SELECT COMMITTEE ON LAND TRANSPORTATION POLICY

Dr Hong Hai (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name.

*The motion, standing in the names of Dr Hong Hai and Encik Yatiman Yusof, reads as follows:

That this House appoints a Select Committee to conduct public hearings on Singapore's land transportation policy with the following terms of reference:

(i) to examine the need for measures to curb road usage and the effectiveness and appropriateness of measures currently in force;

(ii) to examine current policies for controlling the population of motor vehicles;

(iii) to study the role of taxis in the national transportation system and to examine the need for regulating the taxi population and taxi fares;

(iv) to assess the adequacy of the public transportation system;

(v) to consider any other policy or measure pertaining to land transportation as the Select Committee deems appropriate; and

(vi) to make recommendations.

Sir, the House will recall that in the previous sitting, I called for the GPC for Communications and Information to hold public hearings on land transportation policy in Singapore. My GPC felt then that land transportation had become not only an issue of national importance, but also one over which strong opinions and indeed strong emotions were being expressed by the public.

We felt then that public hearings could serve to educate not only the public but also the Government as to the complexity and sensitivity of the problems associated with land transportation. We also hope that the hearings would be able to bring forth fresh ideas for a solution to these problems.

Sir, in the months that have passed since we proposed the hearings, there has been more evidence than ever of the need for these hearings. Letters to the press continue to pour in. One would think that everyone in Singapore was an expert on land transportation.

And indeed there is an element of truth in it. This is because everyone in Singapore is a user of roads or the MRT and his personal experience makes him an expert on his particular aspect of the transportation problem.

Sir, it is because we believe that members of the public have useful contributions to make to solving our transportation problems that my GPC would like to hold the proposed public hearings.

We are proposing to use the format of a Select Committee of Parliament for this particular hearing because a Select Committee would give us latitude for widening the composition of the Committee which we hope would include not only my GPC members but also a member of the opposition bench.

The Select Committee would the rules of formality and conduct that could be useful in achieving a fruitful exchange of ideas on an issue that has attracted so much public interest.

Finally, Sir, I would like to say a few words about the terms of reference of the Select Committee. As a practical matter, it would not be realistic for the Committee to cover all or even most aspects of land transportation in Singapore. What we have done has been to highlight under items (i) to (iv) some of the more prominent issues - car usage, car population, taxis and the adequacy of the public transportation system. Item (v) gives the Select Committee the flexibility to include other important issues that could crop up in the course of its deliberations.

Sir, it would also be useful for the Committee to focus on some specific questions. The following three questions among others could be considered in depth:

First, is taxation the best way to limit the car population? Should we move to a quota system by which the government fixes the number of cars and lets the market fix the price? In other words, you can buy a car only if you scrap your existing car or buy a car to scrap or buy a licence to purchase a car. These licences would be auctioned by the Government from time to time. The quota can be increased periodically depending on the capacaity of the road system to absorb increases in the car population. This idea of a quota system was mooted at the recent Minister-SAFRA marathon dialogue last Saturday. I think it is worthy of further consideration.

Second, evening ALS. This is a controversial matter. The question is: have we gone from the frying pan to the fire? The Ministry says no. Many commuters say yes. Because the jam apparently has moved from the CBD to the ring roads and the highways. The result is that some think they take more time than before to get home. Perhaps it is only a vocal minority who have experienced this. But it should be looked into.

Third, Sir, feeder services to private estates. The MRT was built with two main objectives; to get motorists off the road and to slow down the growth in buses which also cause road congestion. The bus-MRT integration scheme will help achieve the second objective. But the first objective will not be met unless convenient feeder services are available to private estates where the bulk of motorists live.

Sir, I hope hon. Members of this House will support the motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Bedok GRC, the Chairman of the GPC for Communications and Information.

At the outset, let me first restate the long accepted fact that through our roads and streets run the very life line of Singapore's economy. Clog it in some intersections, it will cause a "stroke". A massive jam will cause a temporary paralysis. Turn such massive jams into norms of our road, it will be fatal to our economy. The effect of our traffic jams will not be confined merely to roadusers. It will also spill over and upset the smooth running of the air and sea ports which in turn will disrupt arrivals and departures of our tourists, investors and businessmen, delay the handling and transfer of our cargoes, hence undermining our capacity as an efficient centre for distributors and the region beyond. As our manufacturing sector is very much dependent to a large extent on the steady flow of raw materials, half finished and fully finished products to and from other countries, regular traffic congestions will definitely cause a decline to our exports, thus affecting our economic growth.

It is for this reason that the terms of reference for the motion covers the qualitative as well as the quantitative aspect of the problem, as explained by Dr Hong Hai, and also the long-term strategies that we need to adopt to put the problem under control. Sir, we must examine the need for measures to curb road usage and the effectiveness and appropriateness of measures currently in force. In addition, we need to consider alternative measures. Based on previous public debates on this issue, Singaporeans generally agree on the need to control road usage. However, when it comes to specific measures, there is always a diversity of opinions. Are current measures taken to control road usage sufficient and effective? Are they appropriate? Well, some are effective but are considered inappropriate. Some seem to be appropriate but are ruled as ineffective. We have to take this discussion into the open.

Sir, we must also examine current policies for controlling the population of motor vehicles and, if possible, come out with better alternatives to such policies. In doing so, we have to be bold in our thinking if we truly want to be successful in our search for alternative policies. We have to ask many questions. Has the current policy approach using price mechanisms been effective in curbing the growth of the motor vehicle population? Or can we introduce a different policy such as the one practised in Japan by controlling it through, eg, the availability of car parks? We have applied this approach at least partially in our new housing estates. The HDB is changing its car park ratio per block. Could we then extend it to the CBD? Is it desirable for us to be drastic enough to ask for a review to the existing building requirements by giving the option, or even incentive, for the building owners to convert the existing multi-storey car park to that of office spaces? All these questions would be answered through a Select Committee hearing. This approach is based on the simple notion that car owners will not drive their vehicles into the CBD if there are not enough car parks. We have made it expensive to park cars in the CBD but they are still affordable. Why not make car parks extremely scarce so that the car park charge is so ridiculously exorbitant that people would not drive into the CBD? Such possibilities need to be aired publicly and response obtained from the public.

Sir, in introducing the terms of reference, we are also fully aware of the current effort made by the Minister for Communications and Information to initiate and encourage dialogues amongst those affected. We are also fully appraised by discussions taking place in the mass media regarding this issue which Dr Hong Hai had earlier elaborated. Let us invite all the experts and the so-called experts to participate in our Select Committee.

On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not oppose the motion except that I am a little curious. I would like to seek some clarification from the movers of the motion as to why it is necessary to have this Select Committee, especially after the Minister had a 6-hour marathon session which was publicly aired. And there has been sufficient feedback on the various policies and the Minister is not budging his ground. So I am really wonderingwhat more this Select Committee can do.

Dr Hong Hai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this question is better answered by the Minister concerned. But for what it is worth, I was present for a short time at the invitation of the Minister at the marathon dialogue. I did notice that most of the audience were SAFRA members and the press. So it was a more limited audience than what we have in mind for the Select Committee hearings. The Minister was very lucid and very persuasive. But if I may make a comparison, he was a little bit like a pastor on Sunday morning, preaching to the converted.

The Minister for Communications and Information (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): Sir, I do not intend to go on for six hours. I support the motion. I disagree with Mr Chandra Das. I think there is value in having more points of view. For six hours we talked and talked and talked. But I suspect that there are lots of other Singaporeans who would also like to talk about the subject. I think it would be a good move.

The members of SAFRA were part of the policy gaming committee. They formed two groups, two Cabinets as it were. They spent more than two months each studying the problems of land transport. They had briefings from the various Ministries that were involved in public transportation, PWD, ROV, the various agencies, and various organizations such as SBS, SMRT and MRTC. With the appropriate background, with the appropriate facts at their disposal and all the data made available to them, they studied the problem for more than 2(r) months. In effect, they represent the most knowledgeable of all laymen in Singapore on land transport.

My Ministry also invited the representatives from the media. They have been covering the transportation beat. They know the arguments backwards and for- wards because they have been covering it for a long time. At the end of six hours, nothing was left to clarify. But these are people who have spent a lot of their time on this particular subject. I am sure there are lots of other Singaporeans who wish to give their views. Sir, I need to remind Members of the House that those present at the dialogue session were not only just airing their points of view because we did encourage the media to go out and collect questions, collect ideas, collect suggestions, from the general members of the public. The media had indeed been very supportive. A lot of people had given valuable points, suggestions, feedback, by the hotline. Some of them wrote in. Some wrote fairly long letters as I am told. We collected well over 100 of such proposals and suggestions and points of view. These were grouped into the various categories and brought up by the members of the media and we had a very thorough discussion. Notwithstanding, I think the open hearing by the Select Committee will permit others who have not had the opportunity of putting their views across to do so and we will have another independent group of experts to look into the problem. I welcome that.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion raised by Dr Hong Hai urging Parliament to set up a Select Committee to conduct public hearings on our road transportation policy with six terms of reference. I support the motion for the following three reasons.

First, undeniably the tackling of land transportation is a very important task in Singapore. Just as Mr Yatiman has stated earlier land transportation policy plays a very important role in our economic development. This is because land transportation policy has a great deal to do with the use of our land resources, as it directly affects the speed of turnover of our commercial and industrial goods, business activities and even our attractiveness for foreign travellers and tourists to visit Singapore. Also it has a direct impact on the lifestyle and consumption habit of our people. It has become a matter of great concern to all our people. Therefore, it is something which calls for our careful consideration and handling with full discussion in order to work out effective solutions.

Secondly, the appointment of a Select Committee would enable more Members of Parliament to take part in this task beyond the membership of the GPC on Communications and Information. Thus, with the participation and contribution of more MPs, we would have a stronger committee which would be able to complete and achieve its tasks more effectively.

Thirdly, the setting up of the Select Committee will give it a proper standing with proper mandate to proceed with this task so that it can study, research and work on the problems more extensively, more comprehensively, more thoroughly and in-depth concerning problems of all aspects of land transportation. This is why there are six terms of reference clearly listed in the motion. These terms of reference embrace all questions and matters that would merit the discussion by the committee and also authorize the Select Committee to make recommendations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the reasons I have stated above, I believe this motion will certainly be supported by the Parliament.

Dr Hong Hai: I thank Members for their support.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House appoints a Select Committee to conduct public hearings on Singapore's land transportation policy with the following terms of reference:

(i) to examine the need for measures to curb road usage and the effectiveness and appropriateness of measures currently in force;

(ii) to examine current policies for controlling the population of motor vehicles;

(iii) to study the role of taxis in the national transportation system and to examine the need for regulating the taxi population and taxi fares;

(iv) to assess the adequacy of the public transportation system;

(v) to consider any other policy or measure pertaining to land transportation as the Select Committee deems appropriate; and

(vi) to make recommendations.