air-conditioned mini executive buses. These are for people in the intermediate stages, people who prefer something a little better than buses. And now we run routes from Bedok, from Boon Lay, down into the CBD. And during the lunch hour we run these services within the CBD, giving people more choice, depending on how much they are willing to pay, how much convenience they want, how flexible is their time and so forth, giving people greater choice in public transportation facilities. But one thing we must continue to do, and that is, to continue to have more bus lanes. This is not a fiscal measure. But it is a measure that helps the largest possible number of people who use our roads. Of course, each time we do this, the motorists are unhappy, very unhappy. But I think it is fully justified because, with over a million people on our roads every day, helping them travel a little faster is something worth doing.

Sir, I now come to the comments of the Member for Kolam Ayer. He asks for the projection of cars that we will have over the next 10 to 15 years. Sir, this is a very tall order because public transport, land transport, is a very flexible system. It is a dynamic system. Let me put it into perspective for the Member to understand, HDB builds on the average 50,000 to 60,000 flats a year. Last year, HDB broke its own record and built 66,000 flats in 1984. With an average household of 41/2, that is almost 300,000 people on the move a year. People from all over the place going all over the place. And you want to have a public transport system that will fit in in such a way that disruption is kept to a minimum. This is a very difficult problem. It is not possible for us at this stage, especially with the MRT coming on-stream in 1988, to be able to project specifically what the traffic demands will be like for the next 15 years. But I will assure the Member that if our cars continue to grow at a much faster rate than 3% a year, then everyone of us, whether we are bus commuters, taxi drivers, drivers of cars, travellers in minibuses, everyone of us is going to see progressively, maybe imperceptibly at first, but definitely, traffic jams getting worse and worse.

The Member has suggested that we should have a new system, that new cars be ballotted. Sir, this idea has been covered in the discussions last year. Balloting sounds like a good idea. But if you think about it, what it really means is that present owners of cars are protected from future increases, and that all increases would now be loaded very severely on all the younger workers, the next generation of workers, on our children. That is what it really means, because they will pay the ultimate high price while those of our generation, having got the car, having got the immunity from future increases in road tax, will enjoy the car, in privilege. Sir, is that system fair? Is this something that we want to do to the future generations of Singapore - to inflict upon them something that we, collectively, are responsible? Because it is we collectively as car owners, who are contributing to the congestions of our roads. Is it fair that we should penalize them rather than all of us sharing a little in the restraint that will make life a little pleasanter for all?

Sir, the Member has also suggested extending the CBD, again another subject tackled before. Yes, we have been doing that. As long as there are new buildings coming up, new buildings that will generate large numbers of people in the offices, in the hotels, in the restaurants, those areas will slowly be brought into the CBD, so that at any one time within the city, traffic flow will be reasonable. We remember the days before CBD, when it was impossible to travel in the CBD. We do not want to go back to those days. We will continue to monitor the situation and to look at it slowly, carefully, but systematically.

The Member has also suggested an evening CBD, again an idea looked at by us in the past. That is a good idea. The only question is whether the time is ripe for it. We all know that traffic in the evenings is much worse than in the mornings because in the mornings there is a CBD. But the system for the evening CBD will be a little more complex, because you will then have to decide which is the more effective control. To limit the cars going in or to limit the cars coming out? Each one of these variations has got its advantages and disadvantages. So it is something that is being closely studied by the Ministry. 12.00 pm

The Member has suggested that we tax severely those households that own more than one car. This is a favourite proposal put up many, many times. This is a very great favourite. On the surface of it, yes, why not? But if you examine it in detail, you will find that it will not work because almost immediately you will get a proxy owner doing all the registration on your behalf - cousins, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandfathers, grandmothers everybody who does not live in the same house will be used as proxies. And we will be back to square one.

But, Sir, a much more important reason for not wanting to go in this direction, even though it is not going to be effective, is that it goes against the fundamental principle that our Government is trying to implement in Singapore. We heard the Minister for National Development speak the other day with great sympathy about people who live alone and who have to live alone for a variety of reasons. The Minister summed up by saying that we must continue to encourage our families to live together, not just to solve the problems of HDB but also to solve the problems of our entire society. Ours is an Asian society. Having families pulled apart as soon as the children grow up is not something that is part of our culture. So we must try to bring our families back together, ie, the multi-tier families. If necessary, the HDB will give additional incentives, incentives that people want, so that we will over a period of time be able to restore to a certain extent what we have lost - the integrated multi-tier family with parents helping with the children, with inlaws helping with the grandchildren, and in the process imbibe more of our Asian traditions.

Therefore, if we do this, ie, tax severely those households that own more than one car, we are going to discourage the younger generation from wanting to live with their parents, because this will be another additional disincentive to stay together.

The Chairman: Dr Yeo, you have used up your time in answering.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I know you have said that he has used up his time, but he has not answered the two pleas that I made, (1) on behalf of the yellow top taxi operators, and (2) this man who is being forced to take his test in Mandarin before he can get his taxi driver's licence. Could he say something about those two pleas?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, the plea for yellow-top taxis is something that the Member for Anson has raised year in and year out, again and again. The answer is still the same, no. The explanations have been given in greater detail to him on other occasions. It is not the intention of the Government to give taxi licences to individuals. This was done at the time to get out of a difficult situation when the taxi licence was used by unscrupulous people to create the Ali Baba system, where there were numerous proxy holders of taxi licences, where syndicates were using proxies to hold all these taxi licences. We do not intend to go back to those unpleasant days where taxi drivers were at the mercy of people of that sort. Hence the system will remain.

I believe our present system is much more effective under the present set-up. We have companies that have got good facilities for the servicing of vehicles. This ensures that our taxis are always kept in good condition. We know full well, Sir, as I have explained in great detail yesterday, that each time a vehicle breaks down in the middle of the road, not only is the person in that vehicle inconvenienced but large numbers of other people are also inconvenienced. Hence it is important that our vehicles be kept in tip-top condition. Our policy is to encourage companies with these facilities to hold the taxi licences and to make the taxi licences available to taxi drivers who wish to use them. The second point concerns a man who had to do conversational Mandarin in order to get his -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Pass an examination.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Pass his conversational Mandarin in order to get his licence. As our society moves past a stage where fewer and fewer people speak dialects, it is obvious that the majority of the ethnic Chinese will be speaking in Mandarin, even if it is at a conversational level. As the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has clearly demonstrated, it is not difficult. It would be a lot worse if we had a taxi driver who speaks dialects only, and then finds to his disadvantage that all his commuters are unable to talk to him in the dialect. This is part and parcel of the national movement towards the use of Mandarin in place of dialects. That is a national objective. It is something worth working for, and I am sure this particular individual, if he were to apply himself, would be able to pick up enough conversational Mandarin to be able to get the licence.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I just clarify because I think the Minister has misunderstood my pleas. In the case of these yellow top taxi operators, I have been told that a father cannot even transfer it to his son. And the Minister is talking about syndicates. I do not know how syndicates come into this. I am talking about genuine cases. Why are you puffing a total ban on the transfer of yellow top taxi plates? Is it the intention to drive everyone into the arms of the NTUC, as I asked earlier?

Secondly, about this man who is unable to get his vocational licence. As I mentioned, he is very proficient in Malay. He says he can pass the Malay test any time if you would like him to pass a second language. Why cannot he be allowed to do that?

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, I have an amendment* standing in my name. Can I speak now, Sir?

The Chairman: Does the Minister want to answer or listen to him?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: I would rather finish with all the answers.

The Chairman: All right.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, it has been decided not to allow a transfer because the transfer for the yellow top taxi to a child opens up the door to the sort of abuses that we know of. This has happened in the past and we do not intend, as I said, to drift back to that sort of circumstances.

As for the driver who can speak excellent Malay, he must be a fair linguist. So it should not be something beyond him to pick up a few Mandarin words for purposes of conversation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why should he? He does not want to. Why should he?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, in which case then he is not eligible for the taxi licence.

May I carry on, Sir?

The Chairman: Let us listen to what Dr Lau wants to say first.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Thank you, Sir. We are here discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Communications and Information and we have not spent any time on the other half of his Ministry.

The Chairman: It is too bad. Guillotine time is 12.20 pm.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I would like to turn the discussion to the Information Division of the Ministry. The people need to have information about Government policies and programmes and the information should be given in a simple, clear and comprehensive form. Why is this necessary? It is necessary so that the people can understand the problems facing the country, so that they can appreciate what the Government is doing for them and so that they can realize that the Ministers have the interests of the people at heart when they make difficult decisions.

Sir, nowadays, people are better educated. They want to be informed. The people are more interested in the decisionmaking process. They want to be involved. The people are deeply affected by various controversial policies. They want to be heard. The people are concerned with the various changes of policies. They want to know what is happening in Singapore.

The role of the Information Division, Sir, is very clear - to provide information to the people and present to the people the Government's explanation for various policies and programmes. I ask myself: has the Division carried out its role effectively? The Division has at its disposal the various mass media - the television, the radio and the whole range of publicity materials.

Sir, the Publications Unit produces a number of very useful publications and informational materials. For example, the Annual Yearbook, the bi-monthly Singapore Bulletin and the fortnightly The Mirror. But, unfortunately, these publications are not within-the reach of the people. Recently, there was publicity concerning the Yearbook 1984. The Straits Times calls it "a gold mine of information". But, Sir, it is very expensive. It costs $19.95. It is like what we call Bata price $19.95 instead of $20. Many people would like to have the Yearbook, especially the students in the pre-university and the tertiary institutions. So I ask the Ministry whether they have any plans to produce a paperback version of the book so that it can be made available to the public.

Sir, at a time when the public should be better educated about Government policies, when the people are expected to participate in discussions and provide feedback to the Government, it is necessary that they are provided with up-to-date information. On this, Sir, I would like to suggest that the Ministry produce an 8-page weekly paper which will contain information about Government policies and programmes, about Government rationale for various policies, extracts of editorials of foreign newspapers, and articles of interest. These materials can be drawn from either The Mirror or the Singapore Bulletin.

Such a material can be distributed to every household through various means, free of charge, of course. After all, the Singapore Bulletin and The Mirror are distributed free of charge. Every Sunday, many households receive, besides the usual newspapers, the Asia Magazine and until recently Today. Why not distribute such a publication through this means? In this way, Sir, the public can be better informed. They will have these current affairs materials in their homes as official reference materials. Then they can better understand the policies and programmes of the Government and thereby give the Government stronger support.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment and I am afraid we have to go a little backwards to the Communications part. I have an amendment in regard to the financing of the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation. The financing of the Mass Rapid Transit is still not clearly explained. The Minister says that passengers will not have to pay for it and then he says that it will come out of capital. Now, if we look at the Budget, is it not true that for the financial year 1983, $141 million has already been allocated and, for financial year 1984, $321 million has been disbursed, and, for this current financial year, $1.034 billion will be allocated to the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation? This works out to be about $1.496 billion. If we divide by 3 million, although our population has not reached that stage, money has already been paid by the people of Singapore to the extent of $500 per person.

Therefore, I cannot follow the statement by the Minister to say that passengers will not have to pay for it. There is some confusion because, at first, the project was to be financed by the sale of land, that is clearly understood. And then there was a statement that money will be taken out from the national assets. But now it would appear that it will be financed by revenue, that means by taxes, and/or from loans from the Development Fund. Now these loans are mostly from Central Provident Fund. Please clarify this position. So am I correct to ask the Minister that this Mass Rapid Transit will be financed eventually by revenue and from Central Provident Fund?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the more we hear from the Member for Potong Pasir, the more we have to come to the conclusion that he has deliberately sought to distort figures in a manner to undermine the integrity of the Government.

Sir, the money for the building of the MRT has been set aside by Cabinet, by the Ministry of Finance, to pay for the building of the MRT.

Mr Jeyaretnam: From what source?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: From reserves in Government.

Mr Jeyaretnam: How did Government get the reserves?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: As a result, the passengers will not have to pay the capital cost during his trip because the money has already been paid for from reserves. It is expected that because the MRT will make the value of land in Marina South much more attractive in the process when Marina South will be sold, the money recovered as a result of this differential - between having the MRT run into Marina South and hence capable of high density development versus a Marina South that does not have an MRT (because there is not an MRT in Singapore), and hence very much lower development plot ratios - that difference would more than cover the cost of the MRT.

Sir, when the Member starts talking about numbers, he has to be very, very careful, because he can talk about numbers outside in mass rallies and most people will let him off, but when he starts talking about numbers in the House, it goes into Hansard. In Hansard of 4th March the Member for Potong Pasir did a calculation of taxi fares. Sir, with your permission, I would like to distribute the calculations of taxi fares. [Copies of Tables distributed to Members.] (Cols. 1689 - 1692) [Copies of Tables distributed to Members.] - AVERAGE TAXI DRIVERS' GROSS TAKINGS PER MONTH, AVERAGE TAXI DRIVER'S MONTHLY COLLECTION WITH VARIOUS DEMAND SCENARIOS (One shift taxis), AVERAGE TAXI DRIVER'S MONTHLY COLLECTION WITH VARIOUS DEMAND SCENARIOS (Two shift taxis) (Cols. 1689 - 1692)

Mr Chiam See Tong: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We were calculating on the cost of the MRT and not taxi fares now.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I would like to illustrate the sort of credibility that one can give to the sort of figures that he weaves out of thin air.

Sir, in this Hansard (col. 176), the Member for Potong Pasir did a calculation on taxi fares. He took the ratio of $3.40 divide $2.40 X $1,200. Is the Member for Potong Pasir telling us that this is the level of his arithmetic -that the increase in fares only affects the net income of the taxi driver and not the gross takings of the taxi driver? He does not know that? Surely he does.

Mr Chiam See Tong: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. In fact, I have sent my calculations to the ROV for him to check. Instead of writing to me to say that I was wrong, now the Minister pounces on me with his figures.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: The Member for Potong Pasir has decided to make a political point by using fallacious calculations. And knowing straightaway that he has been caught, very quickly he ran to the ROV to seek a way out, hoping that all this will be covered up. Unfortunately for him, my instructions to ROV were, "No, I will give an explanation to the Member for Potong Pasir since he cannot do his calculations." And I will explain to Members of this House, including the Member for Potong Pasir, why his calculation is so ridiculous that anybody who is doing PSLE would know it to be wrong. That is why it is not possible that the Member for Potong Pasir could have made that mistake unintentionally. That was a deliberate attempt to distort the figures in order to create a scare in Singapore.

Sir, if you look at the first page of the Tables that I have distributed, you will see that it is the first page titled "Average taxi drivers' gross takings per month". This is the amount of money that changes hands in one month between taxi commuters and the taxi driver. On the average, the taxi driver who does a single shift will collect -

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I must intervene. We have been talking just now about the financing of the Mass Rapid Transit. But the whole of our attention now is drawn to a taxi fare calculation.

An hon. Member: It is not a point of order.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The whole attention now has been drawn to this matter which is not at hand.

The Chairman: You are wasting time as it is time to close.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: So a taxi-driver driving a single shift will collect approximately $2,439. Those who have a second shift driver, together they will collect a little more because they will drive longer hours, They will collect approximately $3,482. The next page, Sir, shows how we arrive at what we think a taxi driver would be able to collect under the new fare scheme. Present collection: gross collection per month is $2,439. If we add the diesel tax which is approximately $550, then the breakeven point for the taxi driver on one shift would be $2,989. We have done a survey of taxi drivers with more than 300 trips to assess what the difference would be between the new rates and the old rates, and there is a conversion factor of 1.545. If you multiply 1.545 with $2,439, you will get the figures given down below: 0% drop in demand, gives him $3,768 plus extras. The extras are listed below. If there is a drop of about 15%, which is what my Ministry estimates, then we would expect a monthly taking of approximately $3,203 plus extras. And if you take away the breakeven point of $2,989, then we can expect the taxi driver on a single shift to make approximately $214 plus extras. This is why we are confident that if the taxi driver suffers a drop of 15% in the demand from taxi commuters, he will still have a net takehome pay (ie he takes home more money) per month to the tune of something like $200. This is what we have been saying all the time.

But that is not the only point, Sir. If this single shift taxi driver were to rent out his taxi for the second shift, and the rental figures are fairly high - it varies for individual taxis from the new ones to the old ones - but the figures are in the range of about $30, give or take a few dollars, if he were to rent out his taxi, he would easily recover his $550 just from the rental of his taxi alone. So this scheme will not be disadvantageous. This scheme will give our taxi drivers an increased income. Even if the demand drops by 20%, which we do not expect, we will still find the taxi driver better-off: $25 plus the extras, plus all the money that he can get from renting out his taxi for the second shift.

Sir, if we look at the third page where the analysis is done for taxi drivers doing two shifts. Here, obviously, the benefits are much greater because the diesel tax is now shared between the two drivers, but the arithmetic is exactly the same. If there is a drop of 15% in the ridership, then both of them will get collectively $4,573 plus extras. And if we deduct the breakeven point of,$4,032, then we find our two taxi drivers working together on two shifts, they will get $541, plus extras again. Sir, for the two-shift taxi drivers, this represents a sizeable sum of money. And if we expect, as we know of Singaporeans, that where there is money to be made, Singaporeans are willing to work harder, then we can see that this scheme will definitely benefit our taxi drivers to a large extent. And I think they deserve it. 12.30 pm

The Chairman: It is guillotine time.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: I think they deserve it because this is the sort of society that we want, hardworking people earning more money and keeping for themselves.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): Sir, I thank the Minister for his long-winded and detailed reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $36,095,370 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $1,139,198,900 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 0 -

Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates*.

Sir, the Neighbourhood Police Post scheme has created, to a certain extent, a friendly image of our Police Force. It has also made our people more willing to come forward to help the Police. And in turn, they expect more protection from our Police. However, under the existing law if you feel that your safety is threatened by another person, you can only issue him with a civil summons. If you are beaten up by someone who does not use a dangerous weapon, your complaint to the Police will not help much either. You are likely to be advised to seek redress through the issue of a civil summons because it is classified as a civil case.

Sir, with karate, kung fu and other martial arts being more popular, the bare hands are as dangerous as weapons. Modern living in Singapore is getting more complicated. One can feel threatened, even though if you are not beaten up. So in modern living, we have to be guided by rules and regulations, and the average people invariably look towards the Police for protection. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any plan to amend the existing law so that the Police can intervene when requested to do so. This will indirectly help prevent the spread of secret society activities which the Government has taken a lot of effort to put down.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, it was about 10 years ago that a Prison Reform Committee was set up and its recommendations were submitted to the Minister for Home Affairs. I would like to enquire of him what has happened to the recommendations, how many of them have been successfully implemented, and whether he is satisfied that the people who are sent to prison get sufficiently reformed after leaving prison. Perhaps one indicator would be whether the same criminals are sent back to the prison again and again.

The second question, Sir, relates to the Neighbourhood Police Post. Members in this House have supported this idea and in Whampoa we are eagerly awaiting the establishment of these posts. Perhaps he could inform this House when would this be likely.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I see the next amendment* is in the name of the Member for Clementi but he is not here. May I just speak very briefly under this amendment although my name is not listed here?

The Chairman: Yes, by all means.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, amendment (2) deals with the Police programme, and it is under that that I wish to say a few words. I wish to raise the dissatisfaction that is being felt by a number of junior officers who, I understand, have been acting in higher posts for a very long time. I suppose it is cheaper for the Government to pay them acting pay but it is, I am told, causing no little dissatisfaction among these officers. May I know from the Minister whether that is the position, that a good number of officers have been acting in higher posts for long periods?

Secondly, the position of sergeants. I understand sergeants are paid Division 11 salary but they are placed in Division Ill in the establishment. They feel that this is unfair to them because they say they miss out on the benefits that are accorded to Division 11 officers, although they are paid the same salary. Will the Minister please clarify this?

Another matter is the dissatisfaction that junior officers with HSC and Police experience feel in comparison with NS officers with similar qualifications. They say, they suffer in the promotions. They are not automatically promoted to the rank of Inspector and above, whereas NS officers are. Will the Minister please clarify?

Finally, Sir, moving from personnel to equipment, I would like to know whether the Police vehicles on the road are kept under constant maintenance and supervision to see that they are fully road-worthy. I am told that there are a number of vehicles which should not be on the roads.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to place on record my personal thanks and the thanks of my constituents to the Minister for setting up the temporary Neighbourhood Police Post in Block 461 in my constituency. My constituents have greatly benefited from this service and we are now looking forward to the establishment of the permanent police post which I am told will come about very shortly.

Sir, I have two matters to raise with the Minister. The first one refers to the question of public relations and publicity in the Ministry of Home Affairs, particularly with reference to the Police Force. I am disappointed that for the financial year 1985-86, there is a reduction in the number of personnel in this department. I had occasion to bring to the notice of the Hon. Minister of the case of one of my constituents who was involved in the so-called Shenton Way shoot-out. The Public Relations of the Police Force in this case was most lacking. I believe that PR of the Police Force is extremely important, and if not properly carried out will leave a negative image on the population. Sir, with this in mind, I am just wondering what is the justification for reducing the number of personnel in the department. I know there are schemes for improving productivity and cutting down costs by reducing manpower. But maybe reduction should be looked at in other areas. This is one area which maybe I would urge the Minister to increase the number of personnel, particularly senior personnel. I think this is very important.

Sir, next I move on to the question of the Marine Police. The Marine Police is responsible for policing the territorial waters of Singapore. Of late, we have heard of a number of cases of piracy. I would like to know from the Minister whether piracy is a serious problem in view of the fact that Singapore is the second largest port in the world.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Sir, since the Neighbourhood Police Post scheme was implemented in 1983, it has proved to be a very effective system in combating crime in our housing estates. The presence of the NPPs serves as a deterrent against persons who wish to commit crime, especially serious crimes. Looking at the Financial Year 85-86 Budget, an increase of $10.1 million has been provided for patrols and policing. Additional manpower has also been provided for the extension of the NPP scheme.

I would like to ask the Minister what plans he has to accelerate the introduction of the NPP scheme in all our housing estates. What are the constraints the Ministry faces in achieving speedier implementation? Like the Member for Whampoa, I would also like to enquire when the NPP scheme will be introduced in the Geylang Serai constituency. My constituents are also looking forward to an early implementation of the scheme. And after hearing the Member for Chong Boon, could we have a temporary NPP in Geylang Serai Constituency until such time when the permanent one is introduced?

The Chairman: Prof. Jayakumar, I was wondering whether you would like to answer the first few Members.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, it might be more conducive to a coherent reply if others, who have comments on policing, were to express their views now.

The Chairman: All right. Mr Heng.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment* under the NPP project and since we are speaking about the project now, may I have 10 minutes to speak?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I would like to support the Members' comments on the NPP. I see that under the Development estimates, $60,000 has been provided for the evaluation phase, whereas 437 new posts are budgeted for the NPP. This presumably must mean that evaluation is over and the Ministry is going ahead with the implementation of the project. In this respect, we were told earlier by the Hon. Minister of State that the project has been brought forward two years because of the expert advice of the Japanese. I would like to say that perhaps we should advance it by more than two years. If it is a matter of manpower or a matter of finance, I can understand why we can only bring it forward by two years. But I cannot understand the reason for bringing it forward by two years based on the expert advice of the Japanese. 12.45 pm

I understand that our system is based on the Japanese Koban system and presumably they have a lot of experience in this. Nevertheless, we have called it the NPP. If it is a system meant for our country, then we can modify the Japanese Koban system for our country. But I cannot understand why we can only advance it by two years because of the Japanese advice.

Once again I would like to bring up my plea for the extension of both the Chong Boon NPP and the Cheng San NPP to cover only 26 blocks in Ang Mo Kio. However, although these 26 blocks are in Ang Mo Kio Housing Estate, they are considered part of the Jalan Kayu Constituency. Right now in the town of Ang Mo Kio, there are nine Constituencies. Seven are completely in Ang Mo Kio, except for two, ie Nee Soon Constituency and the Jalan Kayu Constituency. I do not know the number of blocks in the Ang Mo Kio New Town which are part of Nee Soon, but there are 26 blocks in the Ang Mo Kio New Town which are part of Jalan Kayu. It does not make sense that almost 95% or even 99% of Ang Mo Kio New Town are covered by NPPs, and you leave out these two small parts of the New Town uncovered.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Sir, last year 327 persons were killed on our roads. This figure represents a substantial increase over the figure of 257 in 1983. In other words, Sir, there is the rate of about one person dying on our roads per day. Sir, 70% of these people who died on our roads were pedestrians and motorcyclists, including scooterists and their pillion riders. My question is, are we doing enough to solve this problem of death on our roads?

This problem has been raised in this House year after year, and I feel that the statistics show that we are, in fact, fighting an uphill battle. I would like to know whether the message is getting across to road users, in particular, to two categories of road users, namely, the old as well as children.

My next point refers to the expressways on our island, Sir, a lot of accidents still occur on our expressway, and this I can attribute to factors such as poor lane discipline on the part of motorists, road hogging, failure to give way, inconsiderate driving, even stopping and parking along our expressways. Sir, about two years ago when this subject was raised in this House, the then Minister for Home Affairs informed us that a special Expressway Patrol Unit would be formed to monitor and to enforce the rules of the expressway. I would like to know whether this unit has, in fact, been formed.

Sir, I read not long ago about the installation of electronic devices linked to high speed cameras at signalized junctions to monitor motorists who beat traffic lights. May I know from the Minister how reliable such electronic devices are and whether these have, in fact, been installed.

Sir, my next point refers again to the people who drive heavy vehicles on our roads. In 1983 five drivers or passengers of heavy vehicles were killed. But last year this figure went up tremendously to 16. May I know what action is being taken with regard to this particular category of road users.

Lastly, I would like to raise this point of the image of the Traffic Police. Sir, I feel that this is something very important which we have to deal with, when we talk about road safety. Somehow, Sir, in Singapore, the traffic policeman is still being looked upon with some fear or some disdain. For instance, we still have the sneaky ones who hide behind bushes or on slip-roads leading to expressways, waiting to pounce on innocent motorists. And the image is given of a traffic policeman who is waiting like a vulture. I am sure Members in this House will bear me out when I say that those of us who drive regularly along certain roads will be able to tell at which particular spots you can spot your favourite traffic policeman.

Secondly, Sir, I think the traffic policeman should be clear in his signals when he wants to indicate what motorists and drivers should do. I have received complaints from motorists who tell me that suddenly they see in their rear-view mirror the traffic policeman following behind them for quite a distance. They do not know whether they have been driving too fast or too slow. If they feel that they have been driving too fast, then they slow down. Then they are nabbed for road hogging. If they think they have been driving too slowly and are hogging the road, and they speed up, then they will be caught for speeding.

Although we know for sure, and this has been told to us by the Minister for Home Affairs previously, that traffic policemen do not have a quota in so far as issuing of summons is concerned, but how do you judge a traffic policeman as far as his performance goes? Surely it must be by the number of summons he issues. What other criteria could there be? My opinion is that the traffic policeman's image should be revamped. He should project a friendly image, just as his counterparts in the NPP Scheme are doing. I feel that if we can make the public understand that the traffic policeman is their friend and not anything else, then I feel we will be able to carry this message of road safety one step further.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the traffic police statistics, 327 people were killed, 855 seriously injured and over 10,000 slightly injured in road accidents in 1984. Sir, imagine the sorrow and suffering involved. I am informed that the economic cost of these accidents runs into millions of dollars a year.

The point I wish to make is, are our present preventive and enforcement measures adequate to control or minimize such traffic accidents? Perhaps we should review our present decentralized approach in the management of land transport. For example, road engineering comes under the PWD, registration of vehicles and vocational drivers is under the ROV, land transport policy is formulated at the Ministry of Communications and Information, and the Traffic Police is responsible for enforcement and driver licensing.

Sir, I understand that a team of Japanese Traffic Management experts who recently visited Singapore expressed the view that the Traffic Police should take over the task of road engineering. I hope that the report of the Japanese experts, when available, will be given adequate publicity to bring home the point that road safety is the responsibility of not only the enforcement agencies but the general public as well.

Sir, another point I wish to raise is the increasing number of accidents involving motorcyclists and heavy vehicles and buses. Recently, a truck jumped the road divider along Woodlands Road, colliding into several vehicles on the other side of the road, resulting in four persons killed. There are other examples of such accident. In most cases heavy vehicles were the offending parties. To minimize the risk of accidents involving motorcycles and heavy vehicles which often travel at excessive speeds, we should look into the possibility of introducing traffic lane separation, as practised in some countries like Sweden. We can introduce such a scheme along our expressways where there are three or more lanes.

Sir, according to the Traffic Police, the accident rate on expressways is getting higher all the time. The accident density is twice that of other roads and the density of fatal accidents is about four times. Motorcycles, heavy vehicles and vehicles with restricted speeds could be confined to the two inner lanes in these expressways. We could also consider increasing the maximum speed limit on the outermost lane from the present limit of 80 kph. Many motorists still do not know how to make the best use of expressway travel. They tend to hog the road, changing lanes indiscriminately and speeding. We need to educate such motorists, first by improving the traffic management system, providing adequate informative road signs, and then follow a stricter traffic enforcement action.

Sir, I know the Traffic Police has been doing a very good job, as I have already accumulated 18 demerit points myself. I hope that my suggestion would receive due consideration.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be discussing the use of staff nurses in the Ambulance Service of the Fire Brigade.

81 staff nurses are assigned from the Ministry of Health to the Fire Service. Sir, the Ministry of Health is experiencing a shortage of staff nurses. It takes years to train an efficient staff nurse. Furthermore, I am sure that many of these staff nurses also possess Post Basic Certificates, further enhancing the loss to the Ministry of Health.

Sir, I would like to humbly suggest to the Minister and the Fire Service to consider using paramedics to take over the role of providing emergency services. What is the rationale of using paramedics for our Ambulance Service? Staff nurses, by their training, are trained to do work in hospital wards. This, of course, does not mean that they are ineffective in their Ambulance service. Paramedics, however, are trained to work under field conditions. Not only will they be required to be highly skilled first-aiders, but they must also be conversant with rescue work. Do we have such training facilities available? My answer is yes. Cooperation within the Fire Service, Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Defence (School of Military Medicine) can result in a first-class training programme. We can consider encouraging our Army medics, after their national service, to consider a career in the Fire Service as paramedics. Paramedics will also be available to our Civil Defence Force.

The Chairman: Two minutes left.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Do you want me to start my reply now or -

The Chairman: Yes, carry on, until 1.00 o'clock.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first take the point made by the Member for Bukit Batok.

Sir, part of the problem is with the law, but that is not the only problem. The problem is also with the nature of the incidents which are involved. Another problem is with the volume of such incidents. First, let me say that it is not quite correct to say that the situations that he referred to are those where the only recourse is through a private or civil suit. It is an offence under the Penal Code, which is referred to as "voluntarily causing hurt".

The problem, as far as the law is concerned, is that most of the incidents in this category of "voluntarily causing hurt" constitute an offence which, in law, is described as non-seizable, that is to say, the powers of the Police to arrest without a warrant are severely limited. Other offences such as causing hurt with dangerous weapons, or causing grevious hurt are more serious offences where the Police have powers of arrest because these are seizable.

It is true that from the viewpoint of the person who is involved in an incident, it may be quite a traumatic and serious matter. But from our records the vast majority of these incidents involve situations where the persons are known to each other - neighbours, friends, in-laws who quarrel and so on. They may range from mere fisticuffs to fairly serious incidents involving the use of implements such as stools and so on. The question is, should the Police arrest all these persons?

The Chairman: Prof. Jayakumar, it is one o'clock.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. This Sitting is suspended until 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.