WORLD CLASS LAND TRANSPORT SYSTEM

Debate resumed.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tampines GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister.

Last Sunday's edition of the Sunday Times contained two articles which I find useful in my discussion today on the White Paper. The first article entitled "Singapore: The New Media Centre" highlighted how Singapore is fast becoming a media hub. In a seeming contradiction of sorts, despite Western press reports of our stifling environment, the media industry, which is mainly a creative one, has found Singapore an ideal spot to locate itself. According to the report and I quote:

'Contrary to some perceptions that Singapore is boring and stifling, staff in the satellite media industry find this more than adequate as a place to live and work. Ease of transport and telecommunications ranked highest among the good points cited.'

In other words, day in and day out, international transport and communications feature prominently in major international investment decisions. Therefore, this White Paper is timely. It serves not only to inform Singaporeans of our grand designs for our land transport system, it will also have an impact in international boardrooms where major overseas investment decisions are being made.

The second article is on the visit by Mr Tony Blair, Leader of the Opposition in the British Parliament. The article implied that Britain has a great deal to learn from Singapore. It features some of the recipes which have made Singapore what it is today. Implicit in this article is our hard-nosed approach to solving problems. There is a price to pay for good, strong government, both to the people as well as the party which remains or wants to be in power. It is in this area which we have excelled, in that no matter how difficult the solution, as long as it is necessary, the public can expect bitter medicine.

In a country like Singapore where we do not have any natural resources to rely upon, the decisions that the Government has to make in order to ensure our survival in this competitive world are often hard-hitting but crucial, and certainly not popular by any means. And it is this conviction that unpopular policies are good for Singapore and Singaporeans as a whole that has indeed pushed us with a political will and grit unparalleled anywhere else in the world. I think even hard-core critics of ours have grudgingly admitted or realised that there is something to be learnt from Singapore.

Hence, it is with alarm that I read in the White Paper of a major shift of what I consider a sound principle. This is a change in the definition of "operating cost". Our current position in all infrastructure projects, except for housing, health and education, is that revenue must not only cover operating cost but include accumulating enough reserves to replace the operating assets. This is a very sound principle indeed. Whether it is for water, electricity, gas or telecommunication services infrastructure, we have always practised the principle of not only covering operational costs but ensuring sufficient reserves are accumulated for future replacement of the capital assets.

To justify the cost of extending the MRT network, the White Paper is now proposing that the Government will pay for the replacement cost but less current depreciation of the original assets for a new set of operating assets in the future, and the current operator need only recover the historical cost. This is a substantial departure from the Government's principle that once it has paid for the initial capital cost of the project, no further financial help will be granted as the project must be able to continue indefinitely.

By this change, we are disguising the fact that there is a subsidy in the MRT system. By so doing, the Government is in effect repeating the fatal mistake of major cities in the developed countries where subsidising of rail and public transportation systems has resulted in significant losses and increasing subsidy and mounting government deficits.

This change also begs the question of imposing on a future government the burden of paying for the replacement of assets. We cannot assume that the government of the day will have sufficient surpluses accumulated to do so. There is also the question of the control of reserves by the Elected President. Can a future government draw upon the reserves of today's government which makes this promise? On the other hand, if money is set aside by the present Government, then it is the present cohort of users who is paying for the replacement of future assets as the Government must then ensure that there are budget surpluses to do so. The Minister may like to explain how this process of committing a future government may be achieved.

If the North-East Line is too costly to build or not financially viable, then there are clearly two options. We either delay the project or increase the fares to generate sufficient revenue. Both these measures have political repercussions. But the cost of proceeding with the project on the new financing principle has even wider repercussions which will have a profound effect on how Singapore is governed. Even today, one can understand why SBS is asking for this principle to be applied to them. Quite rightly so, as new assets are almost always replaced at a higher cost. What about the taxi operator or owner? His taxi, seven years down the road, is invariably going to cost more than his current taxi. Is the Government going to subsidise him seven years down the road when he replaces his taxi over the current cost? Since taxis are now recognised as part of our land transport system, should this same principle not apply?

Beyond land transport, what about utilities? Should not the utility companies lower their charges to recover today's capital cost and leave the worry of financing a new power plant in the future to the government of the day?

Sir, a sensible solution is that fares must rise if our current principle is to be adhered to. We should then identify how this fare increase will affect commuters and then target our subsidy where it is needed and necessary. This may be done in the form of tax and other rebates, concessionary travel passes or other such schemes. In this way, the Government subsidy or support is directed where it is needed. And this has always been the principle of the Government.

The essence is that those who can afford to pay will pay the full fare and our trains will continue to run perpetually. There will be no question mark on future asset replacement and the government of the day will not have to subsidise all and sundry on an across-the-board basis which this new financing scheme is really all about. Therefore, I strongly urge the Government to do a rethink on this very significant change in principle. It is a very tough call, but let us not short-change our people and solve a short-term problem with very long-term pain.

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, the White Paper sets out an excellent plan on the integrated development of the land transport system in land scarce Singapore. It addresses both the needs of the car owners and the non-car owners. It is inevitable that a small island like Singapore, land transportation has to be well-managed to maximise the use of the limited land. I am glad that the Government has stated clearly in the White Paper that it believes that the MRT/LRT system will be the backbone of the public transport system.

The Government has also revised the financing framework for the replacement assets to make it more operationally viable to operate the MRT line. This move by the Government shows that it is committed to accelerating the construction of the North-Eastern line. The delay in the construction of the North-Eastern line has several implications both socially and financially for those in the North-Eastern corridor. I believe that the conditions are right for an announcement on the North-Eastern line. The need is there. The Minister has visited the North-Eastern sector and has seen for himself the urgent need for an MRT line. Road congestion is the norm and bus journeys are long and involve multiple trips. The support is also there. My community leaders, residents and I support any move to build the North-East line as soon as possible.

Finally, operational viability is within reach with this new financing formula. Whatever there is left that is required to cross the finishing line, my grassroots leaders and I would be happy to work with the Ministry to cross the finishing line. We await with abated breath the good news on the North-Eastern line from the Minister. We hope that we would not be disappointed. Even if the construction of the North-Eastern MRT line were to commence shortly, its completion will take several years.

The White Paper has spelled out several measures in improving the transport system in the interim. Though wide-ranging, there is one important source of traffic congestion that has not been addressed by the White Paper, ie, the occupation of road lanes in major roads by contractors, statutory boards and even Government bodies which are involved in the laying of pipes, cables and other similar types of work. The Government can spend millions or even billions of dollars in carrying out the measures in the White Paper, but these measures can come to nought and their beneficial effects nullified by the occupation of road lanes during road works of this nature. A good example is the section of Lornie Road leading from Farrer Road to Upper Thomson Road. The pipes there are not only long but have been there equally long. I have lost count of the number of months it has been there. I can understand that there is a need to do certain essential work, but it is very difficult to understand why there is a need to leave the pipes there for such an extended period. Although I am certain that it is not because it is cheaper to use the road as a storage space, it might be wrongly perceived by the public that this is so. There is a need for entities or departments doing such work to have a responsibility to the public. As if this was not bad enough, they have commenced work on the other side of the road so that drivers driving along Lornie Road can now have the unenviable luxury of enjoying traffic jams on the way to work and on the way home.

If all road users pay for the use of roads through road taxes, COEs, petrol taxes, it does appear fair that the same principle should apply to everyone, including statutory bodies or departments that occupy road lanes for an extended period of time. The LTA should consider levying a charge for the use of the roads and impose a penalty for those who occupy road lanes for unnecessarily long periods. Everyone who uses the roads must exercise responsibility and it will be difficult to justify making exemptions. By applying a financial disincentive on road usage by these entities, it may help them to be more aware of the need to minimise road congestion. If we want Singapore to have a world class transport system, everyone must play a part.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kampong Glam GRC): Sir, the White Paper is an excellent qualitative document setting out the future corporate vision on land transport. But having said that, I must present to the House candidly the feedback that I have received from my grassroots leaders, residents, trade unionists and other people known to me.

The White Paper has not made a significant impact on the general public. There is neither too much praise, nor is there too much of an adverse reaction.

On the plus side, people, especially those living along the proposed North-East MRT line as well as other public transport users are very relieved that the Government has revised its definition of operating costs, so that the bulk of the asset replacement would be borne by the Government. It has been stated in the White Paper that for the existing North-South/East-West lines, the operator's share of the replacement cost will be $1.6 billion. Assuming a historical asset inflation of 5%, the balance cost of $5.3 billion would be borne by the Government. This revision to the basis of charging and breaking even will moderate fare increases. Had this not been done, the full replacement cost would have effected an immediate fare increase of 30 cents across the board. Had that 30 cents increase come about, it would have caused too much of a thunderstorm - which we cannot afford as we approach the "harvest" season.

On the minus side, I have, as expected, or as is usual, received more feedback. First, it is said that the vision set out in the White Paper would be achieved in 10 to 15 years. Unfortunately, many Singaporeans find this far too long a period to wait. It translates into three to four elections before the vision is accomplished. Generally speaking, Singaporeans are impatient. Maybe it is because of our hectic pace of life or maybe because many of us had little choice but to pay hefty sums of money to get that elusive and expensive COE so that we could have a certain level of comfort and an uninterrupted journey from home to our destination. A car in Singapore is not a nice-to-have item but really a need-to-have item today.

Many Singaporeans had little choice on deciding whether or not to buy a car and so they are prepared to stretch themselves and pay a big price for COEs and cars because our public transportation system is not effectively integrated. The conclusion segment of the Executive Summary of the White Paper says, and I quote:

`We must start solving tomorrow's transport problems today.'

This is a very wise statement indeed. But had we started doing this effectively, say, 10 to 15 years ago to provide a more effective integrated public transport system, then we would have solved many of today's public transport problems yesterday. And this is what the typical Singaporean is saying. Let me quote a comment in today's Straits Times, and I quote Clement Chua, a company executive:

`If door-to-door public transport really materialises, then I won't really need to drive a car.'

Let us look at Hong Kong. They have a very effective integrated public transport system which includes the MTR, buses, mini-buses, taxis and even ferries. Their inter-connectivity points are very well planned. The all-weather sky bridges may not be aesthetically good, but functional, and the planning and coordination to co-locate bus stops with MTR stations, and key building complexes are superior to our own integration efforts so far. Our integration efforts were not well coordinated overall by any one single agency. The MRTC decides where to put their stations, and the PWD decides where to build the roads, and the bus operators decided where to locate their bus-stops. It is like the story of the seven blind men describing how an elephant looks like. The poor Transit Link Pte Ltd is possibly caught between these giant agencies who are pulling in different directions. It is certainly a sigh of relief, though 10 to 15 years too late, that the LTA has been formed to manage the agencies under one roof. Well, it is better late than never.

To be fair, the Government did well to address the problem of road congestion in the Central Business District (CBD) by introducing a string of measures, 10, 15, 20 years ago. These included the ALS (which was introduced, I think, 20 years ago), and others like PARF, ARF and so on. But, in my opinion, the integration of the public transport system was not addressed as adequately as the road congestion problem in CBD. The MRT trains started to roll in November 1987. Had we visualised and implemented a comprehensive, integrated public transport system before the first MRT trains rolled, we would not have needed a Vehicle Quota System (VQS) or a tender system like the COEs.

It may be argued that a Vehicle Quota System was necessary because more Singaporeans are wealthier and therefore they had generated a greater demand for cars. While Singaporeans are more wealthier than before, very few Singaporeans can actually pay cash for new cars and COEs. Many of those who buy cars go to the bank for a loan. We read in the papers very often that the quantum of personal loans had increased significantly in the past few years. Last night, at a dinner, a prominent banker confirmed that in his own market segment, which is quite large, the personal savings of Singaporeans had reduced very much because they have either a hefty car or housing loan to pay up. It is the banking industry that benefits from increased loans and the Government, inevitably, accumulates a budget surplus from COEs. But the perceivably wealthier Singaporean who has some reasons for needing to own a car is in effect an urban poor after buying a car. So on hindsight, effective integration of the public transport system could have been yesterday's answer to today's and tomorrow's problems.

I am glad that the White Paper spells out a comprehensive plan to integrate the public transportation system. I hope that this is done fast, and I urge the Government to make it so convenient and so affordable that Singaporeans who drive just to work and back home would be made to look like fools who want to part with their money or fools who want to slog and pay their hefty car loan.

Sir, I met an old classmate of mine recently. He had read the White Paper and he jokingly, or maybe cynically, made a remark on an acronym used in the White Paper. He was referring to SURS. He said that he had searched the main report quite thoroughly and could not find out what the acronym SURS stood for. So he said, and I quote, "It is possibly an abbreviation for all the surcharges that would come with the world class land transport system." This remark could either be taken as a snipe or as a reflection of the pinch that our society feels due to our over-zealous pursuit of a free market economy. Anyway, to complete my little anecdote, I must add that I went back to check the White Paper and true enough, I could not find the full wording for SURS in the main report. It is not in Chapter 4, but I managed to find it in the Executive Summary where it says that SURS stands for Singapore Underground Road System. So I called my classmate the next day to tell him about it.

Sir, the way the Government puts forth its policies, especially sensitive policies, such as the land transport system, is important. Otherwise, very often the good intentions of transport policies are misunderstood and misinterpreted. A case in point is the announcement that the commuters on the proposed North-East MRT line have to pay more for the line because of the lower usage. According to reports, the usage, if the line is completed by the year 2002, is about 240,000 compared to 709,000 on the existing lines. For the North-East line this works out to about 20% of the total MRT commuters, assuming today's commuter size. When the announcement of the fares was made by the Ministry, it did not just upset those 20% of the commuters or, say, 20% of Singaporeans, who live mainly along the North-East line. It upset almost everyone. Even those who may never ever take the North-East line found it fashionable, as always, to criticise this over a cup of coffee with friends.

Presently, the bus transport operators, SBS and Trans-Island, are required contractually to operate both profitable and not-so-profitable bus routes so that Singaporeans living in the remotely linked areas can still have access to the buses. But I believe that passengers pay more or less the same rates as those using the profitable bus routes. So, many Singaporeans, especially those living in the North-East line, thought that the rule for the bus operators should apply to the MRT operator. But perhaps this is not a `light to light' comparison because the assets or capital costs for MRT are so much higher. If we apply the present rule for the bus operators to the MRT operator, the rate of increase of MRT fares could be more significant across the board. Perhaps, it could be even 30 cents or more across the board.

Given this scenario, perhaps one suggested approach, on hindsight, that should perhaps have been taken when the announcement on fares for the North-East line was made, is that the Ministry could have put two options forward to the people: One is to follow the bus operator's mechanism of cross-subsidy from the profitable routes to the less profitable routes, and the second option is to make the North-East line, as announced, to pay more. If that had been the case, perhaps 80% of the MRT commuters would have possibly said that making people pay for usage of their own lines is better and that the North-East line commuters should pay for the cost of their own line. This may sound selfish but it is a natural human reaction. Of course, I concede that some others could have said either way the Government should pay for it. Now, after the `storm', the Government has now agreed to pay for the asset replacement cost. But it appears somewhat reactionary. I would like to urge the Ministry to rally its machinery of administrative service bureaucrats to better package transport policies so that the policies are prudent and yet palatable to Singaporeans.

Sir, I like to now move on to the demand management of private cars and, in particular, to the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS). The ALS was first introduced in 1975 and has been effective in controlling congestion in the CBD, even though the vehicle population has more than doubled. While I fully agree that the morning and evening ALS has been effective, I think that the whole day ALS, introduced in 1994, appears to be ineffective. According to the White Paper, the whole day ALS only helped to reduce the traffic volume in the CBD by only 9.3%, less than 10%. Even if we assume an annual increase of 3% in vehicle population, the reduction in traffic in the CBD during the off-peak period, though has plateaued, is not too significant. Somehow, the end result is that the extra collection of ALS fees inevitably adds up to the budget surpluses, and this somewhat agitates the car owners and others.

There is another problem with the whole day ALS. I refer to Chart 5 in the White Paper. While the traffic during the off-peak periods, as I said, plateaued a little, more cars are coming into the CBD during both the morning and evening peak periods. This increase in the peak periods seems to defeat the whole objective of the ALS scheme which was very effective in the last 20 years in cutting down the traffic during the peak periods. And I personally experience this after the implementation in 1994. I find it more difficult to get to work or get home.

Of course, there is a counter argument. The ALS fee for the peak period is $3 and the off-peak is $2. So it is possible to argue that because it is only a marginal difference of $1 for the peak period, it is not sufficient to deter motorists from entering the CBD during the peak period. I do not think that we should increase the ALS fee for the peak period. Perhaps the off-peak rate of $2 should be reduced to $1 or be removed completely.

In preparation for the ERP, the trends in the peak and off-peak traffic pattern in the CBD would allow the policy makers to determine road pricing at different times of the day at different locations. We must be very careful in the way that we determine prices when ERP is implemented. Already there are symptoms in the White Paper that perhaps the ERP is the world's first system and that there would be limitations. The White Paper goes on to say that the amount charged for using the road space will not be very precise, and that we should not wait indefinitely for an ideal system to evolve. I am very concerned that this reflects a typical bureaucratic thinking. As I have mentioned earlier, we must not create more problems, especially political problems by introducing ERP.

In fact, our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, has already pointed out in November last year that the ERP could be more of a political problem than the present Vehicle Quota System. The car owners pay a one-off COE which perhaps agitates them for a year or two, after which it gradually fades away from memory until it is time to buy another car. But with the ERP, the car owner would have to worry about paying and paying every day. So the agitation and the possible political problems would be magnified. So we should study the ERP implementation much more carefully.

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to say that the White Paper is a landmark document. I want to reiterate that the plans to integrate the public transport system be accelerated and at least 80% be completed within the next five years. The Government must not be too rigid in its free market policy concept in the case of public transportation. It may be appropriate for me at this juncture to quote Dr Charles Handy, a well-known management philosopher and guru, from his book "The Age of Unreason":

`Governments, having discovered that the market, the mechanism of choice, liberates initiative and penalises inefficiency, are tempted to leave all to self-regulating choice. That would be dangerous. Markets do not look much beyond tomorrow, or at least next year. Markets are inherently selfish, disinclined to make investments whose outcomes cannot be predicted or whose benefits cannot be claimed in advance.'

So, I urge our Government to spend much more of our budget surpluses on public transportation because of our limited land, unlike what Mr Chng has said. The Government must make the land transport system so good and so affordable that the desire and the propensity to own a car would be drastically diminished not in the long term but in the short term.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this White Paper can be said to be a prelude to the full implementation of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system by the Government.

First of all, let me deal with the question of private cars. The Government has always been using the method of increasing the burden of car owners to control and attempt to solve the land transport problem. From the road tax increases and the Additional Registration Fees (ARF) in the initial stages to the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) today, the Government has always been using the price mechanism to control the increase in car population.

The result is that car buyers have to pay very much more to own cars, and Singapore is still faced with the problem of traffic congestion. So, the Government is going to introduce the ERP system to discourage people from using their cars by the collection of toll.

The White Paper states that the ERP system will make our main roads and expressways free flowing. However, if we take the experimental ECP system in the East Coast Parkway as an example, we will notice that this system can only result in more congestion in the roads around the vicinity.

In order to solve the problem of congestion along the other roads where ERP is not implemented, it would be necessary to extend the ERP system to cover the other roads as well. In the end, every road in Singapore will be subjected to ERP. Moreover, in order that the toll system would be effective, and motorists would be discouraged from using certain roads, would it not be necessary to increase the toll charges again and again?

It shows that once the ERP system is fully implemented, not only car owners will have to pay more, the cost of goods transport will increase, business cost will increase, and these increases will be passed on to the consumers and there is no way the poor people can escape from this kind of increases.

Why, in spite of the high cost, are more and more people buying cars? As a matter of fact, most people own cars because of the convenience they offer and the present public transport system is not convenient enough.

If we have a good public transport system, people do not have to waste too much time waiting for buses and changing buses to get to their destinations, like the London or Paris underground tube systems where train stations are within walking distance and easily accessible to the commuters, then I believe most Singaporeans will not want to own cars, and subject themselves to extra financial burden.

Therefore, to improve the overall public transport system and cut down the need for car ownership is the basic solution. But what the Government has done is, on the one hand, it wants car owners to pay more, to make money out of them, and on the other hand, it is dragging its feet in improving public transport system, and even wanting to involve the people in cost-sharing. The Government wants the private companies to operate the public transport system, and then asks the people to pay more to ensure the profits of these private companies. Is this reasonable?

The White Paper states that the public transport operators should "extract efficiency dividends within the service standards and fare structure approved by the Public Transport Council". The people have to pay not only the increased fares to cover the rising cost of providing public transport, but also to ensure that the operators, who monopolise the market, get their reasonable profits. This kind of cost-sharing is very unfair to the poor people in Singapore.

Therefore, in the Workers' Party programme, we have suggested the establishment of a National Transport Enterprise to take over the operation of buses and the MRT. This enterprise will ensure proper coordination between MRT and bus services to avoid duplication and to facilitate the use of a common farecard.

More importantly, this National Transport Enterprise should not be profit-oriented. It should aim just to break even in its operation, and should plough back all the benefits derived from increased efficiency and productivity to the commuters to maintain low fares.

In page 59 of the White Paper, it is stated "the public's willingness to pay for the services is an important indication that they value the service." It also states "If the bus and train companies cannot receive the additional costs of providing the better service, they will not find it viable to provide it."

If we want to achieve a "world class" public transport system as stated in the White Paper, based on this kind of principle, then the people of Singapore also have to pay a "world class" fare for their public transport. I think the people would then have to puff themselves up to their own cost in order to satisfy the vanity of the Government of achieving a "World Class Land Transport System".

The White Paper also states: "Public transport projects must at least recover operating cost. The Government will fund the capital cost of the projects, but the project must at least break even on its operating expenditures." Of course, it will be even better if it can make profit immediately. The Government will allocate funds to develop the so-called World Class Transport System only under this principle. I think this is just feeding on illusions. It may well be just wishful thinking for the ordinary folks. The North-East MRT line is a clear example.

The North-East line was originally scheduled as Phase 3 of the MRT system. As early as 1988, during the campaign for the General Election, the then Minister for Communications, Dr Yeo Ning Hong was reported by the Straits Times, on 31st August 1988, as saying that soil testing for the North-East line would begin. He also said that the North-East line would be the third phase of the entire MRT project and would be one of the main trunk lines in the MRT system. Yet, seven years later, this North-East line is nowhere in sight. The Government is repeatedly delaying the construction. The main reasons are as follows:

(1) In recent years, the Government has been concentrating on the development of the Woodlands and Chua Chu Kang housing estates, thus neglecting the development of the areas along the North-East line. For example, they built a total of 44,297 units of HDB flats in Woodlands and Chua Chu Kang housing estates during the period between 1990 and 1995/96. But in Hougang and Serangoon housing estates, only 15,577 units were built during the same period. Today, the Government is using the excuse that there is inadequate passenger-load for the North-East line and therefore this is not the right time to build it. I think this is the result of imbalance in the Government's development of public housing. Consequently, the residents in the north-eastern part of the island are unable to enjoy the convenience of a MRT line. As such, the Government should not push the responsibility to the people and tell them that if they want to have the North-East line earlier, they would have to pay higher fares to cover the losses by bringing forward the construction date. We must remember that the reason why operating cost of the North-East line cannot break even is that the Government has neglected the development of the areas along the North-East line.

(2) The North-East line was originally scheduled to be the third phase of the entire MRT project. But now, the Government is calling it an "extension line". If the stretch of MRT line from Jurong East to Chua Chu Kang is not an extension line, then how can the North-East line be an extension line? I think the Government is forcing itself to change the description of the North-East line from the original Phase 3 of the national MRT project to that of an extension line for the following reasons:

(a) By calling it an extension line, the Government can use different standards to evaluate the North-East line, and may even ask the people to share the cost;

(b) The Government knows that the people of Singapore want to improve the MRT system and so it is using the North-East line as an excuse to make the people pay higher fares in order that the MRTC can make more money and become a listed company sooner, so that the Government will no longer have to care for them. So if the MRTC wants to raise the fares, they can use the excuse that there is not enough passenger-load on the North-East line and make the North-East line the victim. The Government must not forget that the MRTC had made an after-tax profit of $100 million in the financial year 1994/95 alone, before transferring it to the reserves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, looking at this White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" and from the way the Government is shifting its responsibility in building the North-East line, I finally understand why it is emphasized in the "Conclusion" section of this White Paper that to be able to have this "world class" land transport system, more importantly, the cooperation, support and understanding of the people of Singapore are necessary.

So, the Government's intention is that the people must understand that in order to have a "world class" system, they must be prepared to pay "world class" fares. At the same time, the Government also wants the people of Singapore to support the COE system and the ERP system, ie, buy more cars, use more cars, so that the Government would have more money pouring in. The Government also wants the people to cooperate to realize a world class transport system. So no matter how heavy the burden of your fares may be, it shall be deemed to be affordable. At the General Election, you must elect a government that can make more money from the people. This is perhaps the true meaning of this White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System"!

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Land transport is one of the key bread and butter issues facing Singaporeans. For this reason, the Feedback Unit has organised several feedback dialogue sessions on land transport, including three dialogue sessions between December 1994 and January 1995 and the last one, just a few days ago, on 15th January 1996. The latest dialogue session focused on the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System". The notes of the dialogue session had been sent to the Minister.

From the three dialogue sessions in December 1994 and January 1995 and other feedback inputs, it appears that the focus of attention on land transport has shifted from "car ownership" to "public transport". Specifically, dialogue participants agreed that the only solution is "not more cars but better public transport because of Singapore's land scarcity". They also agreed on the need for the Government to control car ownership and usage so as to maintain a free-flowing road system. However, participants wanted the public transport system to be improved. They emphasised that public transport services should be reliable, convenient and affordable.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.20 pm

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): The participants of the latest dialogue session on 15th January this year raised similar points but the White Paper provided a more focused discussion. The following points were made:

(a) The participants generally welcomed the proposals in the White Paper. But they observed that many Singaporeans were keen to understand how the proposals in the White Paper would affect them individually, especially on the mode of transport available to them and its cost. Nevertheless, some participants felt that the concept of a world class land transport system might be too abstract for the man-in-the-street to relate to.

(b) One major concern among grassroots leaders, unionists and student leaders was whether the proposed world class land transport system would lead to "world class" prices. They were also concerned about the impact of the Electronic Road Pricing on taxi fares. If the road pricing cost is passed on to taxi commuters, the lower income group would no longer be able to afford to take a taxi even on special occasions or during an emergency.

(c) On service standards, they reiterated the same points of previous dialogue participants that public transport should be reliable, convenient, comfortable and affordable. It should not only satisfy the demands of regular commuters, but also aim to attract car owners to use the service. They felt strongly that in the current bus services, there was much room for improvement, and that the bus companies were not doing enough. For example, buses are always crowded during peak hours; the frequency of buses in outlying areas, for example, Jurong and Loyang industrial estates, is poor and too many transfers need to be made. They requested for more express bus services to the city and public housing estates. They also suggested that the increase in bus fares should be on a percentage basis, instead of rounding up to 5 or 10 cents.

(d) Some professionals and academics in the dialogue session felt that cargo transport and storage needs should be taken into account in planning for a world class transport system, in order to cut down the need for cargo transport across the island. There could be integrated land-use planning for the ports, factories and warehouses. Other participants also suggested that the Government could design "walking towns" where the main amenities, like markets and schools, are sited within walking distance, for example, 500 metre radius, without the need for roads. As for private transport, there were some arguments among these professionals whether control measures on car usage could replace control measures on car ownership. These are the feedback we collected in the last session.

Sir, my personal view is that the two specific concerns raised by unionists and grassroots leaders on the increase in fares and prices and the standard of public transport services need special attention from the Government. They reflect the views of the man-in-the-street. The ordinary citizens or so-called " " (lao bai xing) will not be able to relate to a world class transport system in 10-15 years' time when they have to face fare increases within one or two years, and live with the existing inadequacies and inconveniences of the public transport system.

Sir, a policy proposal should not only be correct, it should also be accepted.

In my view, fare increases are inevitable because public transport is a labour-intensive service. Manpower cost accounts for 50% of the operating cost of bus companies. Also, new vehicles, trains and equipment will cost more in the future. Increase in productivity, efficiency and the economy of scale perhaps can only moderate the quantum of increases. I agree with the first financial principle that fares must be realistic and revised periodically to adjust for justifiable cost increases. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) should learn the lesson of the sudden increases of MRT and bus fares in October/November 1990.

Fare increases will perhaps be more acceptable if there are improvements in the quality of public transport services. The LTA should consider setting up operation performance standards for each of the differentiated services so that we can ascertain whether the public transport services have really improved 10-15 years later. I emphasise the word "operation" standards and not "design" standards. One perception is that bus companies are profit-oriented and not service-oriented and these companies have accumulated huge profits. Although it was clarified in one dialogue session that only one-third of the bus routes were profitable, another one-third just achieved break-even and the rest were operating at a loss, and that the rate of return on capital on buses was low (only about 4.5%), the people remain sceptical. They are unhappy with the present duopoly situation.

One repeated suggestion is that a few more bus companies should be allowed to operate so that competition will improve service standards and moderate fare increases. I believe Dr Vasoo has raised this recently. However, this suggestion of more competition should be balanced against the benefit of the economy of scale. The White Paper has warned of the danger of a free-for-all bus competition, as experienced in Britain, and it had endorsed the present duopolistic bus industry structure as a sound one (this is in page 44). I find the reasoning not very convincing. Perhaps the Minister should respond to this issue of greater competition again in the context of the White Paper.

The second financial principle is that the services must at least recover operating cost. With regard to operating cost, some specific questions need to be clarified:

(a) Should the depreciation rate of public transport equipment be capped at a certain level, say, for example, not exceeding the percentage increase of CPI?

(b) Should the bus and public transport operators be reimbursed for the revenue loss from concession fares?

(c) Is the dividend on SBS shares included in the operating cost?

Sir, the most significant change is the third financial principle on asset replacement. The White Paper proposes that the second set of operating assets will be financed by fare revenue covering only the historical cost of the first set of operating assets, while the Government co-finances the balance.

The advantages of this proposal are that fare increases can be moderated and that MRT extension or LRT may be built earlier. However, the replacement cost principle involves inter-generation transfer of assets. One characteristic of social overheads, including infrastructures like the public transport system, is its longevity, lasting more than one generation. The questions are: which generation should pay for it, and who in the generation, taxpayers or users, should pay for it? The White Paper says in page 60:

`Each generation should pay for the services and assets it consumes.' This is fine, but the problem is that assets are not consumed within one generation.

Sir, I am not comfortable with this particular principle. The proposed third financial principle implies that we are committing now the future government and future taxpayers. Can the Minister explain this principle in greater detail so as to convince us and the people that the proposed principle is fairer, as mentioned in the White Paper? And fairer to whom?

A related question is: what is the reason that we cannot finance part of the asset replacement cost by borrowing? In page 60 of the White Paper, it is mentioned that we should not finance projects through excessive borrowing. I am not talking about excessive borrowing, but some borrowing should be considered.

Sir, we should be cautious about this asset replacement principle, the third principle. Once implemented, taxis and bus companies, indeed all transport operators, will request for a similar replacement financing principle. Moreover, should all future expansion and investment on port, airport, telecommunication, public utilities and other infrastructures follow the same replacement financing policy?

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, I have read the White Paper and I must say that I support the motion before the House.

The White Paper is one of a series of White Papers that we have received over the last few years, explaining the rationale behind Government policy. As an ordinary citizen, may I thank the Minister for having given us this opportunity to examine the basis of Government policy rather than just imposing it upon us.

Looking at this White Paper, it is clearly very well thought out. It is clearly very well written in the tradition of all the White Papers that we have received. May I, however, concentrate on one little area here. Some people have expressed the hope that with the introduction of electronic road pricing, COEs will disappear. But I think it is clear from listening to the Minister and from reading the White Paper that that is not going to be the case. ERP is there to curb road usage. COEs are there to control supply. The two apparently will co-exist. And this means that motorists in Singapore will have to put up with the inevitability of both high car prices as well as the increased cost of usage.

I think we should make a distinction between three things which are not entirely clear from the White Paper, the distinction between supply, demand and allocation. When we talk about using COEs as a means of curbing demand, may I suggest that this is not entirely accurate. COEs do not curb demand. They cap the supply. The demand is there because people desire cars. And we cannot control that desire by imposing an arbitrary limit on the number of COEs. What we do is that we cap the supply. And because the supply is capped and the demand is there, the prices shoot up. When the White Paper says that COEs are a way of curbing demand, I think we should be very careful about looking at that.

I think most people in Singapore, having thought about the matter, accept that we cannot keep on building roads and putting cars on the roads because eventually we are just going to run out of physical space. I think that is accepted by all thinking Singaporeans. So it is not a question of convincing people to accept COEs as a means of limiting supply. I think much of the unhappiness with the COE system is not with the principle of limiting supply, but the question of how the COEs are allocated. How do we allocate the COEs, and not whether or not we should have COEs? That is what I think bothers a lot of people.

Controlling COEs does not mean reducing desire. The problem is that the whole COE scheme is economically rational. It is efficient. But it takes no account of the emotional aspect of the problem. The problem is that the car is not just a utilitarian vehicle to get us from point A to point B. For many people, it is, in fact, a visible symbol of a person's material success. In a materialistic society like ours, I think the desire for this kind of tangible symbolism is very strong.

I do not think we can significantly reduce the desire for cars without fundamentally changing the basis of our society, and it is going to take a generation or more. And since we cannot fundamentally change the desire for material icons, as it were, I think we must accept that no matter what we do with public transport, no matter how efficient it is, there will always be that demand for the car for the sake of having a car, not just as a means of transport. Because people will want the car to show that they have arrived, not just any old car. They will want a car with a luxury name. Singapore must be the only place in the world where Mercedes Benz outsells Toyota. It is a testimony either to our affluence or to our collective stupidity. But there it is. We have a very, very odd situation here because of a very strong desire to have these material things.

Given that the supply of COEs must be limited, the question is whether or not any other way can be found to allocate the COEs. When I first started working many years ago, a no-frill entry level car cost about 10 times my monthly salary. A young graduate who starts working nowadays will be hard put to find a motorised tin can at 10 times his salary. He just cannot afford it. I have heard many young graduates, many young people, express dissatisfaction and frustration at the fact that they can no longer afford these things, and they feel that somehow they have been treated unfairly and there is this sense of frustration.

How do we then give the people at the lower rungs of the earning ladder a decent chance to have a car? I think a useful analogy might perhaps be drawn as far as public housing is concerned. In the case of housing, we have always had a public and a private sector. For a person who cannot afford the very high prices that prevail in the private sector, he has the option of going to the public sector, where allocation is done not solely on the basis of market forces but by balloting.

In the White Paper, if we read pages 31 and 32, the question of balloting for COEs is dismissed rather glibly in just two very brief paragraphs. It says on page 31:

`Of course, it is possible to allocate a fixed supply of COEs to lucky recipients which are below the market clearing price, as some have suggested, by way of a ballot.'

At page 32, it says:

`Even this will not increase the number of COEs or the number of Singaporeans who can obtain COEs. Furthermore, this will be unfair to the many Singaporeans not lucky enough to receive an under priced COE.'

May I suggest that this actually misses the point. It is not a question of whether we can increase the number of COEs, but whether we can increase what people perceive to be the fairness of the system. I am not suggesting at any time that we should go for a total ballot system, ballot the whole lot, because obviously it would be unfair. But is it possible to look into a public and private system, just like for public housing, and take a proportion of the lower end COEs and allocate these by ballot? After all, the Minister has said that the ratio will go up from 1:10 to 1:7. Therefore, there will be more COEs.

I do not know because I am not an economist and I do not have all the information whether this is in fact feasible. But to have it dismissed in two brief paragraphs down here and to leave it entirely to the market is, may I suggest, unsatisfactory. Because there are many people who feel that the present system is skewed towards the 5-figure per month group, and most Singaporeans are not in that group.

No doubt there will be long waits and no doubt there will be problems of implementation. But if that balloting system or quasi-balloting system is found to be unfeasible, at least let us know why it is unfeasible. Do not just dismiss it out of hand like this. I think sometimes the Government treats Singaporeans as if they do not really have the capacity to understand these things. I think by and large, most Singaporeans are rational and they know that we cannot have everything - cheap cars, unlimited usage.

Economics is a hard and unsympathetic master. If we leave it entirely to the market to govern the allocation of COEs, what we are going to have is a situation where the prices will gallop off over the horizon and woe betide those who cannot keep up with it. And as long as the desire is there to have a car, the result is frustration, which may lead to disenchantment and may lead to a less committed younger segment. The key question I think is whether or not in this particular matter we can accept a little less economic rationality in the interest of greater social contentment. After all, the people on the lower rungs of the earning ladder are just as much stakeholders in Singapore Incorporated as those who are earning five figures a month.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the White Paper before us is a well thought and well written piece of document, depicting the concept of a world class land transport system to usher Singapore into the new century. It describes the architecture of a world class land transport system comprising the following modes - the MRT, the LRT, buses, taxis and private vehicles - each serving the needs of the commuters based on their personal choices. It paints a picture of seamless integration between the various modes of land transportation. This goal of a world class land transport system is a worthy one for us to pursue as this is a vision with universal appeal.

Sir, I believe most Singaporeans will support this vision of the White Paper. Therefore, not unexpectedly, most of the concerns expressed by the general public on the White Paper centre around the financial framework under which this land transport system will be built and brought into being. Here, Sir, I find the White Paper too intent in its agenda to drive home the message that the user must pay for the use of the system. To drive home this message, it lays down three principles of cost recovery, namely, adjust fare regularly, cost recovery and asset replacement. Frankly speaking, I think there is basically only one principle, ie, cost recovery. I think most Singaporeans will accept this principle of cost recovery for operation. The other two principles, for instance, asset replacement and fare adjustment, are mechanisms to achieve the objective and can be subsumed under the simple basis of operating with sufficient fare adjustment to support cost recovery. Therefore, I find the financial principle proposed in the White Paper as simply the following.

Firstly, Government will build the transport infrastructure such as roads, MRT and LRT. Secondly, the public transport operators are to recover the cost of operation as well as the depreciation of current assets. These are very sound fundamental principles to build and sustain a world class land transport system, and I support them.

Besides these fundamental principles, I would like to make the following observations regarding the White Paper. As I said earlier, the White Paper is too focused on reiterating the obvious and not sufficient on specifics. For instance, I believe all of us would agree that the land transport system would mean a public transport system which ultimately would come down to a rail transport system. In the White Paper, three cities were quoted. London started their rail system in 1863, which means 131 years ago; Paris 94 years ago; Tokyo 67 years ago; and Singapore MRT seven years ago. The White Paper implies that Singaporeans should be patient and wait for a better land transport system because ours is still very new. From my point of view, I believe that since we actually started off quite late, there should indeed be a sense of urgency for us to build a comparable system in the shortest possible time. Singapore has become a developed country in a short span of 30 years. Singaporeans are used to moving fast and I think the LTA should lay down in the White Paper a time-table showing the various milestones to achieve this vision of a world class land transport system. I hope that once Parliament endorses the principle behind this White Paper, the LTA should remedy this shortcoming.

I am suggesting that to bring us closer to this vision of a world class land transport system, the LTA should embark on a non-stop, maybe 10 years, building programme instead of the present approach in which we have to evaluate segment by segment and whether the North-East line is financially viable or not. In fact, I believe we have already lost some very good years since the early 1970s debating whether or not to proceed with the MRT in the first place. Besides delaying Singaporeans' enjoyment of a better land transport system, delaying in the construction has also increased the cost of construction significantly. The North-South/East-West lines cost us $5 billion. The Woodlands link costs us $1.3 billion, giving us a total of $6.3 billion in construction cost. The yet-to-be-built North-East line will cost us $5 billion. All these figures are quoted from the White Paper. So let us assume that we had built the North-East line at the same time with the North-South and the East-West lines. Using the rule of thumb and my simple ruler, I would saythat it probably would cost us between $3 billion and $3.5 billion. So by building the North-East line, say, a few years down the road, it would increase by $1 billion to $1.5 billion. That is a lot of money. This amount of money would have covered the interest cost, opportunity cost, or maybe the cost of running the North-East line at a loss for several years. So I believe we should ask the question whether it would have been better off for Singaporeans to build the line earlier or build the line later; or did Singaporeans now have to pay a bill close to $1 billion just to learn a very simple economic lesson?

Yes, building a world class land transport system comprising the MRT, the LRT and the road networks is going to cost us a lot of money. But, fortunately for us, the Government seems to have the money because the White Paper never touched on how we would derive the money to pay for it. I believe we have the money.

If we do not build the system today, or a few years down the road, it would mean that we would have passed the money down to a future generation. If we build the system, what we have passed down would be a world class land transport infrastructure. Between the two, most of us Singaporeans, present generation or future generation, would have chosen the latter option. Just like today's present day Londoners or New Yorkers, Parisians and Tokyoites, they are thankful to their forefathers for the foresight and vision and, on top of that, the ability to invest in their subway system so that today they could enjoy a very good land transport system. So I hope Singaporeans would also make the same choice.

The White Paper also emphasises the more intense development of housing and commercial properties above and around the MRT stations. It mentioned that the Hong Kong MRT offers some valuable lessons that the Singapore MRT could adopt. However, the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railroad Corporation ordinance specifically gives the Hong Kong MTR the right during the construction stage to develop properties above the stations. In practice, the Hong Kong MTR formed joint ventures with partners for these commercial developments and paid full market price for the sites. In Singapore, the MRTC is not similarly empowered. As a result, we have already lost some opportunities in not developing the property, for instance, around stations like the Orchard Station and others.

Furthermore, in Singapore, property development is under the purview of HDB and URA. Although the White Paper encourages better commercial development around those sites, it did not elaborate on how the LTA would coordinate with these two organisations. This is the point that I find not too satisfactory. Indeed, there are merits to adopt the Hong Kong MTR model and maybe we should consider empowering the LTA to develop commercial property above the MRT stations as an integral part during the construction of future MRT lines. I am sure the Minister has already considered this proposal and would comment in his reply.

Sir, the White Paper is a comprehensive one touching on almost every aspect of land transport. I am happy to note that the LTA will be introducing the concept of virtual slip roads or left-turn arrows on red where motorists could turn left when the red signal is on. This is a small item, but I have spoken on this twice during previous budget debates. So I am very happy to note that the LTA has finally supported the idea.

On this note, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by saying that the concepts in the White Paper are sound. In principle, I support them. When the concepts are implemented in the future, I believe Singaporeans would enjoy a world class land transport system befitting the aspirations of Singaporeans.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate.

As an Opposition Member, I look at the White Paper in a slightly different light. Is the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" an election ploy? I think partly it is, after all this is an election year. In my view, the White Paper shall surely become part of the PAP election strategy. This kind of election strategy is not new. We have seen it done before. In the 1988 General Elections, the Government came up with the vision of making Singapore a world class city and to achieve the Swiss standard of living in 1997. The PAP used that vision of achieving the Swiss standard of living in Singapore as its election manifesto in 1988.

To respond to what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, in yesterday's Straits Times, I read that the OECD has changed its mind and decided that Singapore is not a developed country after all. If we are not developed, I do not know whether we have reached the Swiss standard of living.

In the 1991 General Election, the Government published its grand vision for Singapore in a book entitled The Next Lap. That book was again used by the PAP as its election platform in that general election. In this year's general election, I shall not be surprised at all if the PAP uses the proposals in the White Paper on a world class land transport system for its election purposes.

I have read the White Paper and I find it too general. No specific information such as when the North-East MRT line shall be built is given. Another matter is the ERP which concerns many motorists. The White Paper only says that the ERP shall be in operation in 1997, but it does not say how much it is going to cost motorists. I believe this concern has been expressed in correspondence in the press. With the ERP in place, usage of motor cars can be really expensive. The White Paper should have given some indication of the charges that shall be levied on motorists when the ERP is in place. If usage of roads is going to be jacked up, will the cost of motor cars become lower? The Minister should clarify on these points.

Another matter which needs clarification is the term "A World Class Transport System". What does a world class transport system constitute? The White Paper says that it must provide commuters with highly efficient, comfortable and convenient rides in a free-flowing traffic. But in practical terms, what does it mean? What I want to know is at what level of infrastructural development of Singapore's transport system can it be said that Singapore has achieved a world class transport system. The White Paper gives plans of building a network of road systems involving the Singapore Underground Road System (SURS) and the MRT and LRT lines. How much of this vision as set out in the White Paper has to be completed before Singapore can be said to have a world class transport system? Is it half of the programme or is it fully? If the whole programme as laid out in the White Paper has to be completed before Singapore can be said to have a world class transport system, then I do not think that the 10-15 years' time-table mentioned in the White Paper is a realistic time frame. I think it would take longer than that. I would say at least 18 years or more. Perhaps the Minister can give us a time-table of completion dates of the road network, SURS, the Kallang and Northshore lines and the LRT system. I believe this has been requested for by the previous speaker.

As regards the North-East line, the Minister has put all his cards very close to his chest. The White Paper also does not throw much light on it except that it is 20 km long. At this stage, perhaps it is a good time for the Minister to give more details about the North-East line. In particular, when will it be built and when is its expected completion date? What route it would take and the names of all the stations along the route. It is not me who wants the information. People who are living in the North-East corridor are the most interested people to know the answers. Now is as good a time as any for the Minister to give the answers, and I hope the Minister shall not disappoint them.

The Government intends to build a world class transport system. In fact, for motorists in this country, they deserve a world class road network system now, because they are paying not world class prices for their motorcars but super world class prices for them. What we pay for one car in Singapore can be used to purchase three equivalent capacity cars in America. The car prices in Singapore may be the highest, or if not the highest in the world. Motorists in Singapore can justly claim for a world class road network now.

In view of the higher cost of motoring and the vast amounts of taxes collected from motorists, the Government should proceed to construct the SURS now and not drag its feet any longer.

There is one matter which appears unrelated, but I would like to bring it up with the Minister, and this concerns commuter facilities. I refer to the covered linkways from HDB flats to bus stops. In the LTA's implementation of its vision of a world class transport system, I would like to know who would pay for such linkways � the bus operators, the Government, or the Town Councils? At the moment, my constituency is in an unhappy position where we have to pay wholly for such linkways, whereas the PAP wards pay only about 25% of the cost. All PAP constituencies get CIPC (Community Improvement Projects Committee) support funds of up to 75% of the cost of such community works. Can the Minister help to change this policy, at least in respect of only covered linkways connecting HDB flats to bus stops, so that Potong Pasir too can play its part in building a world class land transport system?

There is another matter which I noted is glaringly missing in the White Paper. This matter has been brought up by me in Parliament before, and that is, the request for construction of bicycle lanes on our roads. I think I shall be too ambitious if I ask the Minister to build bicycle lanes on all our roads, except the highways. I shall not do that, but what I want to ask the Minister is to start building bicycle lanes in all HDB estates, not only Potong Pasir. I am thinking of the children who love to cycle. Children must be protected and they should be given a safe place to enjoy their cycling. Of course, other people can also use those bicycle lanes to commute within the estate, such as going to the shops, market, and also to ride to the MRT stations. I think I am also not asking too much if cyclists take their bicycles to the MRT stations, they must find a sheltered place to put their bicycles. Therefore, perhaps I should also request the Minister in helping to construct bicycle sheds.

It does not mean that because Singapore is affluent, we have to abandon the bicycle. I get this feeling when I read the White Paper. There were no provisions recommended in the White Paper for cyclists on our road network system. The bicycle is a good mode of transport. It is not only very cheap, but it does not take up much space on our roads and, more importantly, it is pollution-free and healthy. I wonder whether the Minister is willing to include bicycle lanes in HDB estates for a start, as part of its world class transport system programme.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if Mr Chiam thinks that this White Paper is an election document, I suggest that he uses some of the good ideas, which are put in the White Paper, during his election campaign.

Sir, Singaporeans are a widely travelled lot and can clearly see and understand the transport problems faced in many countries, like Thailand, Taiwan and Japan, to mention a few. We have been a little fortunate because of the various measures introduced over the years to keep our system in check. Most of the measures like ALS, COEs, were not popular when they were introduced, yet they had to be introduced. Most countries would like to introduce some of these measures that we have implemented here, but for various reasons they are unable to do so.

Sir, I welcome the White Paper as it sets out how the Government intends to solve the transportation problems in Singapore or, in fact, to go about establishing a world class transport system. So far I must say that our attempts have been piecemeal and this White Paper sets out the problems clearly and how they are to be tackled over the years. If not tackled now, the problems will grow and become totally unmanageable.

This White Paper sets out clearly the issues involved and how they are to be addressed. It is not always easy for the man-in-the-street to see the big picture. He is in fact concerned with his own needs. Many people I have talked to, the basic questions they ask are always the same:

(1) Will I benefit from this vision?

(2) Will it mean more convenience and comfort?

(3) Will it mean higher cost for me or, as some people have glibly put it, "World class system at first class prices"?

Sir, in order to get the understanding, support and cooperation of all Singaporeans, these issues must be brought down from the philosophical level to the ground level. I believe more explanation and education of the public must be carried out by the LTA.

Sir, I would want to comment on the financing framework mentioned in the White Paper. I support the principle that this framework is based on the concept of partnership, ie, Government provides infrastructure, commuters pay for operating costs, and operators have to operate efficiently.

Sir, however, I cannot understand why buses have been excluded from the financing arrangement. Two decades ago, we were all debating whether an all-bus solution would be preferred as a means of transport for Singaporeans or whether the train had a role to play. Today, looking at the White Paper, one wonders whether such debates had actually taken place. Indeed, it would appear more natural to ask whether an all-train solution would be more preferable.

However, Sir, the White Paper states that we need to depend on MRT, LRT, and the buses. If buses are an integral part of the transportation system, then the financing framework should also take into account the buses. We need to focus on buses too. This is especially so when I am told that 41% of all the trips made today are by bus (3 million trips in all) and MRT accounts for 700,000 trips, which is about 10%. Singaporeans, especially from the lower income group, are still very much dependent on buses. As such, the Government should make every attempt to make sure that the bus operations continue to be efficient and our bus fares affordable.

It is stated in the White Paper that the Government is prepared to co-finance the purchase of the trains with SMRT by requiring SMRT to pay only for the historical cost of the train when replacing it 30 years later. For the existing MRT trains, the historical cost is $1.6 billion. Government will pay for any asset inflation. The same principle should at least apply to buses.

The cost of the bus fleet renewal is no cheaper than the train. Based on the age of at least 12 years for a bus, at an average cost of $250,000 per bus, and the current fleet of about 3,200 buses, bus operators have to pay $2 billion over the same period of 30 years and, further, the entire $2 billion is to be paid over 30 years, unlike the MRT which needs to pay only $1.6 billion on the 30th year.

I would urge the Minister to take another look at the bus operators on the new financing framework. I think they deserve to be part of the new social contract. The days of quantum jumps in productivity gains are over, and this is likely to place an upward pressure on bus fares. This, I submit, Sir, will in the long run be very regressive. Any assistance given to the bus operators should go towards maintaining fare structure and not to boost their bottom-line.

In conclusion, Sir, let me state that the White Paper sets out clearly our vision for the future. It is not a dream. The key is in the implementation. The immediate improvements must be real and not merely cosmetic. Convenience, reliability, comfort, ease of use, affordability and competitive travel time, must be felt and enjoyed by our citizens. If commuters can see some of these benefits in the initial stages, I am confident that Singaporeans will go the extra mile with the Land Transport Authority.

Sir, I support the motion.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman (Thomson GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I fully support the motion in the name of the Minister for Communications. The White Paper presents a comprehensive description of our policy on the future land transport system. It articulates our aim to have a world class land transport system capable of meeting the demands of a rapidly growing city, as well as satisfying the people's expectations of good service and high quality infrastructure. The paper promises us improvements in all aspects of a land transport system that incorporates the bus, the MRT and the taxi.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the operation philosophy and the long-term and short-term initiatives and objectives discussed in the White Paper. The Land Transport Authority's aim to build a $10 billion land transport system that will equal the airport and the port in standards must be supported by all Singaporeans. If the plans can be implemented in an orderly fashion, we will realise our vision of a city of excellence within the next 10 or 15 years. For this to happen, Singaporeans need to give the LTA their full cooperation and support as it strives to carry out its plans.

But even as we draw up long-term plans for a world class system, there are short-term measures we must take to improve the land transport system as it is today. The people want comfortable, convenient and rapid travel to their destinations. Immediate action has to be taken to solve the problems of congestion along our expressways and the crowding in our buses and MRT trains. The waiting time for buses and trains needs to be cut down by increasing the number of buses and trains. If the SBS and TIBS fleets are inadequate to cope with commuter demand in the morning and evening peak hours, can we not consider allowing more private buses, such as school and factory buses, etc, to carry passengers during those hours? This will help cut down waiting and travelling time, especially in those districts which are densely populated. We will also be making more efficient use of the available resources in the private buses. The Government can charge fees through additional licences for the bus owners to carry passengers during those limited hours. We should take private bus resources into account in our overall planning for improvement in bus services.

As regards the MRT, we need extra trains to reduce crowding. This is to help commuters at intermediate stations like Bedok, Kembangan or Bishan and Toa Payoh get seats in the trains on their way to work.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the construction of covered pedestrian footpaths needs to be speeded up for the benefit of MRT and bus commuters. This is to make it more convenient for them to use public transport and to encourage more people, especially motorists, to do the same. Pedestrians also want footpaths which are lined with shady trees for natural shelter. For cyclists, they would welcome more bicycle parking facilities. I hope with these amenities for pedestrians and cyclists, more people will heed our call for a healthy lifestyle.

Mr Deputy Speaker, living in a small island, it is reasonable and logical for us to focus on rail systems as the means of travel to all parts of the country. I feel rail must form the backbone of our land transport system. The Government's plan to build the North-East line must be expedited for the sake of people living in Hougang, Serangoon and Punggol. If services are satisfactory, I think a small increase in fare will not be an issue. In this age of progress, time is essential. If commuters can reach their destinations rapidly, I am sure they would be willing to pay a slightly higher fare.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in Chapter 4 of the White Paper, the LTA envisages a network of roads and expressways covering all parts of Singapore including Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong. I am impressed with such meticulous and ambitious planning. With this network of roads and expressways, motorists will be able to go from one part of Singapore to another very quickly. I hope the construction of the Seletar and Tampines Expressways will be expedited, so that the current congestion along PIE can be relieved. The Government can also, as an immediate measure, install cameras at various places along the PIE to monitor the traffic jams that take place there daily. Regular announcements on the radio about the jams will help drivers to avoid them by taking other routes. I believe this immediate measure will help relieve the congestion along the PIE and help motorists to save fuel.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the land transport financing policy spelt out by LTA, which is based on cost-sharing, should have everyone's acceptance. But before we implement this idea, I think the Government should offer clearer explanations. Personally, I agree with the principle. The idea is that the Government will provide the infrastructure, the commuters will pay for the operating costs and the operators will provide good service at reasonable fares. This partnership between Government, commuters and operators will lead to a consensus that will benefit all parties. It is important to stress the openness of the government when building the land transport infrastructure. The public will be able to know the actual expenditure incurred. The operators on their part must charge realistic fares, and any increase should be reasonable and commensurate with the level of service provided. In this way, the public will be satisfied and will not feel short-changed.

I welcome the Government's decision to establish the principle of asset replacement at current cost borne by the generation using it. This means that operating costs will be lower and the higher cost of future asset replacements will be borne by future governments. The people should be thankful to the Government for this.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the White Paper sets out the challenges we face on the road to a world renowned land transport system. With the cooperation of all parties and the consensus of all Singaporeans, I am confident we will realise our aim to raise the standards of our land transport system and the quality of our life.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, the White Paper on a World Class Land Transport System provides a comprehensive plan to meet the transportation needs of our population. Most commuters whom I have spoken to are impressed with the various plans which are said to likely solve our transportation problems. While we solve the problems at this juncture for the next five years, new problems may arise and we will probably need another White Paper to look at this whole issue again and try to see how we can solve the problems.

Sir, whilst the proposals are good and comprehensive, there are a few issues which require attention. First, with a first class transportation system, will transport cost for the average working class commuters remain affordable? I think the major question in the minds of many commuters, particularly the working class, is the fares between their home and their work place.

Sir, about 14% of their income is being used for transportation. What would the threshold be? Would it be 20% of their income in the next five years? Is there a need for us to maintain some balance in allowing for affordability because a large number of commuters travel by public transport?

Sir, this is very important. We must not have a high class transportation system that remains inaccessible to the greatest number of travelling public. I think this issue would have to be addressed by the LTA to ensure that there is a balance in terms of the charges.

Sir, the second issue is that with the changes to the present transportation system, will travelling time be reduced? That I think is an issue that many commuters are also asking, ie, whether the improved changes would be a change for the better. As pointed out in the White Paper, travelling will be made efficient and comfortable, but then how long is it going to take them to commute to their work places.

Sir, we may have a first class transportation system but with a poor supporting feeder service, it would be counter-productive. People travel very quickly by MRT from one destination to another but the supporting feeder system takes them more than 45 minutes to get to their home. That defeats the whole purpose of having a world class system when they travel very quickly by MRT but the other system clogs them up. Therefore, it is crucial to build a more efficient supporting system, such as LRT and a good feeder system, that will allow commuters to reach their destination very quickly.

Sir, the third area where the White Paper has not paid close attention is the needs of the growing aging population. In view of the fact that one in five persons would be 60 years and above in the next two decades, what are the specific plans of LTA to make the public transportation system more user-friendly to the elderly? Do not forget that we would be having a larger number of go-slow and slow-slow aging commuters whose transportation needs are different from the more agile and mobile population. I have not seen any specific suggestions that the White Paper has addressed for this group.

Finally, Sir, the special needs of the disabled persons have not been looked into. One may argue that it is difficult to cater to their transportation needs in the White Paper. However, I feel that arrangements would have to be made to look into the travel needs of the disabled. Their travel needs have to be addressed so that they will also be brought into the mainstream of our society and enjoy it. As many of them need to work and commute, I think we should try as far as possible to see how we can make arrangements for a specialised transport system to meet their needs. These are the various issues that I hope the Minister would address to see how a better world class system can be realised. I support the proposals in the White Paper.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the White Paper on a World Class Land Transport System is farsighted and has a wide-ranging coverage that touches on almost every aspect of our land transport system, from integrating land use and town planning to all modes of transportation system, such as MRT, motorcars, buses, taxis, etc, to transport management and financing. I said almost because I would like to touch on one important aspect that has not been highlighted later on.

The White Paper presents a broad vision and a macro concept on how we can achieve the objective of a world class land transportation system. It reflects the importance the Government places in ensuring that our transport system will remain effective, efficient and workable in the next two or three decades. However, the success of such a vision would depend very much on the detailed implementation, setting a realistic target of expectation and the cooperation of all those involved in the system.

It is important to realise that even if we have succeeded in implementing the plan as set out in this White Paper, we should not expect a total transformation of our land transport system and that our mobility will improve by quantum leaps. It is because very often, we forget our tremendous land and resource constraint and that Singapore is undergoing constant transformation, population increases, expansion of the city and, even going by a conservative growth rate, tremendous pressure will be exerted on our transportation needs in the future. Therefore, we should view the White Paper from a realistic perspective that if we do not constantly anticipate and find solutions to our transportation requirements in a decade or two, we will suffer the same fate as some other countries are experiencing. We have often quoted examples of travel woes of other places, like Bangkok, Taipei or, even closer home, Malaysia, but always harbour with complacency the thought that it would never happen to Singapore. But the fact remains that given all the constraints, we are more vulnerable and likely to be put in a situation such as those experienced in these countries because of our size and a lack of hinterland. There will always be pressure groups or people like the Opposition, for their own self-interest, to exploit the transport issue by distorting the reality that we face.

It is well and good to say that we should have a perfect land transport system where mobility is of an optimum level, that we should not wait a minute too long for our buses or taxi, that everyone should be able to own a car, that MRT should be run throughout the island, and areas that cannot be covered by MRT should have a comprehensive and elaborate LRT system. These thoughts are very seductive and appealing, but the reality is that there is no such thing as a perfect land transport system. Mobility is relative. It takes time to travel from one destination to another. It is the amount of time taken to accomplish that which determines how acceptable a country's land transport system is being managed. Of course, comparison helps, but it has to be an apple-with-an-apple type of comparison. One cannot expect traffic flow in the city to be compared with the traffic flow in the countryside.

Coming back to the aspect that I wanted to comment earlier, although I consider the White Paper wide-ranging and comprehensive, one aspect which I feel merits serious consideration, in order to fill up the missing link to the whole scheme of things, is the planning and provision for the pedestrians. The proposal of decentralising commercial and other economic activities to the development of regional and sub-regional fringe centres at MRT stations and by reducing the need for people to travel by locating employment centres like industrial estates, business parks and commercial centres near residential areas is sound and logical. Even integrating residential and commercial development with MRT stations to a great extent would help to minimise the necessity for commuters to travel. However, the scope has its limitations because there is an optimum number of MRT stations that can be built. Major bus exchanges or main arterial roads that buses can travel on have their own limitations also. Besides, residing on top or near MRT stations or near one's workplace, although it can be convenient, can also be monotonous. Because it means that you have to work and rest in the same environment. This may not be that desirable. The fact is that the majority of our people will still have to reside in areas peripheral to the major transportation nodes. This may not be a total negative option, because most of us do not mind trading a bit of inconvenience for a lifestyle that gives us the opportunity to work in a busy and bustling urban environment in the day time and returning to the more tranquil and homely surrounding in the evening. This environmental change will provide us with a better physical and psychological balance.

However, much would have to be done to cater for the mobility of this large pool of commuters, making it more convenient for them to travel from their home to the nearest transportation node. While it is well and good to create a more efficient transportation network consisting of cars, MRT, buses, LRT and taxis, etc, that can save travelling time, the result will be negated if one has to walk an unacceptably long distance to arrive at these transportation facilities. I therefore propose that the Ministry of Communications and possibly the Ministry of National Development look into the planning needs of the pedestrians, set comfortable target of the maximum distance for anyone to walk from his or her dwelling to the nearest transportation node available. This can be done, firstly, through the careful planning of a comprehensive network which locates all major and secondary transportation nodes at strategic locations within walking distance for all.

Secondly, the provision of a well-planned pedestrian route that is conducive for walking. This can be in the form of a network of green spine that is under cover or shaded by trees integrated with the landscaped area.

Thirdly, the pedestrian routes should be safe from vehicular traffic, so that even children and senior citizens can make use of them freely. I would therefore request that the above be considered and incorporated into the proposed White Paper.

Sir, no effort should be spared in making our land transport system work efficiently, because the flow of traffic in a city is not unlike the arteries in our body. If they choke, we expire.