WORLD CLASS LAND TRANSPORT SYSTEM

Debate resumed. 3.45 pm

Mr Imram bin Mohamed (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the motion.

The Land Transport Authority deserves to be lauded for producing the White Paper which outlines its vision for a world class transport system. It is well-written and well-illustrated. Government policies and principles are explained in detail. I find the arguments given generally sound. The release of the report is also timely. Singaporeans have, for some time now, been frustrated by the rising cost of car ownership and also not knowing what to expect for their future.

The White Paper would enable the public to better appreciate the transport problems faced by Singapore and the challenges ahead. It maps out quite comprehensively the near and long-term strategies for the public as well as private transport. Singaporeans would as a result be able to assess the individual transportation needs and make informed decisions.

I have discussed the report with a number of people, including friends and junior colleagues who normally commute by public transport. They mostly agree with the concept of the White Paper. However, whilst they support LTA's efforts to upgrade our transport system to world-class standard, they are apprehensive about the cost implications. They fear escalating costs which have to be borne by the users. It is thus imperative that fares are kept affordable for the system to be widely accepted by the public. Affordability factor, however, is relative. Some may not mind paying more if they feel that they are getting good value for money. I am therefore glad to note in the White Paper that LTA will provide a wide spectrum of transport choices with differentiation in service standards and cost to suit each individual's preference and pocket.

I would now like to add a few comments of my own.

(1) LTA should look into the feasibility of extending the operating hours of public transport, to allow for people who are working on late shift to return home after work. An extended operation, say, to 1.00 am, would allow greater flexibility for companies in rostering staff for the second and third shifts.

(2) Taxis contribute to road congestion as much as private cars, if not more, because of empty cruising. Taxis should not become an alternative to owning cars and freely used by commuters. Its use should be curbed. The standard of the other public transport should be raised to a level where taxi use would be kept to an absolute minimum. However, this alone will not curb demand unless taxi fares are adjusted to reflect its true cost. Taxi fares should be raised gradually, as and when the integrated rail and bus system has been put in place. The rise in taxi fares is inevitable if the objective of the White Paper is not to be defeated.

(3) Taxis should be discouraged from cruising empty. One way this can be done is to structure the road tax into two components, a fixed component and a variable component which is based on mileage clocked. At the same time, the call and booking surcharge should be reduced so as not to discourage people from dialling a cab.

(4) For Singapore, being a high density city state, it is important that air and noise pollution be kept to a minimum for the sake of our long-term health. Wherever feasible, preference should be given to electric propulsion vehicles over those powered by internal combustion engine. Stricter air and noise control measures should also be applied to motorcycles.

(5) The use of bicycles should be promoted extensively. The bicycle has many advantages. It is pollution free and cheap. Cycling is physically healthy provided the roads are safe, of course. It is an efficient form of support facility to the rail system. It will relieve the need to provide parking spaces for cars at MRT stations. In order to encourage the public to use bicycles, LTA should not merely provide bicycle parking facilities at MRT stations and bus interchanges, but must also provide safe cycle tracks.

(6) The hon. Nominated Member Walter Woon raised a point in the House yesterday regarding the rising cost of COE due to a cap in supply. I would like to dwell on it a bit more. The Minister for Communications has said that car ownership will increase progressively from the current 1:10 car to population ratio to 1:7 in the year 2010. If an average family unit comprises four people, ie, one couple and two kids, this would translate to one car to just under two families, or over 50% of households would own cars in the year 2010. This means that car ownership would reach the average Singaporean and not be the exclusive domain of only those in the very high income bracket. In fact, as I understand it, the 1:7 ownership ratio was made possible from just the capacity increase of our road network, as outlined in the White Paper. Improved public transport system plus road pricing measures are bound to cut down car usage, especially during the peak periods. If we succeed in cutting down the average mileage of 18,600 kilometres per year currently clocked by our motorists to 10,000 kilometres per year as in Japan, even more households can be allowed to own cars. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether this is indeed the correct scenario.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not entirely comfortable with the financial framework as proposed. LTA proposed that fares for MRT be charged to cover operations and historical cost, but not replacement cost of trains. This would make certain projects viable while keeping fares at an affordable level. I have no qualms with this principle. However, as the Minister said yesterday, we should look at this whole project as a legacy for our next generation. As such, we should not leave them with a high financial burden to carry if we can help it. Just like in a family, responsible parents should provide for their children's future, including giving them a head start in adult life if the parents could afford it. To provide them with a hefty bill instead, as in the case of the proposed financing scheme, would be remiss of our parental obligations.

I would therefore like to suggest that the Government put aside a small percentage of its budget surplus each year into a sinking fund to pay towards the replacement of major assets. After all, an improved transport system would contribute towards economic growth to improve productivity, and indirectly contribute towards the Government's till.

Finally, to curb road demand, there ought to be a change in mindset towards public transport, especially of those in the higher income bracket. These people must regard public transport as an acceptable means of communication and that there is no shame to travel by bus. LTA should spearhead a drive to achieve this change of mindset. We should not rely on fiscal measures alone to force them to switch from driving their cars to using public transport.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the White Paper sets forth the PAP Government's vision and blueprint for achieving a world-class land transport system in Singapore. It is a very important document and if endorsed by this House, the Government will be committed to spend billions of dollars to realise this vision.

I am therefore surprised to note that the SDP is conspicuously absent from this debate, although notice of the debate has been given much earlier. The SDP has been calling for a debate with the PAP on the various Government policies. It has even published its own land transport report last year, pontificating what it thought our land transport policy should be and said it would make its report part of its election manifesto. But when such an important debate is taking place in Parliament with extensive media coverage of its proceedings, the Chairman of SDP, Mr Ling, absented himself and went to meet some liberal organisations at Subic Bay in the Philippines. Mr Cheo Chai Chen, who is an SDP CEC member, is also not scheduled to speak. Although Mr Chiam has spoken, he, however, is not a CEC member and does not seem to represent the SDP, especially after the last parliamentary debate. This House must therefore question the sincerity and the seriousness of purpose of the SDP when it said it wanted to debate the PAP on Government policies. The SDP should stop ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, can I clarify?

Mr Speaker: Are you giving way, Dr Chen?

Dr John Chen Seow Phun resumed his seat.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I would like to explain to Dr Chen that I am still an SDP member. Let it not be mistaken.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, I did not say that he is not an SDP member. I said that he is not a CEC member. It seems to me that he did not represent the SDP when he spoke.

Sir, the SDP should therefore stop this hypocritical and deceiving act. If it let this debate pass, it should not come back and call for another debate. But knowing the SDP, I am sure it will do just that.

Sir, a world-class land transport system must have two key components. First, a world-class public transport system and, second, a free-flowing traffic condition. The two, however, are interlinked. Without free flowing traffic, taxi and bus services will not be efficient and public transport will not be attractive. Without an excellent public transport system, it will be difficult to persuade motorists to switch to public transport. Traffic will then become congested unless demand for cars and road usage are controlled.

The present public transport system in Singapore is far from ideal. The MRT network is not extensive. The location and layout of some MRT stations do not provide good accessibility for both pedestrians and motorists. Take Newton Station, for example. A commuter walking from Newton Station, which is on the Scotts Road side, to the other side to Newton Road, which is on the other side of the Newton Circus, will find it very difficult and hazardous.

Sir, MRT stations were also designed without taking into consideration the tropical weather in Singapore where showers can come at any time of the day. Commuters are therefore stranded when it rains. Bus services are also not satisfactory in that travel times are long, waiting times are uncertain, and that during peak hours, buses are just too crowded.

To address these problems, we need to build more and better MRT lines as well as LRT lines. We need also to build a more comprehensive road network. But it would take some time before an extensive rail and road network is established. In the meantime, we need to quickly improve our bus services. But this cannot be done effectively if road traffic is congested, which we have already experienced on the expressways, major ring roads and around the bigger HDB estates. It is therefore necessary to introduce road pricing in the immediate future to restrain the usage of cars, improve traffic flow and hence bus services. Of course, motorists will be unhappy. But without usage restraint, traffic will get worse unless we reduce COE quota. In which case, COE prices will sky-rocket, which I do not think is desirable.

Sir, the White Paper, though comprehensive, has missed out an important point in its proposal to improve public transport, and that is the benchmarking of travel and waiting times against world standards. I do not know whether the LTA is not bold enough to set such standards for itself to achieve or it has overlooked the importance of such benchmarkings. Benchmarking will allow us to constantly measure our performance against the set targets. It will force the authority and the operators to strive towards the benchmarks. Adherence to these standards will be the best quality of service a public transport operator can deliver to its customers. May I therefore ask the Minister whether LTA will benchmark travel and waiting times for both rail and bus services.

Sir, it is not uncommon to find that at certain traffic light junctions and at certain times of the day, the traffic in one direction, say, east-west direction, is much heavier than traffic in the north-south direction. It is very frustrating for motorists to experience such congestion. What the LTA must do is to install devices at traffic lights which can be preset remotely from a control centre to facilitate traffic on the more congested road. The White Paper has mentioned about harnessing technology to maximise network capacity and made some proposals, but it did not include what I have just proposed. Will the Minister look into it?

On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I clarify the point made by Dr Chen? This is a debate on a very important document, the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" in Singapore. I hope it is not misunderstood that Dr Chen is using part of this debate to show the differences in the SDP. I have got no privy to the thinking of the SDP on the transport system in Singapore, but I believe the Secretary-General of the SDP has written something on it. The Leader of the House has lifted Standing Order No. 1 so that we can go beyond 4.30 pm. So it is still not too late for the SDP to give its views on the transport system in Singapore.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the White Paper which contains a bold, farsighted, comprehensive and pragmatic proposal of a world class land transport system in Singapore.

The report on land transport is the most detailed and in-depth study ever undertaken in Singapore since its independence. With one bold stroke, their recommendations, when implemented, will no doubt give Singapore one of the most modern and efficient land transport systems in the world. Sir, I am happy to note that the off-shore islands of Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong in my constituency will also be included in this system.

Given the Government's proven track records in its single-mindedness in successfully making our Changi Airport, seaport and the public housing programme the best in the world, I have every confidence that given time our land transport system will be another feather in its cap.

What we need to do now is to convince the people of Singapore of the necessity of implementing the total transport package as elaborated in the White Paper to solve our future land transport problems today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.07 pm

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): In order to have the people behind us, we must convince them that only a long term and comprehensive approach as bold as that proposed in the White Paper will prevent our roads becoming as chaotic and impassable in future as those found in many major cities in the world today. Of course, there will be inconvenience, even sacrifice to make. But to be timid, to resort to piecemeal solutions, is to postpone the problem; to shift our responsibility to the next generation, making the problem more difficult to solve, if at all soluble.

Sir, I am also gratified to learn of the new financing formula offered by the Government to co-pay the replacement costs of operating assets for the Mass Rapid Transit. This generous gesture on the part of the Government will not only expedite the construction of MRT extension, for example, the North-East line, but also hopefully serve to maintain MRT fares at an affordable level for the average commuter. Sir, I also hope that the MRT extension to Changi Airport could even materialise sooner.

Sir, I am also supportive of the long term aim of getting 75% of Singaporeans to ultimately travel by public transport, be it the MRT, bus or taxi. In land-scarce Singapore, there is really no other way. Again, we have to find ways to sell this concept to all Singaporeans.

However, up to now there have been limited efforts on the part of taxi operators, for example, to address commuter grouses of frustrating attempts to get a taxi on the road or by phone, and long waiting time especially during peak hours or during festive seasons. Complaints on taxi shortage are still common as often we can see long queues of commuters lining up at taxi stands as well as outside shopping centres.

There is apparently a lack of initiative on the part of public transport providers at this juncture to also improve their services in terms of courtesy and professionalism. Therefore, there is a need for the Government to set some basic service standards to spur the transport operators to be more responsive and accountable. One area for consideration of incentives is to grant certain forms of concession in road tax or diesel tax in future for taxi operators who can be inspired to project a good image of their professionalism in their delivery of friendly, helpful and courteous service both to local and foreign commuters.

Sir, another area of contention between the commuters and public transport operators is the question of increases in fares. More often than not the increase in fares is based on profitability alone. People do not understand why fares have to be increased just because the operators are not making enough profits. The perception of what is enough is in itself a contentious issue and often causes dissatisfaction among the people.

The general public cannot be blamed for being unhappy if fares are increased solely because the transport providers are not making enough profit, the service they provide must also be raised accordingly. If this is the case, more people will be willing to pay a little higher fare for better service, and fewer commuters will be upset and fewer commuters will blame the Government for being responsible for the rise in their travelling expenses.

On the other hand, the proposal to develop the space around the MRT stations and the introduction of light rail transit is to be welcome. This proposal not only optimises the use of precious land but also makes travelling, working and shopping that much more convenient for the people who make use of the public transport. However, the perennial problem remains that of the peak hour demand when Singaporeans all rush to work or come back from work all at the same time. Although this is being addressed to a certain extent in the existing framework of the Area Licensing Scheme, Road Pricing Scheme, Weekend cars and Park and Ride Scheme, more innovative solutions are needed to address this problem. A concerted effort should be made to study the feasibility and implementation of staggered working hours. In the long term, the Government should study this measure in-depth and perhaps use financial incentives to influence companies.

The MRT should put in more trains at shorter intervals to meet the morning and evening peak hour demand. Alternatively, it should look into the possibility of increasing the present six coaches in each train to seven or even eight coaches.

I endorse the concept to make the public transport system as detailed in the White Paper the main mode of commuting by the people in Singapore. Realising the vision of a world class land transport system is of course no mean feat. It needs the understanding, cooperation and commitment of all parties concerned - the Government, the transport operators and all Singaporeans. Indeed, with the commitment of all parties, we can certainly look forward to better, faster, convenient, affordable and more comfortable commuting.

Mr John De Payva (Nominated Member): Sir, we intend to have a world class land transport system, and I do not see why not. After all, we already have a world class airport, a world class seaport and our workforce has long been regarded by BERI as the world's best. But a world class transport system comes with a price. How much more do we have to pay to travel in such a system? This is a question that is of crucial importance to me as a commuter and more so as a trade unionist responsible for workers' interest. Of course, the Land Transport Authority will have to do its sums before coming up with actual fees. In doing so, I am sure it will bear in mind that although we are as good as a developed nation, there are many workers who still earn third-world wages. In principle, I support the concept of partnership. Government provides the infrastructure, commuters pay for operating cost and operators operate efficiently under the scrutiny of the Public Transport Council.

Government is to be congratulated for its farsighted vision on land transport. The MRT is our pride and joy and that was made possible because of Government's decision in 1980 to pay for the infrastructure. Now the White Paper on a world class land transport system has proposed that Government foots part of the cost for the replacement of trains when it is necessary to make such changes. I applaud Government's move, but I cannot say I am happy with the reaction of bus companies. The Singapore Bus Service sought to ride on Government's generosity. It too feels that Government should bear part of the cost of replacement of buses. Why, may I ask? Surely, SBS has made provision for bus replacements.

Now let me turn to the White Paper's reference to a social contract among Government, the operators and commuters. I say that such a social contract can only work if there is mutual trust. There can be no trust if we the commuters feel that the operators are only interested in higher profits. I am not against bus companies or any organisation for making profits. Without profits, we trade unionists cannot secure better terms and conditions for our members employed in such organisations.

Here, let me read what the Straits Times reported on 2nd January 1996. It quoted SBS as saying, "to keep bus fares affordable amidst an environment of rising manpower, fuel and capital cost, it would go a long way if Government can similarly explore some form of co-financing scheme for bus renewals as well". The question is: what if the Government says no? Does it mean that SBS will not carry out bus replacements? Or does it mean that bus fares will be raised to the extent that they become unaffordable? Neither proposition makes sense to me. Maybe it is unfair to SBS to just take one sentence from its statement and draw conclusions. Perhaps SBS has all along been seeking Government's subsidy for bus replacements. Whatever the situation is, I hope the Minister for Communications could clear the air.

The White Paper states that fares have to be realistic and revised periodically to take into account cost increases. Hopefully, in fixing the fares, LTA will bear in mind lower income workers who need to use public transport. The White Paper states that while the public is willing to pay for the service, public transport must always be affordable to all Singaporeans.

Another important point made by the White Paper is that future increases need not be effected across the board. To this, may I add that future increases need not be rounded up to the nearest five cents or the nearest 10 cents. Now that many of us use TransitLink card, there should be no qualms about fixing rates at, say, 67 cents, instead of rounding it up to 70 cents.

On the question of efficiency and healthy competition, Sir, for some instances, one has to change buses three times to reach one's destination. Surely this is not efficient. To have a world class land transport system, this must be addressed. Perhaps with healthy competition, this problem can be resolved. What we have now is the SBS route and the TIBS route, hardly competition at all, more like monopoly. These two companies should be allowed to compete freely on each other's routes. There should not be territorial rights. Better still, allow a third or fourth company to compete and operate.

Sir, the problems of the handicapped should also be addressed. I ask the Minister what provisions are made for these unfortunate citizens of Singapore. How do we help the wheelchair-bound citizens of Singapore, as an example?

There is also the question of operating hours. Could additional hours be extended so that late shift workers can save on taxi fares? And how about our polytechnic students who have to pay adult farecards when prices go up, and they will go up? Can we look at discounted rates for these students?

The White Paper states that in public transport, there is a triangular relationship between fares, service standards and viability of the operators. But it clearly states that we will not run our transport system on a cost-plus basis. The Government will not leave it entirely to market forces to determine the fare structure. So long as we are guided by these principles, we should not be unduly troubled by higher fares. I therefore support, in principle, the White Paper on A World Class Land Transport System.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central): ( In Mandarin): I would like to thank Mr Deputy Speaker for giving me this opportunity to speak. Before I speak on the motion, I would like to make some clarifications concerning Dr John Chen's criticism on the Singapore Democratic Party and its Members of Parliament.

First, the Chairman of SDP, Mr Ling How Doong, is not trying to run away from this debate, that is, this debate on the White Paper. He has gone to the Philippines to attend an important conference.

Secondly, on 15th January, my secretary informed Dr Lee Boon Yang's secretary of my intention to speak. I do not know why my name is not in the list of speakers.

The Minister for Labour (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like the Member, Mr Cheo Chai Chen, to explain to this House how did he inform my office. According to my record here, on 9th January, 0901 hours, we faxed a note to him to advise him to let us know if he wished to speak in this debate, and my office has no record of his reply to my fax to him.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my secretary used the telephone. We did not give a written notice. I think the Minister can go back and check.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: I have asked my Personal Assistant to also check her records of all incoming telephone calls. There was no record of a call from Mr Cheo to say that he wished to participate in this debate.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have indeed asked my secretary to inform Minister Lee. But that is not important. Now I have got the chance to speak.

The third point is that Dr Chen said just now that the SDP did not take the problem of our transport system seriously. That is not a correct statement. Otherwise, I would not be sitting here all the time.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun rose -

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Can he just wait for a while?

Now I would like to tell Dr Chen that the Singapore Democratic Party has already published a report on transport system, and that is the transport policy of the SDP. If Dr Chen is interested, I can send him a complimentary copy.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Cheo one question. He said that his Chairman was unable to take part in this debate because he had gone to attend an important conference in the Phillipines. I would like to ask him: which is more important? Is the debate here in Parliament more important, or attending a conference in the Philippines more important?

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Sir, in my view, both are important. That is why our Chairman has gone there and I am here!

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think Dr Chen's question is out of order. He is not seeking clarification.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: I am seeking a clarification.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: He is not seeking a clarification. He is creating another debate within a debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Cheo, do you want to reply?

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think you should stop him from speaking, because what he is saying is irrelevant.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, now I am going into the debate proper. The land transport system policy and planning of a country varies according to its circumstances, its industrial and commercial development and its needs. The transport system and measures of a country must be realistic and planned within the limits of its resources and manpower available. If you want to make a name for yourself and puff yourself up to your own cost just to claim a "world class" land transport system, then it will bring about a heavy burden on the country and its people. I would urge the Government to be careful about it.

On the White Paper, a number of Members of this House have already made some very constructive suggestions. Here, I would like to make two suggestions.

The first suggestion is that the Government raise the speed limit of light goods vehicles, such as pick-ups and vans, from the present 50 km per hour to 70 km per hour when they travel along the expressways and highways. I feel that the present road system and the design and engine of these vehicles are much improved than before, and they are in a position to travel safely at higher speed. They will not pose any danger to the other road users. As a matter of fact, sometimes by travelling too slowly, a vehicle may even cause accidents to happen. I feel that if the speed limit of light goods vehicles is increased, it may not only help to make the traffic flowing more freely but also increase the productivity and efficiency of industrial and commercial services. Because if vehicles are restricted by lower speed limits, it will cause snarls in traffic flow or even cause traffic jams. This is particularly obvious in peak hours.

My second suggestion is that the Government Ministries concerned should also increase the speed limit along Holland Road and along Yishun Avenue 2, as monitored by the speed detection cameras installed there, from the present 50 km per hour to 70 km per hour, for the same reason.

This White Paper only deals with the concept of policy and provides some guiding principles and preliminary plans, without giving concrete details. As such, it is very difficult for me to make further comments. We should, from time to time, review the contents of this White Paper and make necessary adjustments or changes to its proposals, where necessary. The White Paper tabled by the Government in this House is only the first step towards the goal of attaining a world class land transport system.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

I support the motion and commend the Land Transport Authority for a world class land transport system and, I believe, at affordable prices. I think no one, Sir, can deny that it is a comprehensive report, and no one can deny that it is integrated in its approach, and no one can deny that it is creative and innovative in solving our land transport problems.

The report endeavours to give us more mileage and more rail lines, set in a seamless web of feeder services. Details and preferences will vary, but we must focus on the big picture, and that is, the Government is working ceaselessly to give us a world class land transport system for the convenience of all Singaporeans. We must also not forget to appreciate and thank the Government for the new financing framework which takes care of part of the financing for the operating assets of MRT. This is indeed, Sir, a big step forward and must be applauded by all.

The point I am trying to make here is against this outstanding report and very positive proposals by the Government, what do we have from the Opposition? We have complaints. We have all sorts of negative reactions. And we have just heard Mr Cheo. He has not said whether he supports this particular report or he objects to it. What is his stand? He has not clearly stated his stand. He merely said that he would photocopy one set of the Land Transport Report of the SDP and send it to Dr Chen. But that would be after the debate is over. What is the use of a report after the debate is over?

Last year, when the SDP put up its report and made a hue and cry of it, and reported in the Straits Times and Business Times of 27th January 1995, it said that it had all the solutions and wanted a debate. Here in Parliament is where we should be debating national issues. And where is Mr Ling? He is far away in the Philippines. Is a foreign conference more important than a matter that touches the hearts and minds of every Singaporean, ie, land transport, something which we talk about even in the coffeeshops? If they do not go to the coffeeshops, then they would not know that it is the talk of the town. We must put our national interest first by coming here, and not all the way to the Philippines and running away from a debate.

Mr Cheo said that Mr Ling is away. But does he know that some PAP MPs were also away. Mr Heng Chiang Meng and Mr Goh Choon Kang were away for another important meeting, a da hui ( ) also. We can say that this hui is bigger, geng jia da de da hui ( ). But they made it a point to come back in time. They flew back in time to participate in this important debate because they know that this matter touches the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans. So we want to ask the SDP, "What is your stand? What are your alternatives?" There is no point that, after this event, the SDP will again write to the newspapers and say, "Let's have another debate." It is always running away from a debate. And yet on another occasion, they will ask for a debate. This is the time when we come to the truth. Does the SDP have any good solution to the problems of land transport? I would say none.

The SDP suggested that, in its earlier report last year, it had carried out a study and recommended that there be separate classes of COE bidding to cater for people living and working in different parts of the island. This is indeed woefully inadequate. How can you have a COE system depending on where you stay? If you stay in Bukit Gombak, does it mean that you have a cheaper COE?

An hon. Member: No COE.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Or no COE. Or if you stay in Orchard Road, you pay higher COE? Or if you stay in Marine Parade, will you pay higher COE? Does it mean that if you stay in the Prime Minister's constituency, you pay the cheapest COE? This system will not work. And Mr Cheo, for all that he is trying to enlighten us, only said that the speed for pick-up should be increased from 50 kph to 70 kph. Is this the solution to our transport problem? Then it will be very simple. He said that by keeping the speed at 50 kph, it is causing a lot of traffic jams and it may even lead to accidents. May I ask: are there any concrete examples of accidents being caused by pick-ups travelling at 50 kph? If not, he should not mislead this House. And traffic jams are not caused by keeping the speed at 50 kph. There are other factors.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Ong, do you want to give way to Mr Cheo?

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Yes.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): I would like to clarify. I did not say that by travelling at 50 kph it will definitely cause an accident. I am saying that accidents may also happen if a vehicle travels too slowly. Because of the slow vehicles in front, some drivers travelling behind may want to overtake, and when they suddenly shoot out, they may cause an accident. That is the basis of my argument. I am not saying that travelling at 50 kph will definitely cause accidents. What I meant was that some impatient drivers behind may suddenly shoot out in an attempt to overtake and cause accidents.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Mr Deputy Speaker, even if a vehicle remains stationary, it can also cause an accident. The point I am trying to make is that we expect the SDP to give us an alternative or solution if it disagrees with this Report. That is all I ask.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the suggestion I made just now is a point which may have been overlooked in the White Paper. Many other suggestions were made by Members of Parliament here. Our SDP's report on the land transport system has also mentioned some points. So we are debating on a world class public transport system and not the SDP's report on transport ---

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he has not stated whether he supports this particular White Paper. And honestly, this is the time to debate the issue. He is trying to run away by saying that it is not about the SDP's alternative proposal. Is he trying to say that he is ashamed of the SDP's alternative proposal? Or is he trying to hide the proposal because there is nothing to show?

Mr Deputy Speaker: You have another clarification, Mr Cheo?

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in fact some of the SDP's transport policies coincide with those of the Government. Some are different, but some are the same. For example, in this White Paper, the Government is beginning to implement not only car population control but also usage control. That is also one of the SDP's policies.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may ask Mr Cheo whether he will vote Aye' or Nay' on this motion. Will he support this White Paper since he said that the SDP agrees to some of the proposals?

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have already made my stand very clear. This White Paper does not give very comprehensive and concrete details on the Government's plan. It is very difficult for us to make a judgment on it. If some of the Government's transport policies coincide with those of the SDP's, of course, we will support them.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Report is very comprehensive. It is very detailed and clear. But if the SDP member is not clear, then I think he is hiding away from the issue and is avoiding the issue altogether. He is not giving us the truth or stating clearly the stand of the SDP.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Cheo, you want to clarify again?

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because this is quite a complicated and complex plan and vision, it is very difficult for us to debate on it in just a short time.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: All issues are complex. But we are perplexed that he cannot come to a conclusion. May I ask whether the Member has actually read the White Paper or not?

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have read the White Paper. I have also read the report in the Chinese newspapers on this ---

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if he had read it, then he should know where his stand should be. And in the absence of the other SDP Member, he should represent the SDP. I am sure he is not going to say that he has a superior paper in SDP. We will call for a division and he should state his stand clearly.