MEASURES TO CURB ROAD USAGE

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Dr Hong Hai (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

*That this House supports the principles underlying the latest measures introduced by the Ministry of Communications and Information to curb road usage.

*The motion also stood in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Member for Bukit Timah).

Sir, the purposes of introducing this motion are, first, to provide a forum for discussing, supporting or opposing the measures without disagreeing with the principles underlying their introduction. Second, to provide an oppportunity for Members of this House to propose suitable amendments to these measures for the consideration of the Minister for Communications and Information.

Sir, the motion has been proposed by my GPC after careful consideration of the recent measures to curb car usage. The House would have noted that we have merely supported the principles underlying these measures. It does not necessarily follow that we endorse all or any of the specific measures. It is also possible and consistent for any Member of this House to support our motion and yet oppose most of the measures that have been introduced.

The package of measures have been introduced ostensibly to curb road usage as distinct from car ownership. But this package carries with it a strange appendage that does not belong. I refer to the 100% increase in car parking charges in HDB estates. As far as I can see, this does not contribute to curbing road usage. By coupling it with road usage measures, we have opened the floodgates to confusion on the ground. As this involves thepolicy of the Ministry of National Development, I will not pre-empt what the GPC on National Development must want to comment upon. Suffice it to say that whatever the rationale for increasing car park charges, a sudden 100% increase appears somewhat excessive.

Sir, if I may now return to the principles underlying the measures. The principles are clear. We have limited space in Singapore for roads, and to avoid traffic congestion it is necessary to provide disincentives against road usage in congestion-prone areas. Hence the need for the ALS and higher parking charges in the city area.

Many of the new measures are defensible on these principles. However, my GPC has some reservations about some of these measures. I would like to highlight two of them here.

First, it is not clear why Scheme B buses are not exempted from ALS charges like other regular buses. Scheme B buses are efficient in road usage, like regular buses. The only difference is that they carry school children, tourists, and the like. Sir, I am sure the Minister for Communications has nothing against school children and tourists. I urge him therefore to consider exempting these buses from the new ALS ruling.

The other measure over which I have some doubt is the evening ALS scheme. If evening traffic congestion was indeed much more serious in the restricted zones than on the ring roads, there is perhaps some justification for introducing the evening ALS. However, I have yet to see clear evidence that this is indeed the case. Many commuters have reported to me that they do not experience any worse congestion getting out of the restricted zones than they do on the ring roads or on other main highways when they travel home from work in the evenings. Sir, if this is the case, then evening ALS may provide only very marginal gains in traffic flow. For only that little gain, it imposes inconvenience and irksome costs for those who live in the restricted zones, or for those who pick up their family from these zones after work. I suggest that the Minister reconsiders this, and possibly defers it until a more thorough study has established beyond doubt the effectiveness of evening ALS.

In this regard, I note that the Ministry has commissioned a research project to study traffic flows. Would it not make more sense to complete these and other studies first, before making the evening ALS decision?

Sir, my GPC members and other Members of the House will comment on these and other measures in detail. I would now like to turn to a more basic question. This concerns the circumstance under which these measures are being introduced.

Regrettably, these measures are being introduced at a time when the public transportation system does not yet provide acceptable alternatives to car owners to commute to work. This point was brought out forcibly by a writer to the Forum page of the Straits Times last week. Mr Melvin Cheah wrote on the 25th May issue of the Straits Times, one of the more sensible letters I have seen on the subject, and I quote:

'Car users would switch to public transport ... only if these systems are able to provide a relatively efficient and comfortable service as a substitute. As it now stands, the MRT provides excellent but restricted service ... The majority (of people) still rely on buses and these have (many) drawbacks. I suggest that officials take a ride on our buses officials take a ride on our buses to fully appreciate the trauma of a bus ride. Maybe then they will understand why people cling on people cling on to their cars despite the increasing costs. You must give people a good substitute if you want them to give up their cars, not squeeze their purses till they are empty.'

Sir, the good substitute was to have been the MRT. We invested $5 billion into the system, but the results today are somewhat less than satisfactory. Technically, the system works beautifully; the trains are clean, fast and comfortable. But there are not enough passengers using the system to commute to work. Most of those who do switched over from buses. The MRT has failed to attract large numbers of car drivers, and therefore has failed to make sizeable contributions to reducing road congestion.

The basic problem is one of access to the MRT stations. There is yet no viable feeder system from private housing estates where large concentrations of car owners reside. Why has such a feeder system not been introduced? I am told by Ministry officials that it may not be profitable. The SMRT is unwilling to run these feeder services even though these services will bring more passengers to the MRT and therefore contribute additional revenue to the SMRT.

I believe we must not lose our sense of proportion here. We spent $5 billion in capital subsidies for the MRT system. To appreciate what this amount means, consider the fact that this capital amount, if invested at a modest 8% return, would yield $400 million a year. This exceeds the entire market capitalization of SBS and TIBS put together. Put in another way, just one year's interest cost of financing the MRT could buy up the two major bus companies in Singapore, with money left over to set up several feeder services for major private housing estates.

Sir, with such an enormous capital outlay, it is a serious matter that the system is not fully utilized. By this I do not mean that the trains are not full at peak hours. I mean that the tracks and tunnels can take many times the frequency of trains that we are seeing now. I recall a Ministry official telling me that it could be as much as 10 times. This could mean that the capacity of utilization is only about 10% by that measure.

Sir, if as a matter of economic ideology the Ministry is averse to operating subsidies, then perhaps we could promote feeder services through capital grants for vehicles, for vans, for minibuses, that could ply the routes from the estates to the stations with high frequency, so that one can walk out of one's home, pick up an air-conditioned shuttle, and get to the station in comfort. Sir, I do not know what the capital cost would be for these feeder services, but I would be surprised if it amounted to more than a few months' financing cost for the MRT system. We have already lost years in making the MRT system work to reduce road congestion, and the opportunity cost runs into many hundreds of millions of dollars. It can only make sense now to invest a little more to finally make it work.

Sir, a similar situation exists with regard to the feeder system for the HDB estates. The Ministry has for some time talked about "through-ticketing", integrating bus and MRT services. We started building MRT lines in the early 1980's. I understand that through-ticketing will not be working until early 1991. I am not sure why it has taken so many years and I hope that the Minister could expedite it.

In the meantime, motorists bear increasing pain each year, having to dig deeper into their pocket. But the harsher are the measures needed against motorists, the clearer is the indication that viable alternatives in transportation are lacking. It would appear that for too long the Government has chosen the easier option of punishing the motorists to keep the traffic smooth. The harder option is to improve the public transportation system swiftly and effectively.

I would like to suggest in all seriousness to the Ministry that henceforth it sets itself a house rule that it would not introduce further strong measures against car ownership or road usage unless each measure is accompanied by a matching improvement in the public transportation amenities. Only in this way can we really and truly be, as the Government would have put it, "on the right track".

In conclusion, while we support the principles behind curbing road usage, we also urge the Ministry to take a wider view of the matter and review some of these measures.

Question proposed.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the road transportation measures which are the subject of this motion aim to encourage people to use their motor vehicles less. The assumption is that if the motor vehicle usage can be reduced by, say, 10%, then vehicle population can be increased by correspondingly 10%, without causing additional congestion on our roads. The Minister for Finance has been quoted as saying that the Government would be happy if people buy cars and keep them at home, driving them mainly in Malaysia. So a perception has emerged among Singaporeans that Government henceforth will not discourage car ownership explicitly. Instead it will control primarily car usage. My question is this: is that really the case? I do not think so, and I think it would be useful for the Government to clarify its position.

To begin with, the measures already implemented to control the number of cars remain. In my opinion, these measures will remain an important policy instrument in future, despite the shift in emphasis. We must recognize that fiscal measures to control car population have been successful, even though pursuing it single-mindedly has led to some serious distortions in the economics of owning and operating a car.

The distortion arises from the fact that the operational cost, including road tax, parking and petrol, are comparatively low in comparison with the capital cost of buying a car. Like any piece of expensive equipment, the tendency in such cases would be to maximize the use of that piece of equipment. So the person who is going to put up $40,000 or more for a vehicle would tend to use it as much as his budget for operating the car will bear. This tendency has been confirmed in a study done by the Automobile Association of Singapore which showed that the average mileage of a car in Singapore is about 18,000 km per year while those in the OECD countries is about 16,000 km per year.

Furthermore, this distortion caused by the high import levy is accentuated by the rapid appreciation of the Japanese yen from 1985 till 1988. The result was that the value of used cars has appreciated significantly over the same period. I knew many individuals who bought used cars during that period and sold them after several years of use and, instead of losing money, have made money out of it. So in effect, they has gained free use of their cars over this period. Indeed, pursuing our past policy in controlling car population has produced this very severe distortion. So any increase in ARF would have similar implication as the yen appreciation. In fact, this was confirmed by the reported losses suffered by used car dealers when the Government unexpectedly left the ARF untouched in spite of the rapid increases in the number of cars on our roads. Mr Speaker, Sir, to remove this distortion and to make car ownership policy really work, the depreciation of the motor vehicle over its operating life must be real and substantial. One way to do this is to remove the PARF and concurrently make driving an old car on our roads expensive. But any move in this direction would be drastic and extremely unpopular. Therefore, the shift in emphasis to curb car usage through increasing the cost of operating a car is to be welcomed. I support this principle behind the measures introduced by our Government to curb car usage.

However, I believe the Government may have oversold this concept of controlling car usage vis-a-vis controlling car ownership. Thus, it is, in fact, very difficult to justify the 100% increase of HDB season parking fee. As has already been explained by Dr Hong Hai, no matter how one looks at it, this 100% increase cannot be justified on the principle of reducing car usage. It indeed confuses the issue. On top of that, the burden does not fall evenly on all car owners since only those living in HDB estates will be affected by it. As a result, Government has been perceived as being unfair. If the Government's position in this measure is to recover the cost of operating the car perhaps it would actually be easier for our people to understand and to accept if the Ministry of National Development were to announce this policy separately.

Now let me address the philosophy behind car usage. To curb car usage, the car owner must be deterred from using his car whenever he wants to go out for an errand. He will also decide on a per trip basis. The Government has taken measures to increase the per trip costs, such as the fuel cost and the parking charges at the end of a trip as well as the restricted zone entry fee for those going into the restricted zone. The fuel cost is increased by raising the petrol tax and the parking charges incurred by raising the parking fees and parking surcharges. These are logical derivations of the car usage reduction principle and I support them.

On the other hand, when measures are introduced to change human behavioural patterns, I believe they would have some shock values. I reckon, by and large, that 10% increase in petrol and the small increase in parking fees are unlikely to achieve any reduction of car usage on our roads. Indeed, today there is no indication that sales in petrol kiosks have been affected by the petrol tax increase. What these measures, will achieve indeed would be to fatten Government coffers. Indeed, if Government really wants to reduce car usage through these measures, I would foresee more substantial increases in the pipeline. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister should say so now.

In the context of increasing the per trip cost to reduce car usage I would say that the reduction of ALS entry fees for private cars is illogical. Under the new measure, for a single trip, a driver will save $2 a day. Parking fee will go up 40 cents per hour in the city. So if a person drives to the city and parks for one hour, he will save $1.60 for that particular trip, petrol cost increase being relatively insignificant. And for a businessman who buys a monthly ALS disc, he would save up to $40 a month after taking into consideration parking fee increases. In fact, these savings will encourage more car owners to drive into the restricted zone. I say so because the Government has indeed confirmed this by saying that if the fees were not reduced that would lead to an under-utilization of our roads. Indeed the Government recognizes that and reduces the fees to encourage more people to drive into the restricted zone. But we must remember that people are creatures of habit. Once the habit to drive to work is developed and inculcated, to curb such habits in future more and more stringent measures would then be required to change it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can only say that while this reduction in entry fee will please the motorists in the short-term, it might be a short-sighted measure in the long term.

It is the evening ALS that I find quite difficult to rationalize. Granted that Government has ample evidence to show that there is congestion inside part of the restricted zone during the evening rush hours. But I do not think the civil servants formulating this evening ALS policy know exactly where those vehicles come from. From 4.30 pm to onwards to 5.00 pm, who are the drivers on the road? Are they businessmen returning to their parks in HDB estates, their counterparts? If these meetings are held inside the restricted zone, I would say that the evening ALS does not help matters. From 5.00 pm onwards, are the drivers driving cars that have been parked within the restricted zone suddenly leaving the restricted zonetaking them home after work? If that is so, then the evening ALS would not deter them from doing so. The outbound traffic will continue as before.

What the evening ALS would restrict are indeed cross-town traffic. These are drivers going through the restricted zone to save time and fuel on their way home after work and these vehicles do indeed contribute to congestion. But drivers of this nature would only reach the restricted zone at about 5.15 pm to 5.45 pm if they finish work by 5.00 pm. Since these are the only people whom the evening ALS aims to deter, perhaps the time of the evening ALS should be shortened to this period and should last no more than one hour. This way, there will be no major impact on drivers residing within the restricted zone. As it is now, the burden of reducing the traffic congestion falls on them instead of on the real culprits.

The second ramification of the evening ALS would then be the lack of taxis inside the restricted zone during those hours. Already a $1 incentive is needed to attract taxis into the restricted zone during the evening rush hours. Under the new measures, except for those taxis that have already acquired an ALS disc by carrying passengers into the restricted zone in the morning, most taxis would avoid it from 4.30 pm onwards. The available taxis are therefore only those already inside the restricted zone by 4.30 pm and those already possessing an ALS disc. It is quite clear to me that it would then in future become very difficult to find taxis once the evening ALS is in force. Queues would lengthen in the taxi stands, tempers would flare and Government would be blamed. I believe the Minister should consider a feasible solution right now and keep it up his sleeves. An obvious one would be to waive the ALS charges for taxis during the evening ALS.

My next disappointment with the package is the classification of motor-cycles as vehicles subject to entry fee into the restricted zone. Mr Speaker, Sir, the $1 levy is substantial and is a burden to motor-cyclists who are primarily from the lower income group. What is even more significant is that motor-cyclists henceforth are subjected to all the fee control schemes that motor vehicles are subjected to. With the electronic road pricing which will be pilot tested within two years, it seems to me that in future the Government would require all motor-cyclists to have a transponder installed in them. How much would the transponder cost? Would this cost increase the cost of owning a motor-cycle substantially? Would motor- cyclists be billed like motorists in the full implementation of the ERP? Mr Speaker, Sir, I would prefer to see motor-cyclists excluded from this fee control scheme. Anyway, in the past, the Government has never highlighted the population of motor-cycles on our roads to be a problem and I do not see the necessity of levying usage fees on motor-cycles under our current circumstances. Of course, I might be wrong but I believe the Minister needs to explain his rationale in this matter.

In conclusion, I would say that the principle to reduce car usage is a good one and it will be useful to try out the effectiveness of the new policy in controlling congestion on our roads. In this respect, I support the measures in increasing petrol duty and hourly parking fees although I think they will not be very effective. However, I find the measures in increasing HDB season parking fees difficult to justify and explain. Furthermore, while the evening ALS may be a viable solution, I would like to see a shorter period of evening ALS. Finally, I would urge the Government to reconsider the decision to impose ALS charges on motor-cycles.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the motion. 3.40 pm

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion.

The recent restraint measures for land transport announced by the Ministry of Communications and Information aim to control congestion by curbing road usage. The principles behind these measures to discourage excessive usage of roads are good and ought to be supported. The measures introduced, such as the petrol duty increase, the modified ALS scheme and the car park surcharge will all contribute to the objective. However, the various measures introduced together with the simultaneous increase of HDB car park charges have instead caused considerable unhappiness among Singaporean vehicle-owners. They are unhappy because they feel that the package as a whole is too big a dosage.

Sir, if we were to individually look at the measures introduced you can see that they are mainly unhappy over two of them. Firstly, the HDB season parking rates and, secondly, the evening ALS. The Minister for Communications and Information has given me the impression that, when dishing out measures to control traffic congestion on our roads, he prefers to administer them a small dose at a time and on a regular basis, be they the control of road usage or car ownership or both, for he believes that this approach is more palatable and will also produce the same result as that of big dosages administered once in a while. I agree with him for two reasons. Firstly, as we move towards controlling congestion by restraining road usage, a small dose at a time will result in better utilization of roads. This is because the traffic volume can then be constantly monitored and maintained at a satisfactory level. Secondly, unlike the ARF which controls car ownership, control of road usage is more painful to existing owners and therefore small dosages will allow them time to adjust, either

y giving up their car or switch to public transport some of the time.

However, Sir, in the recent measures taken there seems to be so many small doses given at the same time giving a cumulative effect of a big dosage. Although HDB car park charges have got nothing to do with MCI, the increase in season parking rates of 100% basically has the effect of car ownership restraint whatever good reasons HDB may have. Therefore, the increase cannot be viewed as a separate issue and must be viewed in the context of our land transport policy.

Sir, there must be therefore better coordination between MCI and MND regarding the timing and size of theincrease in parking rates so that the measures as a whole will not be viewed as excessive. It would have been better if the revision of HDB season parking rates is done over, say, two increases with prior warning given to the vehicle owners living in HDB estates.

Let me now come to the evening ALS. What do we gain from introducing the evening ALS? Obviously the traffic flow in CBD will be smoother as a result. But what is the fall-out? Sir, as we know from the information given by MCI, at the moment traffic condition in CBD in the evening is, in fact, less heavy than along the ring roads. The average speed of vehicles in the CBD during the evening period is about 26 km per hour. But along the ring roads it is much less, and sometimes during a localized traffic congestion it can go as slow as 11 km per hour. Therefore, by introducing evening ALS, more vehicles will be diverted to the ring roads, and I foresee that we are going to aggravate even more the traffic situation on the ring roads. Another problem is that the evening ALS is going to affect retail businesses in the CBD. More motorists will head for the ring roads to do their shopping and so on, and that will further aggravate the traffic conditions there.

Thirdly, as my GPC Chairman has mentioned, the evening ALS will also inconvenience the residents in the CBD. I suggest that, since we have introduced this car park surcharge, as a result of which the car park fee is going to increase, maybe we can delay the evening ALS and allow the hike in car park charges to work and see if it will achieve the desired results.

Finally, I would like to come to my last point. I would like to echo Dr Hong's point about the public transport system. As we move towards road usage restraint, we are asking car-owners to switch to public transport. Sir, generally these people are in the better income group, and getting them to switch to a cheaper means of transport means that the form of transport must be compatible to that of private cars. And if they cannot get a good standard ofservice in terms of comfort, time and convenience, it is not going to be attractive. I therefore support my GPC Chairman's proposal that the Government should look into ways and means as to how we can improve on the comfort, the convenience and the time in taking public transport so that Singaporeans can be encouraged to make a switch. Otherwise it is unlikely for them to give up their present mode of transport.

Sir, we have subsidized the MRT system so much that I think we ought to consider subsidizing public transport on an operating basis, so that we can have not just cheap public transport but at the same time quality public transport.

Sir, on that note, I urge the Ministry to review some of these measures that we have commented on. And I want to stress again that I support the principles behind these measures but I do not agree with some of the measures taken.

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Speaker, Sir, the package of measures introduced by the Government to ease traffic congestion, I believe, is a step in the right direction in our aim to tackle the problem of traffic congestion in Singapore. There is a distinct shift from measures restricting car ownership to measures curbing car usage. I dwelt on this subject at some length during the debate on the President's Address earlier this year. As Singapore progresses and as our society becomes more affluent, our people more educated, car ownership becomes more of a need than a luxury. People who are successful in their careers would naturally aspire to own a car. Hence, Sir, it would not be desirable, in the long term, for the Government to continue imposing measures restraining car ownership to frustrate the people's aspiration to own a car. Besides, recent events have shown that car ownership measures tend to benefit existing car owners and encourage those thinking of getting a car to buy one before it is too late, speculating on Government's possible increase in taxes. In fact, car ownership has become an investment in Singapore. I know of no other country in the world where ordinary car owners, other than car dealers, can profit from owning a car.

Sir, Singaporeans fully agree that there is a need to prevent traffic congestion from reaching crisis proportions. Many of us who have travelled to places like Bangkok, Tokyo, Taipei, Hong Kong and other major cities will understand and appreciate the Government's concern about traffic congestion. However, there are certain aspects of the measures introduced that have caused unhappiness amongst the people. Allow me to elaborate.

Firstly, as some Members have already spoken, the extension of the ALS to evening hours from 4.30 pm to 7.00 pm is a good idea. Many people support it, except those resident in the CBD but working outside the CBD. These car owners find it absurd having to pay to return home during CBD hours or to stay in their office until after 7.00 pm. Many will probably choose the latter option and this might affect the pattern of their family life.

Sir, another change in the ALS which puzzles people is the reduction in the ALS fees from $5 to $3, and the inclusion of car pooling in the scheme. This new measure allows those who can afford the ALS fees and who have been paying so far to pay less, while those who cannot afford and have to car-pool to enter CBD now have to pay to enter the CBD. Sir, there is merit in considering exemption for car pools when Government has been encouraging people to form car pools. People have responded and this has become a way of life, a pattern for them. And now car pools have to pay. There is some inconsistency. Maybe the Minister can reconsider this.

Sir, it is also strongly felt that motorcyclists should not be included in the ALS scheme. It is debatable as to what extent motorcycles contribute to traffic congestion. The Government to-date has not made a strong case to convince most of us. Again, like the car pools, I would urge the Government to reconsider the inclusion of motorcycles in the ALS.

Sir, the 100% increase in the HDB residential season parking fees from $25 to $50 has, in fact, angered many HDB car owners. Although the Ministry of National Development has explained that the revision is to move towards full recovery of the economic cost associated with providing parking facilities, many residents view this measure as contradictory to the Government's objective of reducing traffic congestion through curbing car usage. For example, an HDB car owner wishing to switch to MRT and to use his car only during the weekends, finds that he still has to bear a high cost of leaving his car at home. The increase is also seen as being too drastic and too sudden. Not enough time is given for people to adjust to the increase. This applies also to all the other increases. Many people feel that sufficient notice should have been given to enable them to make adjustments to their budget to meet these increases. Maybe the Ministry of Communications can take a leaf from the Ministry of Labour when it announced its CPF limits. People know what the CPF limits are 20% employer, 20% employee. This is the target, and everybody can make the necessary adjustments. A similar scheme can be announced for HDB car parks with periodic adjustments. Mr Speaker, Sir, I dare say that if such an approach is taken by the Ministry of National Development, these increases can be made more palatable to the people.

All in all, the package of measures appears to favour generally the higher income group who can afford these increases. It is still not equitable as it should be. In the long term, the electronic road pricing system would be the solution. Maybe the Minister can brief this House on what further progress has been made to set up this system as quickly as possible.

Sir, I would like to add that while the Government has introduced this series of measures and is contemplating other measures to further restrict car ownership, it should also provide the people with a practical and suitable alternative to car usage. This has been touched on at some length by the Chairman of GPC, Dr Hong Hai. This is especially so when the car is at present the best form of transport. I am referring to our public transport system. Although our MRT system is one of the best and most comfortable in the world, it only serves those living along or in the vicinity of the MRT routes.

The Ministry does not consider taxis as part of the public transport system. If we want to encourage the people to give up their cars and make use of public transport, our public transport system must be further improved and made as efficient as possible so that car users will be attracted to switch from cars to public transport. Besides improving the public transport system, I would also urge the Government to examine other measures such as building two-tier carriageways in congested areas, reviewing traffic flow in our roads to reduce bottlenecks, and also building more car parks near MRT stations, which the Minister will disagree, or at least provide bicycle parking lots near the MRT stations.

Sir, car ownership is a very personal and emotional issue. We must broach this subject rationally and objectively to come up with measures which, even though not totally acceptable to all people, would at least be understood by the people.

Mr Tang Guan Seng: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent announcement of certain measures by the Ministry of Communications and Information was aimed at curbing the use of roads. I support the principles underlying these measures. There are two principles involved. One is to ensure that there is free flow of traffic on the roads. The second principle is that those who cause traffic congestion on the roads should pay a price for it. Our land transport conditions are unique. Space is so limited. A survey points out that at the moment, we have 250,000 cars. If the number increases to 350,000 cars, then not only will the central business district will be affected but also those fringe areas and the new towns. Calculated on the assumption of an increase in our car population of 10,000 per year, in the very short time of 10 years there will be a situation where cars may not be able to move freely on the roads. Therefore, the problem of traffic congestion should be regarded as a problem that every citizen should face up to.

At present, the recent measures have caused certain dissatisfaction. This is due to the following reasons. One is over the increase in parking fees particularly for season parking in HDB car parks. This measure appears to be contrary to the idea of curbing the use of cars on the roads and has caused certain misunderstanding and dissatisfaction. The second reason is that motorcyclists will also have to pay $1 to enter the CBD. This has caused unhappiness to the motorcyclists who are mainly of the lower income group. The third reason is that CBD businessmen and residents feel that if the evening area licensing scheme were to be implemented, it would adversely affect their business and livelihood. From these murmurings of dissatisfaction, we can see that the problem of traffic congestion in the CBD cannot be resolved by any measure in isolation. Consideration must also be given to the livelihood of the people.

At present, the authorities are making a survey of the number of vehicles entering the CBD to assess the effects of the new measures. I would urge the authorities concerned to assess the effects not just in terms of traffic conditions but also in terms of the business and the livelihood of the businessmen and residents before modifying the measures. In taking a holistic approach, we should have such a comprehensive plan, and it should not be the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Communications and Information but should also be the responsibility of other relevant Government Ministries such as MTI and so on. If there is a co-ordinated and comprehensive plan, then there would not be such dissatisfactions as are now taking place.

When talking about measures to tackle traffic problems, at the moment there are two approaches. One is about the curbing of the use of roads and the other the restriction on the ownership of vehicles. I have just been saying that if the total number of cars had been more than 350,000 then the congestion on the roads would be very severe. I would like to ask the Ministry of Communications and Information what the long term policy on the restriction of car ownership is. I feel that measures of important thing is that we should provide a comprehensive and effective package of public transport systems for the people.

Earlier the Chairman of the GPC on Communications and Information suggested improvement of the services of the MRT. I wholly support such a suggestion. If the eastern line of the MRT is operational, then the transport problem of the people living in the eastern part of Singapore would be alleviated. Similarly, if some basic facilities of the MRT could be improved, more people could be encouraged to use its services.

We should also not forget another component of the public transport system-the buses. The bus service should complement the MRT system in providing our residents with an effective system of public transport. Thank you.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the Motion moved by Dr Hong Hai,

At the end, to add ---

'but regrets that some of the measures are too hastily introduced and too harsh; and that this House urges the Ministry to review them.'

Sir, I would like to thank you for allowing me to move this amendment. My colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, and myself have given serious thought to the main motion, and we both feel strongly that for meaningful debate, this amendment is necessary.

I would like to explain to the House why we feel that this amendment is necessary. Having persuaded hon. Members, we ask for their support. All of us in the House must remind ourselves that in our parliamentary democracy, Parliament reigns supreme. All important policies of State should first be presented to the House, debated and a decision subsequently taken after hearing Members' views. The Ministry of Communications and Information has again made this serious omission in its announcement of its package of measure to curb car usage. It is indeed unfortunate that its press release "INTERIM RESTRAINT MEASURES FOR LAND TRANSPORT" was not first tabled for debate in Parliament. Yes, we may again be told that tax and revenue announcements must be kept secret. However, I believe that a blue paper could and should have been presented for a full debate without mention of pricing figures and dates of implementation. The Ministry could then take Members' views into consideration and act accordingly. This is parliamentary democracy. This is the expected norm in parliamentary practice. This is more important when this House has only one elected Opposition Member and one NCMP. The people of Singapore have given us, the PAP, their mandate, and we must represent their views in Parliament.

Another very important aspect of Parliamentary debate is that this will allow for all Singaporeans to follow the arguments for and against, ie, it will help us to secure the understanding and acceptance by Singaporeans of new policies.

If we debate the motion in its original form, it would be a meaningless debate. It would merely mean talk and more talk. The difference in the amendment is that it calls upon the Ministry to review the policies after hearing Members' views. If this motion receives the support of this House, then the Ministry cannot ignore the views of hon. Members. To do so would be to do it in defiance of a motion carried in this House. Are we asking for the unrealistic or impossible? Are we trying to place obstacles in the path of the Ministry? Are we trying to upset the system? Are we being unreasonable? No. What the House will be doing is to remind the Ministry that it has an obligation to listen, think over again, then act in good faith. Out of the inputs of 81 elected Members must come some good suggestions. The carrying of this motion will also signal to all Singaporeans that we, as their elected Members, are not impotent in presenting their views. The original motion provides the forum for debate, but the amended motion calls for action after the debate. As the saying goes, "Action speaks louder than words". Herein lies the very important difference between the amended motion and the original motion, and I call upon all Members to lend us their support.

Sir, I do not intend to discuss every single measure recommended by the Ministry, but merely to make out a case that there is a need for a review of the proposed measures. I consider that the measures have been introduced too hastily. Why do I say this?

Firstly, the MRT is only partially completed. Secondly, there is a lack of MRT/bus integration. Thirdly, access to the MRT stations, ie, having a convenient means to reach the stations is still a problem. Fourthly, there is still room for improvement in the bus service to make it more attractive to the motorist. In summary, while deterrent measures are being implemented, are alternatives being offered to the motorists?

Sir, in the planning of an efficient public transport system, the feelings of the people must be considered. A realistic balance must be struck between consumer expectation vis-a-vis statistical criteria of traffic congestion. In our consideration of land transportation, we should not be obsessed by motor vehicle population only. We should not be obsessed by vehicular speed only. After all, what is the definition of a "traffic jam" or "congested roads"? What is "acceptable restraining measures"? What is reasonable? What is unreasonable? These are all very subjective.

Let me illustrate with two examples. One, after the opening of a transport conference two years ago, an official from a foreign country came to congratulate me, ie, Singapore, for our wonderful traffic management. He was complimenting us on our ALS, PARF and our car ownership disincentives. I asked him if he was going to recommend this to his own government. He looked at me aghast and answered, "Of course not". I was astounded. I asked him, "Why?" His answer, "Firstly, it will be politically unacceptable and, secondly, I [ie, he himself] will not be able to afford a car."

At a diplomatic function one night, I met an expatriate. He had just come back from Hong Kong. Again, he was singing praises for how good our roads were, and how pleasant it was to work in the CBD in Singapore with the ALS. Again I asked him if he would recommend our system to his home government. He answer was "No". So I asked him why he was recommending it for Singaporeans. He was very honest in his answer. Being an expatriate in Singapore, his company paid for all his transport bills. If he was back home, he would have to pay from his own pocket - like us Singaporeans.

Sir, measures proposed for implementation must be very carefully thought through. The advantages to the Singaporean motorist must be convincing. There must be acceptable alternative travel modes. Disincentives, by its nature, will be painful, but still in the final analysis, affordable. The measures proposed by the Ministry have deep social and economic implications, as may have been mentioned by many of my colleagues. Some of the questions I would like to raise are:

(1) What are the implications for residents living in the restricted zone?

(2) What will be its effect on retailers in the restricted zone, with the implementation of the evening ALS?

(3) What about those studying in the restricted zone?

(4) What about family arrangements with the evening ALS? What is the social implication of this?

(5) What will be the inflationary effect of all these measures?

(6) Will the restricted zone be under populated when Singaporeans decide no longer to live in it? How does this fit into the Master Plan regarding maximum utilization of land?

(7) The Ministry in its haste to implement these measures have forgotten that the whole eastern sector of Singapore has no MRT service today; likewise, other parts of Singapore. Do these people have any alternative? Is this fair to them?

Sir, I will now deal with the harshness of these measures. The measures are harsh in two ways:

First, the net effect of all these is to increase the cost of motoring very substantially; and

Secondly, it is very much more harsh on those who can least afford it, and may even affect those who do not own a vehicle, through inflation.

Sir, the policy to shift the restraining measures from vehicle ownership to vehicle utilization is welcomed. Indeed, this was what I was advocating. But what is done now is to add tax upon tax. The cost of car ownership remains status quo, but disincentives for utilization are added. This is difficult to accept. As I have said before, this can even be counter-productive when a person asks himself, "Why am I paying so much to leave my car at home?" In particular, I wish to point out that the petrol tax is not a utilization tax. It is as good as an ownership tax for can anyone of us run our vehicle on anything else but petrol? It is a frustration tax. It merely irritates and frustrates the car owner as it is non-discriminating. It is a "blind tax" that cannot differentiate whether the petrol is being burnt up in Orchard Road or in Changi. Whether it is being burnt up on Sunday or a Public Holiday or during peak hours on a working day. It will hit hardest those who need to travel to make a living. Salesmen who call on clients and people providing home services. For those requiring home services, for example, TV repairs, electrical/plumbing repairs, the cost will go up. The inflationary aspect cannot be denied.

Likewise, the 100% increase in parking fees in public housing estates. This is not utilization tax. This is as good as ownership tax. What is the alternative to the present HDB car owner? This also applies to the increase in parking charges in the restricted zone. As has been mentioned by one of my colleagues earlier, it is totally illogical that you encourage more people to enter the CBD by lowering the toll then frustrate them by increasing the parking charges.

Sir, have the measures been equitably applied? A Business Times report on 17th May 1989 states. I quote: "latest anti-congestion measures affect junior executives most". Junior executive (definition: salary $2,500) will spend 2.1% of salary more per month on transportation. Middle executive (salary $4,000) will spend 0.5% more. Senior executive (salary $8,000) will spend 0.1% more. What is not mentioned is the poor motor cyclist. Motorcycle growth reported a minus growth of 3.2% in 1987 over 1986, and 0.9% growth for the period 1988 over 1987; less than 1% growth. Is this so alarming that we must now let the sledge hammer fall on motorcyclists? Based merely on the question of growth in numbers, there is no need to punish the motorcyclists entering the restricted zone.

Sir, 70% of cars are in the 1001 to 1600 cc range. A 1600 cc car owner will pay a road tax of $1,440 per annum. 70% of motor cycles are in the 101 cc to 200 cc range. A 200 cc motorcycle owner will pay road tax of $30 per annum. However, his cost of entering the restricted zone will be $240 per annum. That of the car owner is $720 per annum. For the motorcyclist the cost of entering the restricted zone is eight times his road tax. For the motor car owner the cost of entering the restricted zone is half of his annual road tax. Is this equitable?

Sir, I feel that we have let down the Scheme B buses. In the 1970s when the bus service was undergoing reorganization, they played a vital role. Now we seem to have forgotten their contribution. Once they were a vital part of our public transport system. Now the SBS and TIBS have improved their services, they are no longer treated as public service vehicles. Is this consistent policy, as asked by one of my colleagues earlier? First, taxis were penalized. Now Scheme B buses. SBS and TIBS had better be on the alert now. One day the MRT may be regarded as the only public transport system.

Sir, I wish to reiterate that the proposed measure will have tremendous social and economic repercussions. They need further evaluation before implementation. I agree that electronic road pricing will be one of the most important measures for controlling road utilization in the future. It is my earnest hope that it will not take up to seven years to put the ERP in place. I believe that if we have the political will, this gap can be closed. The target should be 3-5 years. Last but not least, we must continually upgrade the public transport system that we now have. One of the most pressing questions as has been mentioned earlier is how do we make MRT travel more convenient? Better feeder services? Park-and-ride? The bus services must also be improved and we must press on with Bus/MRT integration. We must also keep our minds open to other forms of mass people-mover system. Will a light-rail-transport system be necessary in the future to complement the MRT?

In conclusion, I urge all members to lend us their support. This amended motion will place the onus on the Ministry merely to have a re-look on its policy after listening to Members of this House. We are not asking for anything more. If the Minister after his re-look believes that all his policies are correct, so be it.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Fengshan has proposed, as an amendment, at end to add,

' ... but regrets that some of the measures are too hastily introduced and too harsh; and that this House urges the Ministry to review them.'

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of the Member for Fengshan because the amendment calls for a review of some of the measures taken recently to curb car growth. I would not have supported him if he had amended the motion to the effect that the recent measures were all unreasonable. In fact, I would probably oppose such an amendment. But the Member is a reasonable person and therefore I agreed to support him. And as a request for a review is fair, I think Members of this House should consider his amendment carefully and give their full support.

To the ordinary man in the street, the motion moved by Dr Hong Hai is not action-orientated. What Dr Arthur Beng's amendment seeks to achieve is to get things done, not just words, to express the people's unhappiness. It also reflects the general feelings of many Singaporeans, especially those from the HDB estates. They do understand the need to have less traffic congestion and are prepared to accept certain measures to achieve this end. But they feel that, contrary to what the Ministry feels, some of the measures taken are not relatively mild, but harsh. If you think that a 100% rise in season parking is mild, I wonder what is harsh.

After the 1988 General Elections, the Singaporean has to pay more for his maid, more for his taxi fares, more for his children's tertiary education, more for his health bills, more for his road and diesel taxes, and now more for his petrol, his season parking, his hourly parking, and for some, a $3 surcharge if he wants to get to his home in the CBD between 4.30 pm and 7.00 pm, or to bring his child home in the evening from a school in the CBD area. Soon, he will have to pay more for his coffee, more for his hawker's food and drink, because the hawkers complained that they have to pay 100% more for their parking fees, both at home and at their place of work. Transport costs and services will naturally go up because your petrol prices have gone up, leading eventually to inflation and also more Singaporeans going across the Causeway and its consequent loss of revenue.

In the coffee shop, the talk is that most of us in this House, Ministers, Members of Parliament and the richer Singaporeans who live in private homes, do not have to pay for the season parking fees because we have our own private lots and therefore we do not feel the pinch so much, and we do not care so much. This perception that the measures hit out at them must be dispelled. We have to explain more and, in this context, I agree with the Member for Fengshan that we should have more discussions with the ground. For example, we talk now that the car parks in the HDB were heavily subsidized and must be recovered. It is a little too late now because when we now tell them that the car parking lots are subsidized, they turn around and say, "Look, this is a building requirement and therefore when we pay for our flats, you have probably taken into account all this cost." This is something which they think and it is important that I think the Minister for National Development has to explain more. It is not pleasant but I think it is necessary that you all should know.

HDB dwellers may not be aware that the private home owners pay for their parking space when they pay for their property. It is an upfront payment. It is part of the deal. It is not free. But the point is that they feel that we are just searching for answers to justify what we want to do.

Then I heard the Member for Bukit Timah asking for the scrapping of the PARF and I got a cutting from the Business Times quoting the Minister for Trade and Industry in his speech sometime back when he was in Washington: "higher petrol tax and removal of PARF system could be the next step".

Dr Wang Kai Yuen rose --

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, will you allow Dr Wang to make a clarification?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock resumed his seat.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: In my speech I did not ask for the scrapping of the PARF. What I said was that to make the car ownership policy effective, one way to do it is to make the depreciation real and substantial. And I say the scrapping of PARF is very unpopular and will be very drastic. I did not ask for the scrapping of the PARF.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Well, it amounts somewhat to that. But I think we must be very careful. In fact, BG Lee Hsien Loong's statement has actually destabilized the motor car industry. It is serious. It has created uncertainty and worry among car owners, car dealers and even financial houses. Why is this so? Because removal of the PARF would immediately reduce the value of your car to zero. Here, I must declare that all my cars have got no PARF value. Can't afford to buy new cars with all the measures introduced by the Ministry of Communications.

On a more serious note, if out of your 250,000 cars, about 150,000 are private cars with PARF value of, say, about average $10,000. There will be written off $1.5 billion worth of assets. I was told that the financial institutions after hearing BG Lee's speech in the US, have also started to recall some of the loans from some of these car dealers. So you must be careful. Your words are very powerful.

I think the PARF is a good system. You scrap one car to buy a new car. You can fine-tune it, but don't scrap it.

I remember our Prime Minister once lamented at the lack of activity and life in the city. How are we going to bring back life to the city when the Ministry of Communications and Information is unhappy that Singaporeans are getting into the city between 4.00 and 7.00 pm to shop, to eat, to relax? You must understand our climate. Singapore's climate is very, very hot, and the best period is around after 5.00 to 7.00 pm. I think you should not take this period away from us with your evening ALS. You spend millions of dollars to upgrade your shopping centres, your recreational facilities, to have a nice Marina Bay, and yet you impose this ALS system. Now, I wonder if you want to take a walk along Marina Bay you have to pay $3, no one is going to do that. I think you please review that too. Don't take life away from the city with your evening ALS.

Mr Speaker, I urge the Members of this House to support the amended motion because it is, as I said, not unreasonable. Most of the speakers, I am sure, will agree with what I have said and will also probably be emphasizing and talking in more detail the points I have just put across. With their support, I am sure that the Minister for Communications and Information I should think he is a more reasonable person now will come to accept that some of the measures introduced should indeed be reviewed.

Mr Speaker: It is 4.30 pm. Debate to be resumed what day, Dr Hong Hai?

Dr Hong Hai: Tomorrow, Sir.