MEASURES TO CURB ROAD USAGE

Debate Resumed.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Encik Abdullah's amendment

I feel disappointed with Dr Arthur Beng's objection to Encik Abdullah's amendment. Yesterday when Dr Arthur Beng brought up this amendment motion I felt that he was both unforgettable and incompresible because his motion for amendment somehow gives us a feeling that he was putting the cart before the horse. So I feld disappointed just now when Dr Beng objected to Encik Abdullah's amendment. I refuse to accept his saying that the measures were too hastily introduced. I know that the Government has already given the people psychological preparation long ago and so when these measures were brought up hey should not feel that these were too sudden. The editorials of Lianhe Zao Bao and Shin Min Jit Bao on 17 May 1989, mentioned that most of the people felt that the announcement of these measures was expected. These two editproa;s, therefore, have proved that what Dr Arthur Beng felt of the introduction of these measures being too hasty was not true.

As for Dr Arthur Beng's opinion that these measures are too harsh, it depends on one's opinion. For those who do not own cars and those who are concerned about Singapore becoming a second London, felt that these measures were good measures. However, for those who own cars, they have felt a stab in their hearts. Of course, we would be able to understand their feelings.

Thse car owners are also dissapointed because not only are they unable to increase the value of their cars, their expenses increase too. Dr Arthur Beng also mentioned that those worst affected were those who can least afford. I disagree with him on this and will use Geylang West, my constituency, as an example.

In my constituency, we have about 5,794 families of which 3,556 families are living in 3 or less flats, which accounts for 61.4%. However, among these 5,794 families, 1,604 families or 27.6% own vehicles and 302 families or 5.21% own motor cycles. That is to say, in Geylang West, 72.32% do not own vehicles. If we were to minus 400 vehicles belonging to companies, then the number of families will be 79% for non-car owners and 95% for non-motorcycle owners. For those who live in the 1 or 2-room flats in Geylang West:- there are only 37 vehicles and 21 motorcycles among them, which accounts for 0.6% and 0.0036% respectively. These proves that people who can least afford do not dare to won cars and, these increases, therefore least affect them. So, to the lower income group, what they need most is a better public transport service. I do not know what the Member for Fengshan and Non-Constituency Member meant yesterday when they talked about the worst affected being those who can least afford land the lower and middle income group of people owning the most vehicles and motor cycles respectively. I just cannot understand. Owing to the above reasons, I do not agree with the amendment brought up by Dr Arthure Beng. However, I support the original motion brought forward by Dr Hong Hai which was amended by Encik Abdullah.

The great increase in the parking fees for uncovered lots in the HDB estates, the payment of fees for all vehicles entering CBD and the implementation of evening ALS have really caused many to be confused over the rationale for these peoposals. I hope the MCI could consider the following six recommendations:

(1) Widen our existing traffic network such as the MRT lines and increase the services of public buses to cater for the lower and middle income group.

(2) Stop building car park lots and also decrease the allocation of parking lots within the CBD area. Provision should be made to convert extra parking lots in housing estates for other users. This would lessen the maintenance expenses incurred by the HDB. For example, there are presently 2,190 parking lots for cars in Geylang West, of which 1,604 lots are actually being utilized, leaving 586 empty lots. There are 1,441 lots for motorcycles, of which 302 are being utilized, leaving 1,139 empty lots.

(3) Provision for half-hourly parking to enable better utilization of existing lots.

(4) Scrap PARF provision. I agree with what the Minister for Trade and Industry mentioned during his US trip. This will enable motor cars to be re-classified as consumer products and not as an investments.

(5) Prevent banks and finance companies from providing vehicle loans.

(6) Restrict car ownersship. Following the economic recovery, the urge to own cars will be on the increase. As such, car ownership could be based on monthly income, in the same way as the application for a credit card. This will prevent those who evade taxes and so-called low income group from owning motor cars. At the same time, owners or two or more cars could be levied a higher road tax, import duty and parking fees. This would deter them from purchasing cars for their children who have yet to be economically useful.

According to a survey by the newspapers, a 1300 cc medium-sized cars would require $484.80 as monthly maintenance, which is even more costly than maintaining a child. So, as such, it will definitely help to curb the increasing number of cars if we could enable car owners to understand that it is not an investment but a burden to own cars. Sir, I therefore support Encik Abdullah's amendment.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on points of clarification.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, I would first like to ask the Member, Mr Peh, whether he has any opinion of his own other than just the editorial of Shin Min.

Second, he says that a psychological preparation has been done long ago. Perhaps he has not been listening to what I have said this morning. He says I am incomprehensible. Perhaps he is not capable of comprehending.

Third, is his Constituency representative of all Singapore? Has he not heard what the Member for Mountbatten has spoken this morning?

Fourth, is he not aware of the effect of the present measures on all his constituents, including that of his non-vehicle owning constituents?

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I heard Dr Beng saying about his accusation of the Government's hasty introduction of these measures. He said that we could wait for a comprehensive land transportation system to be implemented before we take such measures? But can we wait? Can we wait until that time to solve the problem? Can we wait until a person is sick before we say we have no medicine? You have to wait for the medicine.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam rose ---

Mr Speaker: I think you should allow Mr Peh to finish responding.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Can I just clarify only one point, Sir?

Mr Speaker: He is clarifying your clarification.

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): Secondly, he mentioned that whether my constituency could represent the whole of Singapore. Of course, this cannot be so. But I am using my constituency as an example. I would also like to ask him whether in Fengshan there are many people belonging to the lower income group. Are they richer than the constituents in my constituency?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like again to say that I have explained the reasons why I have talked about the hasty measures. I do not intend to repeat them. As to whether the people in Fengshan are also all non-car owners, I would say no. We have a largely middle-class population in Fengshan and he has no right to speak for my residents in Fengshan.

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): I agree with Dr Beng that I have no right to speak for his constituents. But I wish to rebut what he said yesterday. This morning in the Lianhe Zaobao there is this report which says:

'Dr Beng spoke with great emotion that these measures taken by the Government are too harsh. First it would greatly increase the burden of using the motor cars. Secondly, the biggest hit people are those who can least afford.'

Are you saying that the hardest hit are those economically weak, living in the 1-room or 2-room flats or are you referring to those in the middle income group, like your constituents?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: I would again ask the Member not to rely on newspaper reports but to turn to the verbatim report of what I have said.

The Minister for Communications and Information (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate at this juncture. I shall be giving a lengthy reply to the many Members of Parliament who have spoken on the subject and who have put forward a large number of proposals. I intend to take those detailed comments later on when we revert to the debate on the main motion. Suffice it for me at the moment just to respond very briefly to some of the comments made on the amendments.

Sir, I will start with the last amendment, ie, the amendment put forward by Mr Abdullah Tarmugi. Sir, the Member for Siglap is amending the motion to read, "but urged the Ministry to review the specific measures regularly in view of the uncertainties". The Ministry carries out reviews of its policies all the time,regularly. I would go along with that particular amendment because it is an amendment that is sound.

Sir, the present package of measures obviously will have some impact on the overall travel pattern, on people's choice of doing one thing versus another, of doing it a little earlier versus doing it a little later, or the other way round - doing it a little later instead of doing it a little earlier. These are the actions which the measures are designed to induce. In other words, if you can get people to go into the CBD at slightly different times, we may be able to create a CBD that is less congested during the peak periods. And a free flow of traffic, as has been pointed out by many Members, is good for the nation because congestion imposes a very high cost on the economy. I am happy to support the motion by the Member for Siglap.

The Member also urged greater public participation. Indeed the debate today is an illustration of the much greater participation by Backbenchers and , by Office holders. I think it is a healthy sign. It means that Members are able to reflect a wide spectrum of views. This is a positive development in our parliamentary system with Members being able to speak freely, reflecting the views of their constituents.

There is also another point raised by the Chairman of the GPC for MCI. He has asked for the possibility of his GPC conducting open hearings to collect views from members of the public. I welcome that too. Indeed the First Deputy Prime Minister urged the various GPCs to go out and seek views of members of the public. Members of the GPCs have been doing that already. Now they can do it with open hearings where previously these were normally held in closed-door sessions. I would urge the Chairman of the GPC to commence his hearings. But, first of all, allow the measures a certain amount of time to work - three months, four months. We should give time for the people to adapt to the new measures because we must expect a certain amount of change after the measures have been introduced. The GPC can get the views of professionals, get the views of hawkers, get the views of experts, get the views of everybody, and then look at them carefully and then give the Ministry their considered opinion, theirrecommendations on what we need to do further. I look forward to receiving recommendations from the GPC for Communications and Information.

Sir, I now turn to the other three amendments put forward by the Member for Fengshan, Mr Ng Pock Too and the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, Dr Lee Siew-Choh. The thrust of those three amendments is similar. Dr Beng, the Member for Fengshan, emphasized the fact that the measures were too hasty and he has got a number of different definitions why he considered it hasty. Initially, he said that we have not taken this package of measures to Parliament, not discussing it in detail. Then earlier on this afternoon, he said that we do not have a satisfactory public transport system - MRT has not been completed in the eastern sector of the island, no proper bus integration system and so forth - a number of different possibilities but all leading to the suggestion that we should not take any action at all.

Sir, I submit that the measures have not been hastily arrived at. Indeed, here I believe the Non-Constituency MP has got it right. These measures have been looked at very carefully, very thoroughly. The Ministry indicated in its press release last year in November when it increased the road tax by a marginal quantum that the Ministry was doing a thorough review, with a view to coming up with a package of measures that would restrain usage. This was in response to widespread urgings by Members of Parliament, both outside and in this House, calling upon the Ministry to move away from ownership restraint to usage restraint. My Ministry has taken the various proposals put up by the different Members of Parliament. We have looked at them very carefully over the last six months. We have representatives from a number of ministries. They include the Ministry of National Development, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, PWD, ROV and Traffic Police. And the measures were arrived at after six months of detailed deliberation.

At the same time, Sir, you may recall that the Minister for Trade and Industry announced during the Budget debate that the Government was setting up an Economic Policy Review Committee reporting directly to the Minister and comprising Permanent Secretaries of the different ministries. They too have reviewed very carefully the Government's land transportation policy, particularly from the point of ensuring that it supports the economic development of Singapore. So we have not rushed into this. We have been very careful. We have been very deliberate, and the measures have been arrived at.

Members will recall that during the Committee of Supply debate I went to great lengths to explain to Members of the House the rationale behind the Government's basic policy in land transportation, the strategy behind the various measures. Indeed, Sir, I even went to the extent of naming the measures that were actively under consideration. The only thing that I did not do at that time was to announce the dollars and cents and to announce the date. Sir, I quote from the Hansard:

'The measures [under study by the Ministry] include higher duty on petrol [which is what we have imposed], parking charges [which is what we have imposed] and the possible extension of the ALS by way of its application to all vehicles contributing to the congestion [which we have introduced for implementation on 1st June].' Then I concluded, Sir:

'I hope when these measures are finalized in about two to three months' time, [that was in March] Members of this House, who have advocated strongly the use of measures to restrain usage, will give the Ministry their full support.'

Sir, we have not arrived at the measures hastily. We cannot wait until we have a perfect public transport system. Members will recall that way back in the early '70s we started moving on restraint measures because if we had not done so the situation in Singapore today would be very different. Members of this House who have been to other cities in Asia, in Europe, in the United States, would know the state of traffic conditions. We could not have waited because we had no MRT at that time. We were then only talking about the MRT. If we had waited until we had the MRT where would we be today? We had very few expressways, then. We had no proper bus system at that time. Members will recall the various bus companies on the verge of collapse and the Government had to send in a full team of officers to put the bus companies together, put it in shape, run the bus companies and create what is today - SBS, functioning reasonably well but not perfectly. At that time we did not even have proper taxis. We only had pirate taxis. Those were the very early days, just before the introduction of NTUC Comfort. If we had done nothing at that time and since then, because all these perfections were not available, where would we be today? We had to proceed. And at the same time improve the public transport system as we go along. Similarly we have to proceed with restraint measures now.

Sir, the Member also said in his amendment that the measures were harsh. Sir, "harsh" is very subjective. Yes, the measures will have some effect on some people because if they have no effect at all, they would not work. When we introduced a small increase in tax in November last year, an average of about $20, $25, per car owner, word that went round in coffee shops was that, it was too mild; that it would have no effect whatsoever. That was about $25 per car owner. The present package is of a similar order. Overall, it will be in the order of about $100 to $150 million more imposed upon the economy. What does that mean in terms of dollars and cents per vehicle owner? The cost are 500,000 vehicles in Singapore, half a million. That works out to be approximately $17 to $25 per month per vehicle; not cars anymore, but per vehicle, because this series of measures applies across the board to all vehicles. On this occasion, the unhappiness is much more widespread, as reflected by the many speeches of Members of this House sho articulated very sincerly the feed back that they have received from their residents.

So I believe that "harsh" is relative. Yes, because the measures are based on usage rather than on ownership, there is greater variation in the extent of impact on different vehicle owners. Take for example, one extreme. A motorcyclist, if he does not go into the CBD, is hardly affected by the ALS scheme. He just pays a marginal increase for his car park and pays a marginal increase for his petrol. On the other hand, those who previously went into the CBD free will now have to bear a greater burden. But looking at it overall, the impact this round is only marginally higher than that in November. So I believe the measures are not too harsh. If the measures are any milder, then almost certainly in the coffeeshops it would be have said that the measures will have no effect whatsoever.

Sir, the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee, said that the measures are not equitable. I would have thought it is patently clear to anyone that the measures are equitable. How does one sell a bowl of noddles to one's patrons? How does one charge them? Does one ask them: what is your income this month? And then charge him accordingly? Is that how they operate in the hawker centres? Is that how they operate in the shops? Is that how they operate in restaurants? Do doctors ask the income of their patients before they decide on charges?

It is not practical to devise a mechanism where the Ministry sits in judgment and decides who should or should not be allowed to own a car, who should or should not be allowed to go into the CBD, who should or should not be allowed to do a whole long list of things. Sir, we operate a market economy, and it has made Singapore successful. We are one of the most successful of the developing countries because we have approached our problems rationally, logically, systematically. And that same approach has got to be applied to what is an extremely complex problem - that of managing the vast demands for use of our roads by a wide spectrum of people in a very large number of different circumstances. And the market distributes that scarce commodity - roads - best of all. It gives us the best use for our roads, which means it gives us the best use for our land. Hence I believe that the measures that we have introduced are equitable and fair.

Sir, I would urge Members of this House to reject the three amendments and to give their support to Mr Abdullah Tarmugi who has urged the Ministry to carry out regular reviews.

Mr Speaker: I shall put the Questions on the amendments to the amendment in the order in which they relate to the text of the original amendment. Once an amendment to the original amendment is agreed upon, the remaining amendments to the amendment will not be put to the vote.

The first part of Mr Abdullah Tarmugi's amendment is to leave out all the words after "but".

The first part of Dr Lee's amendment is to leave out all the words after "regrets".

The first part of Mr Ng Pock Too's amendment is to only leave out all the words after "measures".

I shall first put the Question on Mr Abdullah Tarmugi's amendment as it relates to the earliest part of the original amendment.

Question, "That the word "regrets" proposed to be left out, be left out.", put, and agreed to.

Remaining words ordered to be left out.

Question, "That the words proposed by Mr Abdullah Tarmugi to be inserted, be there inserted.", put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Mr Abdullah Tarmugi's amendment to the original amendment having been agreed to, the amendments proposed by Dr Lee and Mr Ng will not be put to the vote.

We come now to the original amendment, as amended, which reads -

"but urges the Ministry to review the specific measures regularly as their effects are uncertain".

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted.", put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The original Question, as amended, is now before the House, that is, -

"That this House supports the principles underlying the latest measures introduced by the Ministry of Communications and Information to curb road usage but urges the Ministry to review the specific measures regularly as their effects are uncertain.".

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tiong Bahru GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me join in this debate. With due respect to my hon. colleagues, our constituents did not elect us to outdo each other in Parliament in a contest of amendments. I think whatever we decide today, whatever amendment is carried, the people will be similarly affected. The Minister for Communications made it very clear that the measures must have effect for us to change the travelling behaviour of the public. I accept that, Sir. What we must try to achieve today in this Chamber is to make sure that there is quality in the debate and that ultimately Members and, of course, the public, will learn from what has been discussed here.

Sir, the latest measures, except for the HDB season parking charges, are directed against car usage. I accept and I support that, Sir. Except for the evening ALS hours and extending the ALS restriction to motorcycles, I support the curbs to prevent congestion in the city. But in any event, I believe that the Minister for Communications and Information will direct his officials to review these two particular measures in view of the sentiments expressed by the other Members.

I am confident that more modifications will be required as it is quite difficult to predict a change in the desired fashion on travelling behavior. I think there are many instances to illustrate this as we have seen from the fringe car parks when the ALS was introduced. The main objection to these various measures actually is directed against the 100% increase in HDB season parking charges. The first major objection from feedback I received is that the number of HDB flat owners are under the impression that when they paid for the HDB flats, they are paying partly or wholly for the car park. I am glad that the Minister for National Development has this morning explained very clearly that car parks are not included in the HDB's pricing of the flat. Unfortunately, Sir, this explanation was not made clear when the measures were announced. If the measures had been very clearly stated or explained, I think much heat would have been taken out of this debate.

A 100% increase in car parking charges, even though I agree with the figures mentioned by the Minister, is something which many HDB residents find very hard to accept. I accept the principles and the figures presented by the Minister. Having said that, Sir, I still urge the Minister to review this matter and see how it may br phased in so that the pattern of increase can then be accommodated by each individual car owner. A sudden structural change in expenditure together with the other measures will mean an additional $70-$80 monthly expenditure which is very hard on many residents. Lastly, Sir, although I accept in principle the $80 calculation, I still urge the Minister to look into this measure to see how he can phase in this $80 without undue hardship for the residents.

Sir, I support the measures proposed by the Minister for Communications and urge that the Minister for National Development will also do a review.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. But I hope that the Minister for Communications and Information and the Minister for National Development could immediately review the relevant measures instead of waiting for some time before they carry out the review. Because I feel that some of the measures that are introduced now could be postponed or might not be necessary. Take for example the season parking fee in HDB estates, increasing from $25 to $50 a month. I believe this measure could be implemented in stages. The Minister's intention is to recover the cost of all the car parks. This is something which we cannot argue against. But the question is within what length of time should we recover the cost? I believe this is flexible. Also when calculating the cost, apart from the fees collected from season parking, we should also include the collections from hourly parking. Otherwise, how are you going to account for the collections from hourly parking? Therefore, if we take these collections into consideration, we shall be able to implement the increases in stages to recover the cost.

The other measure which I believe may not be necessary is the imposition of ALS fee for supplementary bus services like Scheme B buses to enter the CBD. I believe this is a measure which is self-contradictory because such supplementary bus services are to supplement and form part of our public bus service system. Earlier the Minister said that we had to follow the rules of the market. Indeed the Ministry had already set the rules that buses could go into CBD free. Supplementary Scheme buses are also types of bus, the nature of their services is to help and lighten the burden of our regular buses during peak hours so as to encourage more passengers to commute by bus instead of by their own car to and fro city area. So the collection of ALS fee on Scheme B bus I think can be exempted.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi) in the Chair]

4.20 pm

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): Another measure which I think is unnecessary is the imposition of ALS fee on motorcyclists. I have some statistics to show that motorcycles including scooters do not contribute to traffic congestion. From 1978 to 1988, ie, about five months ago, motorcycles including scooters increased from 98,000 units to 117,000 units. In other words, every year the number increased by 1,900 units. So if we take the statistics at the end of 1988, the total number of motorcycles and scooters now is in the region of 120,000. This number is in fact lower than the figure in 1983. It is about 20,000 units less than what it was in 1983. So if motorcycles are contributing to traffic congestion, then we should introduce this system in 1983. In 1983, there were more motorcycles. Yet we did not introduce the ALS fee on them then. Why should we do it now when their number has reduced?

Generally speaking, at the moment, we have in all about half a million cars. This number is going back to about the same as figure in 1984 before the economic recession. So, is it necessary to introduce so many varied measures together at this moment to curb cars? I would urge the Ministry to conduct an immediate review instead of waiting for three months or six months later. Thank you.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is plain and obvious that the car policy is not merely a transport issue. It is a matter close to the hearts of most Singaporeans. It is an emotive issue. Most people who can afford it or think that they can afford it or think that they should afford it would like to buy a car and own one. This being the case, any measure to curb car growth would not be well liked, whatever it is. It is a bitter pill to swallow. It also leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. The Government therefore has an uphill task to explain the rationale behind the car policy. But sell the policy it must. The Government must win the support of the people on this issue. It is obvious from the debate and public reactions that there is an information gap between the Government and the people in this matter of car curb. I urge the Ministry to work harder and be more productive in this matter, particularly since the Minister is also in charge of Information in the Minitry of Communications and Information. Go to the people and win them over on this matter.

Sir, stripped of the rhetoric and emotions, the issue is simple. Is there a need to limit the car population and car usage in this country? The answer is obviously yes. There is indeed no other choice with our limited land and road space. Will the traffic situation worsen without further measures? Should we not take action before our roads become clogged up and jammed up like London, Bangkok or Jakarta? Yes, we have to act before we are totally bogged down on the roads. We are in a way the victims of our affluence. With economic development and prosperity, more and more people would want to own cars. The car population in truth will only go down during recessions. We do not, of course, wish for a recession. We then have to live with car curb measures. The questionis: how do we do it? What are the best packages? Can we avoid the shock treatment? Can we not prepare the people psychologically to accept and live with these measures in land scarce Singapore?

Sir, one possible approach in my mind is that the Government should let the public know what is the set of targetted ceiling on car population or car growth, a figure which could be based on a number of factors like total land space, road space and traffic flows. Perhaps this matter could be taken up by the advisory council which was suggested by the Minister of State for Finance and Foreign Affairs. Indeed I think there is already the Public Transport Council which could tackle this problem and come up with a set target, in consultation with the Government. The Government could then announce in advance that any increase in car growth beyond this target figure would lead to a mix of measures or further measures to curb car growth. And this can be done regularly at set intervals of review and everybody would know that come acertain date, there will be a review, reassessment and possible measures or rises in various taxation measures. The policy would then, I believe, be clear. The measures would then be expected. The system would then appear to be fair to one and all.

Sir, a parallel is the Public Utilities Board's announced policy of pegging the price of electricity to the cost of oil. It can be revised upwards or downwards in accordance with the prevailing oil prices in the world. This system is fair and seen to be fair. Could it not be done in terms of land transportation?

In terms of specific measures, I would like to urge the Minister to reconsider the imposition of CBD restrictions on Scheme B buses and school buses. Let us at least be merciful on our school children and not penalize them for going to and from their schools. Let them pay when they grow up as adults. But in the meantime, let them enjoy their schooling unhindered.

Sir, I support the motion in the name of Dr Hong Hai.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri (Aljunied GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the debate today is over measures to curb vehicle usage and not measures restricting vehicle ownership. Much has been said by colleagues before me and replies to some of the points have just been given by by the Minister.

But one point to note here is that a controversial issue such as this has continued to be viewed with a lot of reservations, a lot of questions, a lot of objections by some quarters. Why is this so? In my view, what might have appeared to be so simple, so clear, so rational, in the eyes of the Minister and all his officials, seemed not to have been viewed in the same way by the people. Therefore, obviously, there must be an information gap or gap of understanding between those who imposed these measures and those on the receiving end. I am not saying that there have not been any preparations on the part of the Ministry. But perhaps the timing and manner in which the information was given made it unsatisfactory to the majority of the population.

Perhaps the Ministry could find a lesson in what other Ministries have done when a controversial measure or scheme was to be implemented. Let me give some examples. Sometime back, when the Ministry of Health sought to implement the Medisave scheme, it initially came up against a lot of reservations from the public. But the Ministry conducted a lot of discussions, meetings, with many parties and eventually this controversial scheme was welcomed by the public.

Second, the Ministry of Labour also conducted a lot of dialogues over a recommendation contained in the Howe Yoon Chong Report to extend the CPF withdrawal age to 60. The Ministry of Labour conducted a lot of discussions, collectedfeedback and finally decided to introduce the minimum sum scheme. In the end, the idea was accepted. What had originally angered the people and raised a lot of reservations is now well-received by the people.

The Ministry of Education. Before the Ministry introduced the Independent Schools, it carried out a lot of dialogues. The public gave its views through various channels and these dialogues and input from the people over these issues were collected, analysed, scrutinised before a final decision was made. And now we hear that the Ministry of Education is conducting a series of dialogues and forums to reach a decision over the issue of the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. So all these Ministries have their own ways of selling a controversial idea to the people.

And I feel the Ministry of Communications and Information ought to be in a better position, compared with the other Ministries, when it comes to convincing the people. Because, if I am not mistaken, there is in this Ministry a Unit known as the Psychological Defence Unit. Why can't the expertise of this Department be applied to find ways of convincing the people, to use psychology, in order that what is seen as difficult could be so presented as to be acceptable the people. I think the Ministry has a higher capability in this area than the other Ministries if it could make use of the expertise of its officers in the Psychological Defence Unit.

In conclusion, I think we should close this perception gap. Close this understanding, or misunderstanding gap and close this information gap so that there would be more people accepting the measures than rejecting them. Thank you.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, in explaining the actions that the Government has taken, the Minister has said that the Government cannot wait. It gives the impression that there is very severe traffic congestion in Singapore today, which is not the case. The Government statement itself has admitted that the present traffic situation in Singapore is satisfactory. In fact, many people would praise the traffic system in Singapore because we have the flyovers, expressways, one-way streets, computerized traffic lights controlled and the whole lot. It makes travelling quite easy. What we used to take one hour before, now we take only half an hour. In fact, we take only half the time to travel from one point to the other. Therefore, there is no real traffic congestion today. Of course, we agree that we should now take some action to prevent future congestion. But that, even the Government statement says will not be fir at least five or six years. Therefore, under the present circumstances we have no need to hurry. They have not conducted a survey and a census of what is the real situation. So let them first conduct a survey so that we know exactly what the present situation is.

He has also said that the people have a choice in the use of vehicles as to whether they want to go into the CBD or anywhere as they wish. I do not think the people really have a choice. If they work in the CBD, they just have to go there. How is he going to say that people do not have to go there, that they can have their choice? It is not realistic at all. It all depends on whether the bus system is good enough or whether they find that it is cheaper to go by the motorcycle. He says there are 500,000 vehicles in Singapore and therefore whatever measure that is taken has got to be spread over them. Yes, unhapiness must be widespread too, and what we have said, really represents the views of very wide sections of the people.

He has said that all these measures are "equitable" and has also added the words "rational and logical". He has not explained how the scrapping of car-pools is rational or logica. Because, as many people can see, instead of one car carrying four, more cars may now go into the CBD carrying the same number of people. Therefore, that may cause some congestion. Is that what the Government wants?

He speaks as if it is all very fair and equal for everybody. If there are 500,000 vehicles, there must be people who own vehicles which are very expensive and which they can afford. But there are also lots of other people who own vehicles which are not that expensive. That is, some people can afford, some cannot. Such logic reminds me of what Anotoly France once said: the law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridge, to beg in the street and to steal bread. That is, there is no genuine equality. Therefore, it is all not equitable. When we talk of equity we must remember that there are great differences of income in Singapore, and if we want to be fair and just and really equitable, then the burden should be spread in such a way that those who can best bear that burden pay more.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, a large number of Members have spoken on the land transport policies. I will attempt to give justice by responding to the very many points of criticisms, queries and suggestions and ake them one by one. I hope, Sir, you will bear with me.

But, first, let us get our perspective right, because if we don't, we will always be going off at a tangent, because we will miss the essence of what the subject is all about. The subject is about finding ways and means of ensuring that traffic in Singapore flows freely. Why is that important? Because congestion costs. In April 1989, there was in the Straits Times an article "Traffic jams put London in a S$47 billion pickle". It is a measure of how costly traffic congestion can be for an economy. The population of UK is slightly over 50 million people, that works out on the average to a cost of approximately S$1,000 a year levied on every man, woman and child. That is a very heavy cost. That is why we must make every effort to make sure that our traffic is free flowing.

Sir, as Dr Augustine Tan has alluded, my Ministry has listened very carefully to the suggestions put forth by the various Members in this House over the past years. I have been talking about this subject since 1983 - this is my sixth year in the Ministry - and a lot of practical useful suggestions have come our way and we have adopted some of them. Other suggestions found not to be practical or difficult to administer, we have put it at the back burner.

I want to assure the House that the suggestions put forward today will be carefully considered. But I cannot promise the House that all of them will be implemented, because some of them will, instead of helping the situation, make the situation worse.

Sir, our limited roads must carry the greatest possible number of people and goods with the minimum of delay to the smallest number of people. That is the objective. While we are talking about car owners, we must remember that the vast majority of Singaporeans are not car owners. We have only 250,000 cars in Singapore. We have a population of 2.6 million. The majority of people travel by bus. They take the MRT. Together they are responsible for more than 3.1 million passenger trips each day. We have to protect the interest of these people too because they too are our citizens. They should not be made to bear the burden of congestion because when a hundred people travel on a bus during peak hours, they are making practically no contribution to the congestion. So why should they bear the burden in terms of longer time spent on travelling resulting from congestion from other vehicles.

Sir, it has been pointed out many times, today and yesterday, that our traffic situation is satisfactory today. Why is that so? It is because for the last 20 years we have been systematically, at regular intervals, bringing in measures to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. There is an increase of less than 100% from about 140,000 cars in 1975 to about 250,000 cars today. What about other countries where there are no such restraints? I was reading an article in a publication "Asia Business Letter". It reported that The number of cars in Taipei has gone up 10 times since 1975. If we had allowed the same situation in Singapore, we will be talking about 1.4 million cars in Singapore. Where are we going to get the roads for 1.4 million cars? So the fact that the situation today is satisfactory is a clear demonstration that the measures applied over the years have worked, it has helped us maintain relatively free flowing traffic. But Sir, with growing affluence, more people are able to afford a car and so we are seeing congestion growing again. Yes, at the moment only in isolated locations.

Sir, I will distribute a map to Members to give them an idea of the congestion that we are experiencing at the moment. [Copies of map distributed to hon. Members]. Sir, I have marked out just the major roads that are presently experiencing congestion: some of them giving traffic flow of less than 20 km an hour, some less than 15 km an hour. There are even some roads where the flow is as low as 11 km an hour. That is the situation at peak hours as ascertained by surveys at the end of last year and early this year, December 1988 and January 1989. This is May 1989. The present situation is worse than that. Because over the last 12 months the number of cars in Singapore has grown by another 9.8%. April 1989 versus April 1988.

Sir, can we just allow the growgh to go on? If we do, what are the consequences? Are we over-reacting? Sir, I submit that we are not, and I want to distribute a second map to let Members have an idea of what the situation will be like if we do nothing. The first map, is based on actual surveys. The second map gives computer projections as to the extent of traffic congestion in Singapore with continued growth in cars. [Copies of map distributed to hon. Members].

Members have on a number of occasions asked for a specific number for the limit of cars allowable on our roads and I indicated that it was notpossible to give a specific number because there were so many factors to consider. Nevertheless, in view of the Members' regular call for a number, we have looked at certain computer projections which may give an indication. Sir, I want to emphasize that this can only give an indication, because this is a computer projection. If Members will look at the top of the map, the title is "Areas of congestion with car population of 350,000", they will see the bottom half of Singapore shaded. Almost all the housing estates in Singapore are within the shaded area. In other words, with 350,000 cars in Singapore, we will have congestion from the Central Business District all the way to all the major housing estates. Practically every one of the major housing estates will be in. The assumption, Sir, is that the traffic flow will be what it is today and that there will be no modifications to the ALS, then, with 350,000 cars practically the entire commercial and residential areas of Singapore will be under severe congestion.

Sir, 350,000 sounds like a lot relative to our present situation of 250,000. But is it? At the end of April 1989, this is the latest figure I have, we grew at the rate of 9.8%, round it off to 10%. If we continue to grow at that same rate, in less than 3(r) years we would exceed 350,000 cars. That explains the urgency. Dr Lee asked: "Why is it so urgent?" Why do we need to do this? Sir, good doctors, I am sure, know that prevention is better than cure. Prevention is better than procrastination. The situation is similar to a medical situation. Since so many Members have given medical analogies this afternoon I would add one more. Our traffic situation is like a patient. The doctor has discovered certain blockages in the certain arteries leading out from his heart. What does the doctor tell the patient? "Carry on. Do whatever it is you are doing. Carry on with your fatty foods, with your high cholesterol diet, your destructive lifestyle, with your smoking, with your drinking." Is that a responsible approach? Or should the doctor not tell the patient how serious the situation can get if he were to continue to do exactly what he has been doing before? Of course, Sir, not all patients are happy to receive such advice because it is painful. The doctor is asking him to change his lifestyle, maybe do some exercises and, maybe in extreme cases, take a certain number of bitter pills. It is not welcome but a responsible doctor has to do what is necessary.

Sir, non-action, when the situation is getting progressively worse, is action in itself. The situation to get out of hand and that is very costly. Dr Lee mentioned a moment ago that once, a trip took an hour. Now it takes half an hour. True, but does he want a situation when a trip which takes half an hour today will take an hour or more in future? Let us think about what that means. Let me give a simple illustration of a goods vehicle having to make delivery for a factory. With travelling time double to carry out the same level of service of delivering the same amount of goods in the same amount of time, the company will have to employ twice as many goods vehicles and twice as many drivers plus attendants. The result will be twice as many vehicles carrying out the same function which will only add to the congestion and make what is already a bad situation worse. In other words, congestion feeds upon itself. Everybody will be spending more time on the roads and therefore our roads will be more congested.

We are all looking forward to the availability of the electronic road pricing system. Many Members have urged that we work on it quickly. We have been working on it actively. But unfortunately the technology is at the edge of development. We have looked around for a city that has an Electronic Road Pricing system operating. There is no such city. A few cities are carrying out pilot trials. There are others doing it on an extremeley small scale, but no city with a population similar to ours or bigger has ever tried it. We are working on it, and PWD has been actively scouting the world to look for ERP systems that may be applicable to us.

At the moment there are three models that may have the potential - here I want to underline, that may have the potential - of being adapted to Singapore's circumstances and can be used. This is what a typical electronic number plate looks like [indicating]. It is just a black box. It can be stuck onto the windscreen and detector systems overhead will detect a vehicle passing. Obviously there are different black boxes [indicating] from different companies. What is inside the black box is very different with different capabilities with different functions. We are actively looking at the different systems. But our best estimate is five to seven years. Nobody has got a ready-made system. Nobody has tried it out. We will be among the first, if not the first. Hench we will have to look at them very carefully.

Sir, the restraint measures that we have put out earlier this month, I believe, are fair and equitable. As I explained a moment ago, it gives people the option to decide whether they want to go into the ALS or not. If you want to go into the ALS, you pay $3 if you are going in once. You pay about $2.40 if you average it out over the entire month. Far from discouraging people from having car pools, this approach will encourage people to have genuine car pools. Previously, many cases of car pools were just drivers in cars picking up three passengers. Now that the driver has to pay $2.40 if he goes in regularly. If he finds three or four other car owners, the cost of $2.40 will be divided by four or by five. Now with the higher car park charges in the CBD, there is an even greater incentive for them not to bring in their car. With the higher petrol duty on petrol there is an even greater incentive not to drive unnecessarily. So, far from discouraging car pools, we will be encouraging genuine car pools.

Sir, I now move on to deal with the questions of the different groups of people who have appealed directly to the Ministry and also through the Members of Parliament for exemption from the ALS scheme. The underlying principle, Sir, is to have every vehicle which who contributes to the congestion pay, so that the owner makes a decision to go in or not to go in - to go in by bus, by MRT, by car pools or all by himself. A key question which Members of Parliament should have asked is: why did we exempt the scheduled buses - SBS, TIBS and CSS? Because that is a fundamental deviation from the general principle of all who contribute to congestion - having to pay. It was a difficult decision for the Ministry to make, We have decided to breach the principle. Why?

Scheduled buses, unlike all other vehicles, are required to go into the CBD during peak hours under the terms of licence. Why do we want scheduled buses to go in during peak hours? Because they carry the largest number of people, so the more scheduled buses there are going into the CBD during the restricted hours the better the service they provide to the 1.2 million to 1.3 million commuters every day. That is why we have made a special exemption for the scheduled buses. I know, Sir, that once we allow one group, where do we draw the line? What about group No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, ad infinitum? That is really the crux. We have decided to draw the line and allow only scheduled buses to go in. The other vehicles, because all of them in their own ways contribute congestion, have got to be subjected to the same extend of discouragement from entry into the CBD during peak hours.

Sir, some Members have asked, why is it so important to have the CBD free flowing? Why do we need evening ALS? Indeed, why do we need the morning ALS at all? The Central Business District is the nerve centre of our economy. It provides employment for the largest number of people. Within that very small, very compact area. If we allow that area to seize up, it will have severe impact on our economy, with serious negative consequences for all Singaporeans. We have had the morning ALS, we had the same level of unhappiness, if not much more. Today, nobody doubts that the morning ALS has worked and works very well and has helped us. I want to remaind Members that when we introduced the morning ALS, we had to fine tune, we had to make adjustments to the ALS, adjusting both the fees and the restricted hours. My Ministry has stressed the same need for the evening ALS, because we are introducing it for the first time. We will be watching and monitoring the situation very closely, and we will have no hesitation making adjustments if necessary. If the volume of traffic is too low, and we want to optimize the use of our roads, my Ministry will have no hesitation lowering it from $3 down to $2. Conversely, if $3 turns out to be too low a figure, we will have to adjust it upwards, to $4. It is not likely that we will have to adjust to $5 on the basis of our studies. We have to be realistic. We cannot forecast the behaviour of all consumers and their response to a measure of this type. The new ALS will definetely reduce the number of cars into the CBD. By how much, we will have to monitor very carefully.

So why do we have to include all vehicles for the morning and evening ALS? At the moment, of all the vehicles going into the CBD in the morning, only one-third of the vehicles pay the ALS fee. Indeed, only 22% of the vehicles are cars which pay the ALS fee of $5, and another 12% of the vehicles are taxis, paying an ALS fee of $2. If we do not adopt the equitable principle of all contributing to the congestion having to bear part of the burden, then to reduce the traffic flow a heavier and heavier burden on the small group of people presently paying the ALS fee will have to pay much more. And the 66% of vehicles which are not paying ALS will mushroom in proportion to the overall increase in vehicles and also in response to the demand of the economy, Then we will have severe congesttion in the CBD. That is why we have to include all vehicles.

The same principle applies for the evening. Why do we need an evening ALS? Presently, the traffic flow in the evening is worse than in the morning. Can we improve it a little? Yes. Is it worth the price we pay? We believe so. Because we must remember that congestion takes up people's time, and in an economy like ours, time is money. Those who contribute to congestion are making others take longer time in going home from work. A large number of people who do not own cars have got to bear that burden. So to be fair, all who contribute to congestion should bear part of the burden.

Many Members have asked for the hours to be reduced. I think different Members ask for slightly different reductions in different directions. Some have asked for it to be imposed for only an hour; others a little more - 4.30 pm to 6.00 pm, some 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm, some 5.00 pm to 6.00 pm. Sir, 6.00 pm is really a critical point. At the moment 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm is when the traffic is heaviest. For the time being, I want to leave it at 4.30 pm to 7.00 pm. But we will monitor the situation. I appreciate the concerns of Members wanting to be helpful to their residents, to shoppers, to parents wanting to go pick up their children, and have therefore appealed for a reduction from 7.00 pm to 6.00 pm. Our experience with the morning ALS is the first hour after the ALS is the worst of all hours. So if we stop the restricted hours up to 6.00 pm, then the so-called post-ALS traffic would add to the already existing congestion which is the worst of all possible times. Then we would be making the situation from bad to worse.

I want to explain this because this may not be obvious to everybody. Sir, the ALS works in two different ways. Firstly, it spreads out traffic in space. Those who do not need to go into the ALS can take other roads and avoid having to pay. So the traffic is spread out. Secondly, the ALS works by spreading out the traffic in terms of time. Since the restricted hours are from 4.30 pm to 7.00 pm, those who do not need to go in during that period can either delay a little or go in a little earlier. Those going in after 7.00 pm, you don't pay. Similarly those who go in before 4.30 pm, don't pay also. So the traffic is spread out in two different ways. Will it lead to additional congestion along our ring roads? Possibly, initially, just as it did way back in 1975 when we introduced the morning ALS. We will have to give it time. People will make their own choices. The traffic will make its own adjustment. And over a period of time, we can review the situation. I am poen-minded on this. The object is simple - keep the CBD free flowing. the instruments in our hands are not perfect. These are all proxy instruments. They are not direct instruments. We will have to watch the situation, monitor it closely and, if necessary, make adjustments.

Sir, if we want to keep the CBD relatively free flowing of traffic, do we not also want to do the same for the ring roads, for other roads outside the CBD? The answer obviously is yes. Hence, we want to discourage usage as much as possible. That is why we have introduced a small restraint measure, a 10 cents increase in the petrol duty, to discourage in a small way unnecessary trips made. It will be marginal. But every bit helps. Also the increased car park charges, particularly day time car park charges, will support this policy of discouraging unnecessary travel.

Sir, the present package of measures represents a watershed in our overall land transport management. We have by and large stayed mostly, not completely, but mostly with restraint on ownership. We have now moved over to increased use of restraint measures on usage. But we cannot do it exclusively. We can only change the emphasis. Members have appealed to the Ministry to allow more people to own cars and not to keep the number of cars growing at the rate of 1% a year which was what the Ministry was hoping to target at. Now, if we allow a 5% increase in growth of vehicles, then unless we are able to achieve a 5% reduction in traffic usage overall, then our traffic conditions must inevitably get worse. We are hoping, Sir, that if these measures work, then ownership restraint measures can be used more sparingly.

A number of Members have asked about the possibility of removal of PARF. As Dr Wang Kai Yuen has mentioned, it is a very painful process. If we do not have to, we may not want to do it. But we may have no choice. That option must be kept open. We will watch the situation carefully.

Sir, I believe most of the Members of this House who spoke yesterday and today, supported the principles ofusing restraint on usage. But quite obviously, as I indicated in my speech in the Committee of Supply in March, every individual affected in a particular way by a particular measure will find that particular measure onerous and obviously attack that policy. Members have done their jobs well. They have reflected those sentiments - different groups ofpeople unhappy with different aspects of our measures. This is to be expected.

I hope that after Members have listened to the explanation, they will be in a better position to explain to their constituents. Sir, many Members have asked for more explanation. This we will continue to give. But these measures are not new. Petrol duty is not new, the ALS is not new. Yes, applying it to all vehicles is new, but the principle is a simple and an old one. Car park increases, increases, these are not new. These are on-going measures used for the last 20 years. Yes, we use it less frequently previously, when we are trying to discourage ownership. But they are not new measures as such. Nevertheless, we will have to continue to explain. I welcome the suggestion put forward by the Chairman of the GPC for the Ministry of Communications and Information. I welcome his desire to have open hearings, to collect views. I hope he will look at them carefully and in due course submit his recommendations and the recommendations of other members of his GPC to the Ministry for possible consideration. If the recommendations are practical, if they can help us achieve better, freer flowing traffic in the CBD and in the rest of Singapore, I can assure him and his GPC that we will use his measures.

Sir, I now come to specifics. Scheme B buses - I explained a moment ago why we drew the line at scheduled buses. Scheme B buses, by and large, do not operate as scheduled buses. In fact, our records show that only 16 buses out of 356 Scheme B buses are operating scheduled services. Scheme B buses are buses which are licensed to carry children and workers en masse, transporting them from a few points to a school or a factory. And because they transport children, because they transport workers, the Government has given them a low taxation regime. A Scheme B bus may pay as low as one-sixth the tax of an ordinary scheduled bus. At the upper end, buses for workers may pay as low as half the tax of the scheduled buses. Some of these buses do not have to go into the CBD at all. I shall ask my Ministry officials to look into the details of these 16 buses hat are operating scheduled services to see whether we could include them for exemptions. I can see administrative difficulties. But we shall look at them and give our consideration to these 16 buses, not the remainder of the 356.

Sir, Dr Hong Hai has called for a better public transport system. I support that. Indeed that has been the policy of the Government, to have the best possible public transport system in Singapore. Is our present system perfect? No. Can it be improved upon? Yes, we are working on it. Are there other cities with much better transport systems? We are not aware of them.

I spoke to the experts on public transport systems when they were in Singapore earlier this year for the Conference on the International Union of Public Transport. These are the world's experts on public transport. I asked them, "Is there anything that we can do to improve our system? What is it that you are doing in your cities that you think can improve the purblic transport system in Singapore? They laughed. They told me there are very few cities, none that they were able to tell us, that had better public transport systems than ours. And they know because they went on a ride on our MRT trains and on our buses. But we will spare no effort at further improving our public transport system.

We are presently working at seeking improveing our public transport system by way of an integrated ticketing system, a through ticketing system, where a ticket can be used both for buses and for trains. "Why does the project take so long?", some Members asked. Again we are once more at the edge of the technology. We have been acouting for system that can be applicable to Singapore. I believe the three public transport companies, namely, SBS, TIBS and SMRT, shall be announcing the award of the tender for the equipment very soon.

Sir, Dr Hong Hai has asked why not have buses that will service the private housing estates, bring them to the MRT stations. I support that proposal. Indeed we have been encouraging the bus companies to do that. But we must remember that the routes for the MRT are designed such that when the MRT system is completed, it will be serving about 80% of the population of Singapore, namely, those in the HDB housing estates. And the volume of people from outside of these housing estates, in other words, in the private housing estates, the number of people wanting to use the MRT will be small. The SMRT is headed by the president and chief executive officer of a local bank. SBS is headed by a senior managing partner of a multi-national accounting company. And TIBS have got a Chief Executive Officer who is a business graduate and runs a number of companies. They have all looked at the situation. They have concluded that there is no real demand for such a service.

But we have not given up, Sir. We are now trying to encourage other operators. Indeed any bus operator who wants to provide this service will get my endorsement and support, with their application to the Public Transport Council. But if all the operators, after having looked at it carefully, were to conclude that there isn't sufficient demand that will make it viable for them, should Government rush in when practical businessmen fear to tread?

Sir, Dr Lee Siew-Choh said that the measures have got nothing to do with land transportation. It is just a device to generate revenue for the Government. The Government can find no worst way, no more painful way, of raising revenue than by way of land transportation. The allegation is completely untrue. If the Government were to do nothing and just allow the number of cars to grow by 10%, every year the revenue obtained would be about the same or maybe even more than what the various measures will bring in. It would have been perfectly painless. But it will be at a great cost to the economy, a great detriment to the population, as our traffic seize up.

Sir, I have touched very briefly on why all vehicles should not be exempted. Now I will talk about motocycles because many Members have raised it. Members believe or perceive that a motorcycle does not add to the congestion. Let me suggest that we think about the problem a little. If we have a car in front of us on a road, we keep a certain distance when driving, for reasons of safety. If there is a motorcycle in between the two cars, do we not also keep a certain disance from the motorcycle? We do, don't we? We all so, Sir. That simple picture demonstrates very clearly that on the move, a motorcycle is like a car. It takes up space and therefore contributes to overal congestion. And indeed transport planners have got to make allowance for that. For purposes of calculation, a motorcycle is treated as 0.7 passenger car equivalent. In other workd, for purposes of transport planning a motorcycle is treated as if it is three-quarters of a car. That is its contribution to the congestion. Of course, when a motorcycle is parked, it takes up less space. We have decided, because we are aware that motorcyclists, with some exceptions are low-income earners to keep the ALS fee for motorcycles low. A dollar a day or $20 a month.

We need to apply some measure of restraint for motorcycles also. We cannot allow the motorcycles to be different. Because if we do, then we may possibly end up like some other cities. Again, I use the example of Taipei. The number of motorcycles in 130% that of the number of cars. Those who cannot afford a car will movbe on to a motorcycle, and add to the congestion. Our situation in Singapore at the moment, the number of motorcycles is approximately half of that of cars. A $1 ALS is reasonable. Some of the motorcyclists will go into the CBD some of them will not. Only those who go in are affected.

Some Members have taken up the appeal on behalf of residents living inside the CBD. Again, I appreciate the unhappiness that residents in the CBD feel in having to pay $3 when they are going home from work outside the CBD. Sir, I think the principle of equity is very clear. Those who live outside and go in to work in the CBD in the morning have got to pay. So those who live inside and have to return home in the evening, they too have to pay. And in the long term, measures of this sort wil encourage Singaporeans, whereever possible, to live close to where they work. I know, Sir, it is not always easy, it is not always possible, but we help encourage that trend; for example, you have fewer people in the CBD going to work in Jurong and fewer people living in Jurong going to work in the CBD, then we reduce some unnecessary flow. I am not saying that it is easy. I am saying that we should encourage that trend. Then if those who work in Jurong live in Jurong and those who live in the CBD work in the CBD, we will find our traffic conditions much less problematic.

Why decrease the ALS fees? Sir, if we keep it at $5 then few cars will go into the CBD during restricted hours. We will be under-utilizing our roads. Is that a good thing? No. Land is scarce; we must use it optimally. We want to have a free-flowing traffic. We do not want to have empty roads. That will be contrary to the objectives of the Ministry.

Sir, let me conclude. Land transport is a national problem. Everybody is affected by it. If we do not manage it carefully, all of us pay a price, maybe imperceptibly. Trips taking 30 minutes will increase to 35, to 40, to 45 minutes and so on, to one hour eventually. I would like to urge Members of this House to continue with giving the Ministry their suggestions, their feedback, so that we can manage the traffic in a manner that will give the least burden to vehicle owners and yet at the same time maintain a reasonably free flow of traffic. We are prepared to learn from any Member of Parliament. We are prepared to learn from any Singaporean. We are prepared to learn from any city that has got a better system than ours, that has ot a system that we can use. If Members of the House know of any city with a better transport system, please let me know. I give my assurance to the House that we will send our officers to get all the details and study it for possible implementation in Singapore.

Sir, I want to round up just on one point, namely, there is no desire at all on the part of the Government to use land transport policies to generate revenue. I cannot over-emphasize that point. My job in the Ministry of Communications and Information is not to raise revenue for the Government. No, not at all. My job is to manage the airport, the seaport, telecommunications services, our land transport system, in a manner that will give Singapore the best possible international competitiveness so that it will boost our conomy, so that it will bring in investments, preferably investments that will give high value added jobs to Singaporeans. And in the process, give Singaporeans higher pay and better lives. Contrary to what has been said, the Ministry of Communications and Information has over the years via Telecoms, via the airport and via the port, been giving money back to Singaporeans by way of lower rates, with a cumulative total of more than a billion dollars over the years. Indeed, next month Telecoms will be making announcements of some adjustments in charges that will have a net result of giving more than $10 million a year back to the economy. At MCI our objective is to give Singaporeans and Singapore the best possible airport, the best possible port, the best possible telecommunications systems and also the best possible land transport system. I believe, Sir, Singapore's efforts in these areas have not been in vain. I have no doubt that the overall effect of this package of restraint measures will in the long term help give us the highest possible quality of life for the largest number of Singaporeans. On that firm belief I commend the land transport measures to this House. (Applause].

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House supports the principles underlying the latest measures introduced by the Ministry of Communications and Information to curb road usage but urges the Ministry to review the specific measures regularly as their effects are uncertain.