EXEMPTED BUSINESS

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Resolved,

That the proceedings at this day's sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 beyond 6.00 pm. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head I (cont.) -

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, two major communication Bills were passed by this House recently, namely, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Bill and the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Bill. Most of the issues on land transportation were raised in the debate of the LTA Bill. Therefore, with the table cleared, it is understandable that the number of cuts submitted by the GPC for Communications this year is on the low side. Still there is one outstanding test that the GPC for Communications would like to address and I am referring to the one-year trial of the non-transferable COEs.

Sir, the Committee to Discourage Double Transfers, chaired by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, Chairman, GPC for Communications, submitted its recommendations to the Minister in February 1995. The Ministry accepted the GPC's recommendations with minor modifications and implemented a one-year trial. Starting 1st March 1995, the transferability of COEs in Category 1 to Category 4 was restricted, in fact, they were prohibited for the first three months. As a control group, the Open Category COEs remain freely transferable. This being a trial, the work of the Committee is not yet over.

The remaining task of the Committee is to determine whether there is any relationship or correlation between the price of COEs and its transferability. The trial period ended on 29th February 1996. This passed without any public fanfare. Instead most people have forgotten that there is a trial going on. This lack of reaction is an indication that this topic is no longer of public interest. Nonetheless, the Committee to Discourage Double Transfers is still in the process of analysing the voluminous data collected, such as the successful COE price premiums as well as the key indicators of our economy, such as the Straits Times Industrial Index. Without full-time paid staff on the Committee, the work is taking slightly longer. I believe the work shall be completed by late April or early May.

Nonetheless, a preliminary analysis shows that the non-transferability has minimum impact on the quota premiums. This is illustrated by the behaviour of the control group, namely, the Open Category. Its quota premiums have stayed in tandem with those in Category 1 to Category 4 as though they are freely transferable. In fact, the strike price of the Open Category is often times lower than the strike price of the luxury car category in the same tender exercise.

Sir, in any event, the non-transferability of COEs has by and large been accepted by the public. Its implementation has also been carried out smoothly without any inconvenience to the public. Hence, notwithstanding the outcome of the analysis to the contrary, I can say that the GPC for Communications will recommend to the Ministry to maintain its status quo and make non-transferability a permanent feature of the COE system. May I have the Minister's views on this matter?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, the aim of the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is to encourage optimal road usage so that car ownership can be increased. My questions to the Minister are (1) what is the estimated cost to a motorist, ie, the median, that the Ministry of Communications is expecting? I am sure that such studies must have been conducted by this stage of development. (2) How will the implementation of ERP affect other ownership disincentive schemes, eg, ARF, import duties, duty on petrol, etc? (3) How will road tax be adjusted? Will it be linked to engine capacity? Will there still be a need for road tax? This calls for a paradigm shift in thinking for ERP, like road tax is also a charge on road usage.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): Sir, my constituents and I welcome and applaud the Government's decision to build the North-East line immediately instead of waiting for another four years. This is a decision in favour of a better quality of life for Singaporeans staying in the North-East sector. Most people have indicated that they do not mind paying a little bit more to enjoy earlier the convenience of the MRT. In fact, the user-pay principle is well understood and accepted and so is the rule that revenue must cover operating cost. However, the possibility of paying a little bit more is a result of a less than optimistic projection on the ridership. The actual ridership, which we will only know in about six years' time, may well be more than what is projected in view of the fast pace of development in the North-East sector. Will the Minister consider reviewing the fares and revising them downwards on par with the rest of the MRT lines if the actual ridership is more than the projected figures?

Sir, the Minister also mentioned that the North-East line may be run by a second operator. Can he explain what is the rationale? Is it not better to let SMRT which is doing a good job to reap the economies of scale? And if there are two operators, how can we ensure that the standards and services are comparable, if not better? In the event that the service of the new operator is less than satisfactory, what recourse does the public have?

Sir, another related issue which I would like to raise concerns the land acquisition for the North-East line. When the stations were announced and confirmed, many people were surprised by the extensiveness of the land acquisition. Many do not understand why so much land is acquired when the line is supposed to be underground. It would be helpful if the Minister can further explain on this point. Secondly, those who are affected are also eager to know how and how much they will be compensated based on the so-called market rates. If the properties are owner-occupied, will there be ex-gratia payment apart from the normal compensation?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I also have a cut on the North-East Line. The North-East MRT line shall be passing through Potong Pasir and there shall be two stations sited there. I have three issues to raise. The first issue concerns the compulsory acquisition of land at or near the two stations, ie, Sennett and Woodleigh. The second issue is about the delay in the construction of the Sennett Station and the third issue is in respect of the choice of name for the Sennett Station.

As regards the first issue, the Government has acquired a large number of properties near the two stations, namely, 240 houses, units of apartments and shops, one private hospital, one privatised printing works, one private school, two timber yards, two petrol stations, one restaurant and one 24-hour food court.

I would like to ask the Minister some questions concerning the acquisition of these properties.

(1) What are the lands near the two stations, ie, Sennett and Woodleigh, acquired for?

(2) Are they acquired for the construction of the MRT line, or for the purpose of comprehensive development? If the land is acquired for the construction of the MRT line, can they be returned to the owners once the construction has been completed since the MRT line shall be underground and the surface above it shall not be affected? On the other hand, if the land is only required for comprehensive development, will the Minister allow all the land owners to cooperatively embark on a joint venture with other companies to develop the land in accordance with Government's guidelines and plans?

(3) In addition to the compensation given in accordance with the law, will the owners be paid ex-gratia payments since their land has become very valuable with the siting of the two MRT stations nearby?

(4) When will the notices to quit be served on all the land owners? The land owners want to know when they are to move out. Will the residents be given priority to apply for HDB flats or executive condominiums? Can shop owners be given priority to apply for HDB flats?

(5) Many of the houses acquired are pre-war houses and they come under the provisions of the Control of Rent Act. Will the compensation paid to the owners of these houses be on a basis that they are controlled premises or decontrolled premises?

(6) In one case, the owner of a house made a written application to renovate the house. The Planning Department approved her application last November. She went ahead with the renovations and spent a sizeable sum of money. Then in early March this year, she received a notice that her house has been acquired. The question is: Will she get full compensation for all the renovations? Her contention is that if the Government knew that it was going to acquire her property, it should not have granted her permission to renovate it in the first place. Now that she had done it, she wants compensation for the money spent on the renovations.

(7) I have read a report in the New Paper of 15th March 1996 that Mr Andy Gan told residents whose lands are to be acquired that he would approach the authorities to change the acquisition plans so that the residents need not move though he admitted that it would be difficult. My query on this point is: Will the Government change its acquisition plans?

The second issue I would like to raise with the Minister is the announcement about the delay in the construction of the Sennett Station. This news has been received by the residents in Potong Pasir with disbelief. The reason given by the Minister is that there is not enough ridership at the moment and the catchment area is small. These arguments can be refuted easily. More compelling reasons can be raised for a case that the Sennett Station should be built immediately. The reasons are as follows:

(1) There is enough ridership. There are at least 13,500 people residing in Potong Pasir estate. There is also a major school in that estate with about 1,700 pupils who shall be using the MRT station if it is built there. There are also several more thousands of people who live in Sennett Estate and its vicinity. Then there are the industrial areas next to Sennett Estate. The factories and workshops there employ thousands of workers. Anyone travelling along Upper Serangoon Road will know that this stretch of road is always overcrowded with traffic. The Minister has himself inspected that stretch of road and admitted that it was jammed with traffic and decided to construct a four-tier by-pass at the junction not far from the Sennett and Woodleigh Stations. The traffic there is always very heavy. 3.45 pm

There are a few MRT stations with less ridership and much smaller catchment areas, yet they were constructed together with the MRT line. They are the Chinese Garden, Lakeside, Kranji and Yew Tee stations.

(2) It would not be cost effective to delay the building of the Sennett station. If the Government waits till a later date, cost of materials shall surely escalate. The contractors would certainly prefer the stations to be built together with the MRT lines, and it would make more sense. Even if there is a clause in the agreement for them to hold back the building of the Sennett Station, they will want to be compensated for the delay, because of the increase in price of materials.

It is for these reasons that the Government went ahead recently to build the Kranji and Yew Tee Stations, although the surrounding areas are now quite undeveloped. Also, the potential for development near an MRT station is great and in no time, the Government shall recoup its outlay. For the above given reasons, I urge the Minister not to delay the construction of the Sennett Station.

Perhaps I should also mention another reason. Another important reason why the Sennett Station should be built immediately is that the Government has asked many of the residents to move out. They shall be making big sacrifices as their houses, businesses and livelihood shall be taken away from them. And it is only fair for the Government to build the Sennett Station together with the MRT line. Otherwise, there shall be a situation where all the residents, whose houses have been acquired, have moved out and the Sennett Station is still left unbuilt.

The third issue I shall raise concerns the naming of the Sennett Station. Many residents have said that Potong Pasir is a more appropriate name than Sennett. The reasons are as follows:

(1) There is already another area in East Coast named Sennett and people can easily get confused. Whereas the name "Potong Pasir" is exclusively used for one area in Singapore.

(2) The name "Sennett" is colonial. On the other hand, the name "Potong Pasir" is indigenous or local, and one which has been customarily used since before the war for that area. The fact is that the site of Sennet Estate was formerly called Alkaff Gardens. Sennett Estate was only developed in the 50s. Historically, the name "Alkaff" had a greater precedence over "Sennett". And, of course, the name "Potong Pasir" has even higher precedence over "Alkaff".

Some hon. Members: No. It cannot be.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have been informed that originally Tanjong Pagar MRT Station was named Maxwell Station and Bugis Station was called Victoria Station. But there were objections because the names "Maxwell" and "Victoria" were too colonial. Later, the names "Tanjong Pagar" and "Bugis" were preferred, and rightly so.

At Potong Pasir, we have a similar situation. I hope the present MRT stations naming committee has the same sense of historical perspective as its predecessor and not adopt a colonial name in preference to the local indigenous name for the MRT station.

The Chairman: Order. Mr Chiam, you have exceeded the time. Please return to your seat.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, my topic is on public transport in mature HDB estates.

Sir, we are all excited about the plans to achieve a world-class public transport system. However, as many of the mature towns have little or no reserve land, it would seem that the bus will still be the mainstay of transportation. I would like to ask the Minister two questions.

(1) What are the plans to improve bus services in mature HDB estates?

(2) Is it possible for the light rail transport (LRT) to be implemented in mature towns? Which are the towns that are being considered?

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC): Sir, bus services provide the key mode of transportation in Singapore. However, bus companies like SBS face a severe shortage of bus drivers. They have great difficulties in attracting young persons to join them as drivers. And SBS bus drivers operate under difficult and often stressful conditions, with tight operating schedules. Their terms of employment are not attractive, with salaries some 20% below market rate.

Sir, an article in page 3 of the Life section of the Straits Times of 13th March 1996, provides a good account of the work of SBS drivers and the problems they face. The Ministry of Communications should impress on the management of the bus companies to urgently address the drivers' problems and improve their terms of employment and conditions of work. This will have an impact on bus fares.

Sir, I think the Ministry should also examine the long-term role of bus services in our public transport system. It will even become more difficult to recruit young Singaporeans to work as drivers in future, even if the terms and conditions of employment are improved.

Sir, in view of this, the Ministry of Communications and the Land Transport Authority will have to consider the extension of the coverage of MRT and LRT to more areas in Singapore.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Sir, a study conducted by the Land Transport Authority last year found that two major perceived deterrents against taking public buses were long waiting time and uncertain waiting time. Bus services, being the most utilised mode of public transportation, should be reliable in addition to being accessible, convenient, comfortable and fast. If it is not reliable, especially in terms of frequency and arrival time, it will affect the schedule of a lot of people.

Sir, most of my constituents experience this frustration and stress every day due to the unreliability of trunk service No. 105. The problem with service No. 105 is that its frequency is unpredictable. The waiting time varies from 20-25 minutes. During peak hours, the situation is even worse. When the bus arrives, it is fully packed.

I have brought up this issue last year but, so far, there has been no improvement. Residents at Serangoon Avenues 2 and 3 remain at the mercy of this bus service, which is the only one that is serving the area. Meanwhile, over the last 5-6 months or so, another 400-odd households have moved into their new homes in this area. While people are prepared to live with only one service to avoid the duplication of MRT and bus routes, they should be assured in return that the only service that they have to live with is reliable and efficient. I hope the ground audit conducted by the Public Transport Council will take this into consideration.

Another issue which I would like to bring up concerns the feeder bus service. It is a very useful mode of public transportation, because it connects people from their homes and offices to town centres, bus interchanges, MRT stations and trunk services on the main road. However, the development of this useful service is hampered by the existing fare structure which charges a flat rate, irregardless of distances, thus affecting their viability and reach. It should be feasible to charge according to the distance travelled for feeder bus so that more feeder services can be made viable. I do not think people mind paying a little bit more for that convenience and accessibility. By reviewing the fare structure, the feeder bus services for intra-town commuting and from new towns to the nearest MRT stations can then be improved and increased in numbers. This will make public transportation a more attractive alternative to owning cars.

I would like to ask the Minister if there are any plans to comprehensively develop the intra-town feeder bus services and feeder services to MRT stations, taking into consideration a review of the fare structure.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Sir, I cannot agree more with Mr Goh Choon Kang about feeder bus services. If we look at Whampoa Estate, it is quite an isolated estate, almost cut off from the outside world. There are only two small roads leading into Whampoa Estate. Most of my residents are lower-income people. Increasingly, we see more people moving in because of more HDB blocks being built. I think the feeder bus services within Whampoa and also the feeder bus service from Whampoa to the nearby MRT stations, eg, to Toa Payoh, are grossly inadequate. In 1995, I mentioned it to the Minister and he promised to look into it. I hope this time he will give me a very positive answer, and whether he will ask SBS or the LTA to look into the needs of my residents in Whampoa and give us good, efficient and safe bus services.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, the White Paper on Land Transport envisions a world-class public transport system for Singaporeans. A world-class public transport system cannot be achieved without also having a world-class bus transport system. The White Paper, though comprehensive, has not touched on the important measures of first-class bus transport system, ie, the quantitative benchmarks for bus travel and waiting times, against standards in the developed countries such as Switzerland.

Has the LTA overlooked the importance of such benchmarks or was it not bold enough to aspire to such world standards? Benchmarking will help us to measure our performance constantly. It is the best assurance we can give to commuters of what kind of bus services they can expect from our bus operators. May I ask the Minister why the LTA has not proposed any quantitative benchmarks for our bus services?

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson GRC): Sir, there are many old, run-down bus shelters in HDB estates. The town councils, as well as the HDB, are upgrading these old HDB estates. There are many Main Upgrading Programmes undertaken in various parts of Singapore. Most of these upgrading works include the construction of covered linkways connecting the HDB blocks to the bus shelters. At present, it is rather incongruous as the bus shelters are often very old and dilapidated. Hence, like old flats, the bus shelters also need upgrading.

However, I understand that the funding provision for HDB upgrading programmes does not cover the cost of upgrading and reconstruction of bus shelters. On the other hand, CIPC funding also does not cover construction of bus shelters.

Let me cite a real example. We have four blocks of HDB flats in Sin Ming Estate in Thomson GRC. There are plans to upgrade the four blocks of flats, as well as constructing linkways from the blocks to the bus shelters. But we have been told that the rebuilding of the bus shelters is not covered under the HDB Main Upgrading Programme. On the other hand, CIPC funding is also not helpful because CIPC funds can only be used for building bus shelters' seats and bus bays, but not the bus shelter itself. Hence, we have a real problem of who should pay for the building of the new bus shelters. I would like to ask the Government whether it should consider making a provision, either through the HDB Main Upgrading Programme, the CIPC grants or direct funding from LTA, to enable all old bus stops in Singapore to be upgraded. This is particularly meaningful if the upgrading programme coincides with the HDB Main Upgrading Programme. 4.00 pm

Sir, I wish to raise another subject on bus shelters. I notice that during the rush hours after schools are dismissed, school children tend to scramble and rush to board buses. As a safety measure, I would like to suggest that the Government should construct queue barriers at bus stops, especially at bus stops that are near to schools. This will assist the children to be more disciplined in queuing for buses and avoid any mishaps that might happen when they rush to board buses. I hope the Minister will consider these suggestions.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tampines GRC): Sir, it has been three years since the Government privatised Singapore Telecom. Much has happened since then in the telecommunication industry worldwide. The telecommunication industry has undergone a massive transformation characterised by rapid technological changes and a fast pace of liberalisation.

Worldwide, many of the traditional Government-owned telecommunication monopolies have now been privatised. Out of necessity and not choice, many Governments have also allowed widespread competition in their telecommunication sector to ensure the timely introduction of new and better technologies and services. Notably, the advent of Internet, the continued trend towards the merger of telecommunications, broadcasting and information technologies, and the fast-paced development of innovative telecommunication and IT technologies have all combined to make the traditional telecommunication monopolies unwieldy, unresponsive and uncompetitive.

The world is fast moving towards an information-based economy. As we advance towards the information age, there is no doubt that the economic future of a nation and the social well-being of its people will depend on the quality and accessibility of sophisticated information communication infrastructure and services which are made available at highly competitive prices.

Sir, I have a number of questions for the Minister:

(1) Have we achieved the objective of the privatisation exercise of Singapore Telecom?

(2) In the light of the changes in the global telecommunication industry which I have described, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government's current telecommunication policies are able to ensure that Singapore continues to have a competitive edge over her economic competitors? For example, in a Business Asia report of 26th February 1996, in a survey done in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sydney and Singapore, for a 10-minute call at those countries to major cities, our charges are generally much higher than in Hong Kong and Sydney. We are comparable to Tokyo.

(3) In an industry where fast changing technology plays a key role in its development and growth, have we been able to keep pace with technological advances since there is no competition?

(4) While I am aware that certain liberalisation initiatives have been announced and implemented, I would like to ask the Minister whether the pace of our liberalisation is, against the pace of change in the telecommunication industry, good enough for Singapore to remain an important telecommunication and services centre. What step is the Government taking to quicken the pace of liberalisation in Singapore?

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: I am speaking on Transportation of the Aged and the Disabled, Sir.

During the discussion on the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transportation System", the Minister for Communications said, and I quote:

`When designing public transport systems, thought has to be given to being as friendly to the aged, as it makes sense to do so. It has incorporated features like special flooring and special facilities at the various new stations, including vertical lifts to be incorporated in the Woodlands Station.'

The Minister is to be commended for giving consideration to the commuting difficulties experienced by the disabled and our aged Singaporeans. However, I understand that modifications to the MRT stations are only being considered in the new MRT stations. What about existing MRT stations? How do we expect our aged and disabled to have seamless travel if their point of departure has facilities that are friendly to them but these are not present at the point of destination? Surely, we do not expect our old and disabled commuters to travel just from one new MRT station to another new MRT station.

There are some transport services available for the aged and the disabled which are provided by voluntary welfare organisations. However, these services are inadequate, patchy and unsatisfactory although the voluntary welfare organisations are trying to do their best. Examples of the services provided include the "Dial a ride" service for the handicapped and there is also a "Dial a ride" service available for the elderly, but more or less limited for going to clinics and hospitals.

A macro-survey done in 1985 by MCD revealed that one of the main reasons why more than half of the 4,000 disabled people interviewed were unable to work was because of commuting difficulties. Now that we are looking to increasing the retirement age to 67, a large portion of our working population is going to be elderly and will need transport. The Ministry of Communications, therefore, has to take responsibility for the transport needs of the aged and the disabled and plan an integrated transport system. The VWOs can give their support but they do not have the clout to influence transport operators to make their services available and accessible to the aged and the disabled. Only the Ministry of Communications can do this.

Sir, I would like to urge the Minister to set up a high level committee from the involved sectors to look into the transport needs of the disabled and the aged and to formulate a national strategic plan for this sector of our society. By the year 2020, about 20% of our population would be more than the age of 60. So there is not much time left for us to start planning now.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Sir, let me first address the many issues on land transport that have been raised by Members.

I think we can still remember, it was barely two months ago in January this year, that this House debated the Government's White Paper on land transport. We had two days of very thorough debate. More than 20 Members spoke during that debate. After these two days of debate, this House overwhelmingly endorsed the vision of a World Class Land Transport System as well as the strategy to realise this vision as set out in the White Paper.

We now have our blue-print for action for the next 10 to 15 years. After the debate I met the LTA staff and I half-jokingly said to them that the easy part was over, and the hard part is about to begin. What I meant was that having conceptualised the vision and having gained consensus and had it accepted, we now have to turn vision into reality.

Sir, we set ourselves a time frame of 10 to 15 years to put in place not just the hardware, but also the software that will significantly transform the way Singaporeans move about. This is a realistic time frame, although I dare say it is a little bit ambitious. But I do agree with some of the sentiments that were expressed in this House during that debate that 10 to 15 years is a long time. I know that we are an impatient people and we want results fast. But, Sir, it is not possible to achieve our vision of a World Class Transport System overnight. However, we can make incremental but tangible improvements along the way so that Singaporeans can see that we are serious and we are on the right track. This will also help to convince the cynics and the sceptics that a World Class Land Transport System for Singapore is not an election gimmick or an election ploy, but an achievable long term goal. I have therefore taken note of the comments made by Members that we must set out some intermediate markers en route to this final goal.

Let me take this opportunity to report on some of the developments since we debated the White Paper.

First of all, rail projects. The White Paper spelt out clearly that rail transport will be the backbone of our public transport system. Like London, Paris, New York and Tokyo, we too will depend on a comprehensive rail network for our transportation needs of the future. It is fast. It is reliable. It is efficient. It is the best option for a densely populated city like ours. But like all good things, it does not come cheap and it takes time.

The Woodlands MRT line took five years to build and it cost $1.3 billion. It started operations on 10th February this year. It now provides residents in the north with superior public transport services. The LTA has started work on the North-East line and the Bukit Panjang LRT. It will soon invite contractors to be pre-qualified for the design and construction of the North-East line. Tenders for these contracts will be called, starting from the second half of this year, and it will be awarded by the end of next year. The North-East line is targeted to open for service by the end of the year 2002. Construction will take something like five to six years. LTA will also be awarding the contract for the construction of the Bukit Panjang LRT. Work on the LRT is expected to start before the end of this year and it is expected to be open for service by early 1999. The construction period is something like 3 to 3 1/2 years.

The White Paper has spelt out LTA's aim to integrate urban development with transport planning. Transport facilities will be fully integrated as far as possible with building developments around the MRT stations. In this way, it will give commuters maximum accessibility to housing, commercial and recreational facilities. For the North-East line, the LTA will develop the two interchange stations, ie, the one at Dhoby Ghaut which interchanges with the North-South and Outram Park which interchanges with the East-West line. The reason why the LTA is getting involved is to demonstrate the feasibility and the benefits of such an approach. The Dhoby Ghaut Station will be designed also to allow for the possibility of connection to an LRT in the future.

The LTA will also be reviewing the feasibility of building rail infrastructure in other areas. In this regard, I would like to assure Dr Arthur Beng that the older estates will not be neglected. Where it makes transport and economic sense, we will consider the LRT as a faster and a more reliable feeder service for new as well as for some of the more mature HDB estates. The LTA studies will also include the proposed MRT extension to Changi Airport. I thought I should mention this even though Mr Teo Chong Tee is not in the House today. I am sure that if he were here, he would have raised it. I believe he is unable to be here for personal reasons. 4.15 pm

Sir, the Government is committed to expanding our rail network. It is a worthwhile investment. I think we all agree. It raises our productivity and it enhances our quality of life and also it allows our economy to operate at maximum efficiency without being impeded by congestion and gridlock. But we all also realise that having good transport infrastructure sometimes involves sacrifices as well. Specifically, before the line is built, we may need to acquire land either for construction of the station or for comprehensive redevelopment around the station.

Mr Chiam See Tong asked why we are acquiring land for comprehensive redevelopment around the station. Why do we not allow individuals to redevelop themselves and to make the money from this redevelopment? I would like to remind Mr Chiam that the Government is going to spend $5 billion of taxpayers' money for the North-East line. Because this money is going to be spent to build the North-East line, the transportation infrastructure along the North-East corridor is going to be dramatically improved. Land values are going to shoot up. Should this huge increase in land values go to the individual land owners, as a result of the Government spending $5 billion of taxpayers' money? Or should this redevelopment windfall go to Government, in other words, to all the taxpayers?

Mr Chiam would have us agree that we should allow the individual owners to redevelop and to cream off the profit. In fact, he has gone one step further to suggest that when we compensate, we should be compensating on the basis of the enhanced land values. Sir, I think the Government has fairly and rightly decided that because we are spending so much of the taxpayers' money which belongs to all Singaporeans to build a line in the North-East that we should take the opportunity to cream off the enhanced profits as a result of this expenditure and to put it into the Consolidated Fund, which can be used for other transport infrastructure and other worthy causes, eg, for education, health, housing, etc. That is the reason why the Government needs to acquire the land for comprehensive redevelopment.

Mr Chiam also raised some very specific questions concerning the compensation and the notice to quit. I will try and answer some of them but where they are too specific, he may wish to file a Question and we will be able to give him a more comprehensive answer. For example, for the ex-gratia compensation, the Land Office and the Ministry of National Development have, I believe, already announced that compensation will be given and ex-gratia payment will also be given under certain circumstances to top it up to market value. I will give some details a little bit later on. As far as notice to quit is concerned, the Land Office will issue notices as to how long land owners can continue to stay on their property within the next six months.

Whether there will be a change in the acquisition plans, I am afraid that it would be very difficult to change the acquisition plans at this stage. All the plans have been gazetted, the alignments have been fixed, the station locations have also more or less been fixed. So the answer to that question is: Very difficult, almost impossible.

Mr Chiam also asked why we are acquiring land around the Sennett Station when we are not intending to build that station in the first phase. I think it is very obvious that once we announced that the station site is going to be there, land value around this station is either going to go up, or it may get stuck. Land owners are not sure whether it would be due for acquisition. Either way, I think the land owner is going to be in a precarious position. For this reason, the Government has decided that for those pieces of land which are due for comprehensive redevelopment we also acquire them at this stage in this exercise. This is to give certainty to the residents and to the land owners in the area. Then the land owners will be able to make an informed decision as to whether they want to stay rent-free for a while until they have to move out or they can decide to leave now and collect the compensation money. Some of the land, of course, around the proposed Sennett Station will also be required for actual construction purposes. So this is another reason why we have to acquire some of these lands during this first phase. I may add that by acquiring the land early, the possibility of redevelopment of the land around these station sites will also be much earlier and if we do find the necessity to redevelop earlier, it will also help to boost the potential ridership figures and that means, of course, that the station can also be built earlier.

Mr Chiam also asked why we are not building the Sennett Station in the first phase of the North-East line project. I mentioned in my press conference that the reason why we are not building the three stations along the North-East line, not just the Sennett Station but also Woodleigh Station and Punggol Station, is for the very obvious reason that the developments around these stations are not comprehensive enough to justify the building of these three stations in the first phase.

Mr Chiam obviously disagrees. I am not surprised. But the consultants' report that was presented to my Ministry at that time made it very clear that the station in that vicinity would be the weakest station in terms of ridership, ie, people getting on and off that station, under existing development plans. I remember giving a reply to Mr Chiam in this House concerning this fact. It is a weak station along that line because the mobility of people in that area does not create that kind of ridership. Of course, Punggol has no ridership because the new town is not there yet. For Woodleigh, it is similar, because the area around the Bidadari cemetery is also not yet reclaimed for redevelopment. Yes, the area around Sennett is full of residential units, but it is a low intensity residential area. Therefore, when we are able to acquire land parcels around the proposed station and when we fully redevelop that station, then we will be able to justify having a station in that particular area. And this is not something that is very unusual.

In fact, I would like to point out that for the new Woodlands line, the same considerations applied for two of the stations. One of these stations is between Kranji and Yew Tee. A site has been reserved to allow another station to be built there when redevelopments take place. And that is not the only one. Another one will be between Yishun and Sembawang Stations. We intend to construct these stations when the developments in the area take place and when they justify the building of these stations.

Mr Chiam may wish to know that in the case of the North-East line, we have actually gone one step further for these three stations and we are going to build the station box in the locations of these three stations, so that as and when the developments justify, we are able to construct that station.

Finally, the name of the station. Should it be Sennett? Should it be Potong Pasir? Should it be Alkaff? Should it be Woodsville? Should it be St. Andrew's? What is in a name? Anyway, I think Mr Chiam may be reassured if I were to tell him that the names of all these stations are still tentative. It would be finalised nearer the completion of the North-East line. The names of stations are chosen in order to easily identify the station with the location around the area, so that people generally will be able to relate to that location. Anyway, this is something that is not cast in stone and, as he has rightly pointed out, some of the names that we used in the early construction phases for the existing MRT lines were changed. So, who knows?

Sir, I just want to also expand on what the Government has done in the case of the North-East line to cushion the impact of land acquisition on affected property owners. First, we have introduced a five-year phase-in period. The five-year phase-in period is to allow some people who may need more time to look for alternative accommodation to retain ownership of their properties. They can do so and stay there free of rental or if they so wish, they can also surrender their property and receive their compensation earlier. For HDB flat owners who are affected, the residents will be given the same terms of compensation as HDB flat owners who are affected by the SERS (Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme) project. There is a long list of benefits that they can receive under this compensation package. I just want to say that they will be compensated at the prevailing market value of the existing flats and, of course, be given this additional package of benefits. And for owners of private property, those who do not own another residential property, they will be offered compensation at the market value but subject to a cap of $1.8 million. This is likely to be higher than the compensation stated in the Land Acquisition Act, which is market value as at 1st January 1995 or 4th March 1996, which was the date of the announcement, whichever is lower.

Sir, in this acquisition exercise, as in the others, there are people who will be affected - individuals, families, shopkeepers, businesses. They will be dislocated, and they have to look for new accommodation. I sympathise with these people. They have made a sacrifice for the benefit of many others. We cannot avoid acquisition but we can, and we will, make sure that acquisition is kept to the minimum. 4.30 pm

Sir, I turn now to road infrastructure. The LTA is now in the midst of studying the proposed Singapore Underground Road System (SURS). This is an underground road system for the city. This study will look into the possible future alignments, the design, the facilities and the different construction methods. SURS will provide 40% more road capacity in the city. What it means is that motorists will be able to travel at the same average speed as today even if traffic increases by 40%. I expect this study to be completed by the end of this year and thereafter we can proceed to do detailed engineering studies.

Our preliminary estimate is that SURS is going to be a very, very costly project, as costly as the North-East line, something like $5 billion. So we have to very carefully evaluate it from an overall national perspective before we make a final decision. But in the meantime, motorists can look forward to many more improvements to the road network before the end of this year.

Over the last five years, 267-lane kms of road were completed and by the end of this year, some of the major projects that will be completed include the following: completion of the TPE, Lorong Halus Interchange, widening of Middle Road, Republic Avenue and Temasek Avenue (these are roads in the city) and road improvements at the Robertson Quay area (also in the city).

Next year, 1997, LTA will complete another 113-lane kms of road. These include major projects like the SLE extension from Upper Thomson Road to the BKE and three multi-tier interchanges. Some Members may be familiar with these three interchanges. One is at the Holland Road/Farrer Road junction, the second one is at the Adam Road/Farrer Road junction and the third one is at the Benoi Circus. The Marina Bridge linking Nicoll Highway directly to Collyer Quay would also be completed next year. This will help to ease congestion along Nicoll Highway towards the city. And finally, Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim will be upgraded into an expressway. Again, this would be a boon to those who are travelling to the Jurong area.

At the same time, we will also be implementing some junction improvement measures. These are measures which can make a significant difference to the travelling speeds of motorists. At Ang Mo Kio, for example, we will be looking at providing slip roads and extra storage lanes for four major junctions and we will also provide left turn green arrows at another four junctions. These additional traffic management measures will help to speed up the traffic flow within the town. It may be of interest to Dr Michael Lim that, apart from building extra access roads in the new towns, another effective solution that the LTA is looking at is the implementation of some of these traffic management measures. Another measure is the GLIDE (Green Link Determining) system. Today, 60% of our traffic lights are computerised and linked up by this GLIDE system. What it does is that it coordinates the timing of the green phase of the light so that there is a so-called green wave and motorists do not have to stop unnecessarily at traffic lights.

When GLIDE was implemented in the city centre in 1987, travel speeds increased, I am told, virtually overnight by 20%. Over the next 12 months, the LTA will speed up the implementation of GLIDE at the traffic light junctions at Bukit Batok, Jurong, Bukit Timah, Ang Mo Kio, Yishun, Bedok, Tampines, Simei, Pasir Ris, Woodlands, Bukit Panjang and Choa Chu Kang. And by early 1997, all traffic light junctions in Singapore will be computerised.

I now come to buses. Encik Othman asked whether there will be a role for buses in the future. The answer is yes. Buses will continue to play an important role in complementing the rail network by serving corridors of light traffic and as feeders to the MRT. The advantage of buses is that they are more flexible and cheaper to operate than fixed rail by MRT or LRT. But on the other hand, they are not as fast and reliable as rail transport. The major disadvantage is that they are very labour intensive. In this regard, I share the concerns of several Members in this House, including Dr Michael Lim and Encik Othman, about the growing difficulties faced by our bus companies in recruiting drivers. It is the responsibility of the bus companies to come out with better terms and conditions of service so that they can attract and retain good drivers. The authorities, on their part, can help to improve the working condition of bus drivers with measures like bus lanes, bus priority signals at traffic junctions, and so on.

But the long-term solution, I think we will all agree, is to expand the rail network to serve more areas. This is one of the key recommendations of the Land Transport Authority's White Paper endorsed by Parliament and accepted by Government. But I would like to point out that expanding the rail network to serve more areas only helps the bus companies if we allow the bus companies to adjust bus routes, minimise duplication with the rail line and save buses and drivers. In this way, the bus and manpower resources that are replaced by the MRT or LRT can then be redeployed to better serve areas which do not have such rail systems. We then ensure that the limited resources of buses, especially the limited number of drivers available, are deployed in the most efficient manner so that the bus-MRT network can serve as many people as possible. Also, in this way, we can keep overall costs down and keep fares affordable.

I know that in every re-routing exercise, some existing passengers will be affected. Mr Goh Choon Kang highlighted just now the plight of his constituents who were affected by some of these exercises. I would like to assure Members that all proposals to amend bus routes are carefully scrutinised by the Public Transport Council whose responsibility is to ensure that disruptions are kept to the minimum and that there are reasonable alternatives available to those who are affected.

Sir, overall, most people will agree that the bus service has improved over the years. But many would also say that it is not quite world class as yet. The recent spate of bad accidents involving public buses clearly shows that we have a lot to do in this area.

Safety cannot be compromised. Safety is everyone's responsibility, the authorities, the operators, the management, the union, the bus drivers, the passengers and also other road users. Everybody must play a part. The bus companies must redouble their efforts to attract more bus drivers to join the company and to stay with the company so that safety is enhanced without sacrificing service levels, and vice versa. It is good to see that bus companies are now looking at ways to upgrade facilities at bus interchanges so that drivers' working conditions are improved.

I am also pleased to note that bus companies have incorporated new incentive schemes to encourage safe driving. Bus drivers are put on the road only after they have undergone comprehensive training. The companies are now going one step further to engage consultants to draw up specialised training programmes for their drivers. As another level of check, drivers are required to hold a vocational driving licence, a special licence issued by the LTA. These licences are only issued to persons who have a good driving record and who attend and pass a special training course.

On the hardware side, all scheduled buses are required to undergo a six-monthly inspection by the LTA. Let me just say that the pass rate for scheduled buses is good, 99% for SBS, 98% for TIBS. Nobody wants accidents to happen. The authorities and the operators can and will inculcate more safety consciousness, provide better training for the drivers, educate them to be more courteous on the roads, and so on. But if we want to reduce accident rates, having courteous bus drivers alone is not enough. It would help a great deal if there are more courteous passengers as well as more courteous fellow road users.

Last year, some German transport officials visited Singapore. During their visit, they told LTA officials that they were amazed by what they saw on our roads. It was a very common sight, they said, to see a private car with only one driver refusing to yield to buses, which carry 40 or 50, sometimes even 90 or 100 passengers, trying to pull out from a bus bay. They said that this would never happen in Germany.

A recent Straits Times feature article reported how cars hogged bus bays during peak hours and how bus drivers got sandwiched by cars at bus bays. The journalist's observations were quoted by the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU) in the Straits Times Forum page reply. Let me quote Mr Ong Ah Heng, Executive Secretary of NTWU:

`The National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU) has always urged bus drivers to exercise patience and care when on the road. But quite often other road users do not cooperate, and they add to the problems of bus drivers.' He went on to add:

`We all want to get to work on time. We all want to get home in good time. Even as we urge our drivers to continue to drive carefully, we hope that other road users will cooperate by not cutting into bus lanes. We appeal also to pedestrians to be more careful when crossing busy streets.'

Sir, this is an appeal on behalf of workers who spend many, many hours on the roads, 9 or 10 hours, much more than ordinary motorists like you and I. They do not want accidents to happen and suffer the consequences, the least of which is losing their licence. Their livelihood depends on it.

Tan Sai Siong, a Columnist in the Straits Times, in her Column on 9th March, pointed out that a bus driver's job is not an easy one. She went on to suggest that we could make life a little easier for them with simple gestures of courtesy. Car drivers could give way to bus drivers coming out of bus bays, bus passengers could give them a smile, or at the very least, be mindful of their own safety. She concluded by saying that it would be safer for everyone, in the long run, if our bus drivers can do their work under less stressful conditions. 4.45 pm

It is sound advice. It reminds all of us - the authorities, the operators, the bus drivers, the motorists and the pedestrians - that we all have a part to play to keep our roads safe and to keep accidents down.

Still on buses, Sir. Dr John Chen suggested setting target benchmarks for travel and waiting time. Let me just highlight what the Public Transport Council has been doing. It has taken a step in this direction, I believe, by setting basic bus service standards. There are many standards. One particular standard specifies that at least 95% of trips need not involve more than one transfer. In other words, most passengers, at least 95%, should be able to get to their destinations with either a direct bus or a train, or by making only one transfer. The reason for this requirement is, of course, to keep the public transport journey time short and the cost down, recognising that transfers impose not only a time penalty but also a cost penalty.

Another standard specifies that bus companies must operate at least 90% of their trunk services at a frequency not exceeding 12 minutes during peak periods and 15 minutes during off peak periods. There is a different standard for feeder buses as well.

So, theoretically, if there are no disruptions on the way, waiting times along the route should be the same as the despatch time that are specified in the standards. However, we all know that this is not the case. Buses share the roads with other vehicles. They stop more frequently. They are less manoeuvrable and they are generally more affected by adverse road conditions. So under such conditions, buses do find it difficult to keep to the schedule. We can help by keeping our roads congestion free. We can help by giving them dedicated rights of way, where possible, by giving them priority at junctions, and so on. And this is what the 'B' signal that the LTA has recently experimented with is all about. They are planning to instal more 'B' signals at more locations to give buses priority at more traffic light junctions. There is a whole list of them here. I would not go into them. LTA will also identify suitable sites to implement more bus lanes.

The point I want to make is that as more and more of such bus priority measures are put in place, Dr Chen's proposal to set target benchmarks for travelling time and for waiting time can be considered.

Sir, on feeder services, several Members in this House just now, including Dr Michael Lim, Mr Goh Choon Kang and also Mr Choo Wee Khiang, suggested that we should try out a new type of feeder service, somewhere between the present trunk service and the feeder services. I have some good news for them. The LTA is now studying with the operators the introduction of a similar type of service. They have tentatively called it town link services. What town link service will do is to link up different parts of the town. For example, commuters who need to take two feeder services to travel from one part of the town to another, can now make use of town link services, which can provide a direct feeder service which is more convenient, faster and cheaper. Some town link services will be introduced in HDB new towns such as Woodlands, Yishun, Ang Mo Kio, Tampines, Bedok and Pasir Ris sometime this year.

As regards bus shelters, Mr Leong Horn Kee asked whether the Government can fund the cost of upgrading older bus shelters. As he may know, we have already started refurbishing some 100 bus shelters in the city and in Ang Mo Kio. The pilot project is expected to be completed later this year.

Upgrading of bus shelters is funded by the LTA. The new generation bus shelters have been designed to take into account feedback from commuters. If the new shelters are well received, LTA will extend the refurbishment programme to other areas.

Mr Leong also suggested building queue barriers at bus stops for the safety of school children. I will ask the LTA to consider his suggestion. But I just want to point out that we have to be mindful that at each bus stop, there are people who may be waiting for different buses. So if we do implement that suggestion, we will have to find some way to make sure that it does not cause inconvenience to all the passengers. In the meantime, we can pay particular attention to the safety of school children by providing adequate pedestrian facilities, by making sure that we take enforcement measures against dangerous driving in the vicinity of schools, and so on.

Sir, I now come to the issue of COEs. I am glad that over the years, the land transport debate has shifted from the issue of car ownership and from the different methods of distributing limited COEs to the more relevant issue of how we can improve our transport system, in particular, public transport. We will build more roads, up to a point. We will expand the rail network where we can justify. But expanding our infrastructure alone will not be sufficient. We need to regulate demand by controlling the ownership and usage of vehicles. COEs and road pricing will continue to be a major part of our land transport system, if we are serious about keeping our roads free flowing.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked for an update on the trial to curb the double transfer of cars. Members will recall that the Committee to Discourage Double Transfers, chaired by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, was formed in November 1994 and it recommended several measures to curb the practice of double transfers. These recommendations were accepted by Government and implemented on a trial basis in March 1995. The committee is currently analysing the past year's COE results, as Dr Wang has kindly informed us. The Government will make a decision on whether to make the measures to curb double transfers permanent after the committee has submitted its findings to my Ministry. Meanwhile, although the trial has officially ended, we will continue with these measures.

Dr Arthur Beng asked about the status of the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) project. I am pleased to report that preparation for the implementation of the ERP system is progressing on schedule and should be operationally ready in 1997. Since the award of the final contract in October 1995, the contractor has been working with LTA to finalise the system design. The final system proposal has just been approved last month, and the manufacture of the actual equipment will be starting soon.

The objective of the ERP, let me remind the House, is to persuade motorists to use their cars sparingly. If we can do so, there is scope to release more COEs and allow more people to own cars. ERP charges will have to be of a meaningful magnitude to be effective in reducing the current rate of vehicle usage. We will first automate our current road pricing mechanism, the Area Licensing Scheme and the road pricing scheme along the East Coast Parkway. As far as charges are concerned, I am not in a position to inform the House at this stage what the charges will be. But let me just say that if the ERP system were to be implemented today, the charges should be comparable to today's road pricing charges. We are working on the exact charges and it will depend on the prevailing traffic conditions at particular locations and can only be finalised closer to the date of implementation.

As we have stated in the White Paper, we will concurrently review the vehicle tax structure as we introduce the ERP. On top of that, we will also implement a package of tax rebates to help offset the additional ERP charges.

For the quota year 1996, in other words, from May 1996 to April 1997, the Government will allow another 3% growth in the vehicle population. This, together with the replacement COEs, means that there will be about 41,000 COEs available for bidding. The LTA will release the details later this evening.

The COE quota for quota year 1996 is about 10% less than last year and this is mainly due to fewer replacement COEs, which in turn is due to fewer deregistrations 10 or 11 years' ago. But fewer deregistrations, of course, also mean that there will be fewer people in the market to replace their cars.

The 3% growth for quota year 1996 does not take into account the ERP which will come on stream soon. The LTA estimates that our roads can accommodate an additional half to one percentage point growth in COEs per year over the next few years, as a result of the ERP. This is a significant increase. It works out to a total of 15,000-20,000 extra COEs over the next 3-4 years. As the ERP is extended to more expressways and ring roads, it should enable our road system to accommodate more vehicles and allow us to issue more COEs. We are now studying how to phase in these additional COEs in order to take into account the progress of the ERP project and also the need to cushion the initial impact of the new system. I expect this to take a few months. We will then announce details of when the extra 15,000-20,000 COEs will be released.

Sir, I now move on to some very specific queries. Mr Goh Choon Kang and Mr Choo Wee Khiang both asked about bus services in the Serangoon/Whampoa area. With regard to the services that they have mentioned, in the case of Mr Goh, it is service 105; in the case of Mr Choo, he was talking about bus services in the Whampoa area, I would like to ask the Members to give me details about the specific shortcomings of these services. And I will ask the LTA to check and to take the necessary actions to ensure that they meet the standards set by the PTC. The last review that was done by the PTC indicated that they did meet these demands. But since then, the situation may have changed. Demand may have increased and, if there is a necessity to beef up these services, then the LTA will do so.

Mr Goh also asked several questions about the operations, the fare structure and ridership projections of the North-East line. As far as operations are concerned, we have not decided who should operate the North-East line. Yes, if the SMRT operates it, they will probably achieve greater economies of scale, as Mr Goh pointed out. But having a second operator also has its merits. It will give us some basis to compare the service level and the efficiency and standards of both operators. We have not made a decision on this yet. LTA will be studying this issue in greater depth and recommend a suitable industry structure in due course.

5.00 pm

As far as the daily ridership projection is concerned, yes, it is true that we are still not able to firm up the projections for obvious reasons. But the current projection of 200,000 daily ridership for the North-East line is about one-quarter of the ridership on the existing system.

The need to charge a slightly higher fare for the North-East line, I have already explained at length to Mr Goh and to his constituents. It is based on the current ridership and operating cost projections. The North-East line is more expensive to operate. It is fully underground. But we will only know nearer the completion date, in other words, closer to the year 2002, what the exact fare differential will be for the North-East line. Based on the new financing formula for rail extensions that was adopted, I expect the differential will be less than the 20% that I estimated earlier and I believe that will make the fares for the new extension affordable.

Sir, I just want to touch very briefly on Dr Soin's question about the infrastructure to enable the aged and disabled to use public transport. As Dr Soin has also mentioned, there are already provisions in the new stations to allow the aged and the disabled to use the stations more effectively. But let me point out that the bus and MRT services are essentially mass transport services. We have also got to take care of the safety of the masses of other people who use these systems. So we will need to have a balance. Where it is possible, we will put in these provisions. Where it is not possible or where it may affect the safety of the other passengers, we will have to look for other alternatives. And there are other alternatives, as she has pointed out, such as the "Dial a ride" services by the Handicaps Welfare Association and similar services for the aged, and so on. The Ministry of Communications and LTA will encourage more of such services. We have already put in place a scheme in conjunction with MCD to exempt vehicles that are operating these services from COEs and other vehicle taxes. I just want to assure Dr Soin that LTA, with the other relevant organisations, will continue to look into ways to better meet the needs of the disabled and the aged. I think it is important to do so because, as we all know, we are going to have an ageing population.

Sir, let me now turn to Mr Chng Hee Kok's question about Singapore Telecom. In 1992, the Government restructured the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (TAS). We corporatised the operational arm of TAS as Singapore Telecom and we reconstituted the remaining part of TAS as the regulator. And the year after that, we privatised and listed Singapore Telecom in the Stock Exchange. ST's flotation achieved an important political objective. It enabled the Government to enhance the assets of citizens and make Singapore a share-owning society. Today, 1.3 million Singaporeans own ST shares. But restructuring TAS and floating ST also achieved key economic objectives.

Firstly, it gave ST the flexibility to operate as a commercial company and to adapt to rapidly changing market conditions. Advances in telecommunication technology were forcing Government to deregulate the telecommunication sector and to open up hitherto closed monopolies to competition. ST had to keep up.

Secondly, it enabled the Government progressively to introduce competition in Singapore's telecommunication sector in order to develop the industry as a whole. ST would be only one operator in the industry, although a very important one. This could not be done properly so long as TAS was both the regulator as well as the service provider, even though TAS had been among the most innovative and efficient telecommunication operator in the region and had passed on a large part of its cost savings to consumers.

Thirdly, it allowed the economy to reap maximum benefit from an efficient telecommunication industry. Telecommunication is a key component of our economic infrastructure. Financial institutions, OHQs, MNCs and local companies all depend on a comprehensive and efficient telecommunication services at internationally competitive prices. Telecommunication is a significant element of business cost, especially for the financial sector. We want a thriving and profitable telecommunication industry, but telecommunication must thrive by serving the rest of the economy and not at the expense of the rest of the economy.

Our experience over the last three years has shown that the decision to privatise ST and progressively introduce competition into the telecommunication sector was a correct one. Both ST and TAS are doing well. ST has successfully transformed itself from a statutory board to a public listed company. It has continued to lower its charges, yet its profits have grown by more than 10% annually. It has also expanded aggressively into overseas markets and is positioning itself confidently to face competition in the local market.

TAS has developed and built itself up in its new role. It has established the proper regulator-operator relationship with ST which used to be the dominant part of TAS. As regulator, TAS ensures that the operators, especially ST, price their services competitively. It enforces fair rules of competition and is progressively introducing more competition in what was a regulated monopoly. TAS is also a promoter of the industry, fostering its growth, monitoring industry and regulatory trends worldwide and taking timely steps to ensure that Singapore stays ahead of competition from other countries and has a first class telecommunication infrastructure.

When we corporatised ST in 1992, we were among the first countries to do so, except for the UK and Australia. Most countries were just beginning to open up their telecommunication sector. We had to decide on the rules - what to license, what to regulate and to what extent if we want to regulate. We had only the UK model to refer to.

We gave ST two exclusive licences: one for mobile and paging services for five years, and the other for basic domestic and international telecommunication services for 15 years. The exclusive licence for mobile services expires next year. That for basic services runs out only in the year 2007.

The exclusive licences were to give ST time to stabilise its operations following its transition into a public company, to let ST to recoup its massive investments in infrastructure, and to allow an orderly evolution to a more competitive environment. They were not meant to protect ST, or to allow ST to charge monopoly prices for its services. This would have defeated the purpose of restructuring TAS.

The duration of ST's exclusive licences was conservative. But we built in flexibility into the licence to allow TAS to progressively introduce competition in the industry and to ensure that consumers receive quality services at competitive prices. Let me elaborate.

Firstly, TAS has interpreted the scope of ST's exclusive licences narrowly. It has licensed other providers to compete for services which are at the fringe of ST's basic services, or which did not exist when the licence was first issued. As a result of this, new services have proliferated, such as Internet services, value-added services, VSAT, mobile data services, and so on. ST itself has also introduced new services to keep up with the competition. Prices have fallen, giving customers a better deal and service providers a bigger market.

Secondly, TAS has used other countries as benchmarks to regulate ST's charges for services where ST enjoys an exclusive licence, for example, IDD. The benchmark countries include Hong Kong, Japan, US, UK, Australia, the NIEs and emerging economies. TAS reviews ST's tariffs quarterly, so that they never get too far out of line without competitors. In the last two years, ST has cut IDD rates to 37 countries by up to 47%. Mr Chng Hee Kok mentioned that Singapore Telecom's charges to several countries are not competitive with cities like Sydney, Hong Kong and so on. He is correct, but that was for 1995 rate. I believe that with the recent round of cuts, effective 1st April, Singapore Telecom is competitive with these countries. So ST has not set tariffs at the maximum level that the domestic market can bear, even though it has a monopoly.

The countries that we use for benchmarks have liberalised their telecommunications sector in varying degrees. Many already allow more competition than Singapore. Those which are not yet fully open are opening up rapidly. So their telecommunication charges are falling steadily. Because we peg our charges to theirs, our tariffs will also follow theirs down. Therefore, even without any change in regulatory policy, or any increase in the degree of competition in Singapore, over time ST's rates will approach the rates that would prevail in a competitive market.

However, regulation cannot substitute fully for real competition to spur providers to raise efficiency, improve services and lower prices. Just to give Members an example. When ST introduced Internet services in March 1994, it was the only Internet service provider. But last year Pacific Internet started. Soon, a third operator, Cyberway, is going to start. Since these competitors appeared, SingNet's rates have fallen by more than 50%. Its service has improved. Subscriber base has gone up, I believe, by about 50%. Indeed, the overall subscriber base has also gone up. This could not have happened in a restrictive environment, no matter how effective the regulation.

Thirdly, before ST was floated, TAS added a proviso to ST's licence, to allow broadcasting operators and other public telecommunication licensees to offer telecommunication services which are ancillary and incidental to their principal services, from the year 2002 onwards. This statement also appeared in the IPO prospectus. These public telecommunication licensees include mobile cellular phone operators, paging operators and, in future, cable vision operators. The services they can provide will include those where ST has an exclusive licence.

This "ancillary and incidental" clause allows TAS progressively to introduce competition, even in basic services such as IDD and local basic telephone services, from the year 2002 onwards, before ST's exclusive licence runs out in 2007.

These three provisions have enabled TAS to develop the industry and consumers to benefit from lower charges and better services. TAS acts as a proxy competitor by regulating ST's tariffs to keep them internationally competitive. It also has the freedom to introduce competition for mobile services after 1997, and for other basic services after 2002. 5.15 pm

As Mr Chng pointed out, the environment has not remained static in the three years since we corporatised TAS and listed ST. Technology is forcing the industry to open up even faster than we have envisaged. There has been an almost total change in the industry and regulatory regime world-wide. Last month, President Clinton signed a Bill to fully liberalise telecommunication services in the US. The EC, which was very reluctant to open up, will liberalise by 1998. At the WTO, countries are now aggressively negotiating an agreement on telecommunications, in order to reduce barriers to competition worldwide by 1998.

Rapid technological change is also rendering ST's exclusive licences less and less meaningful. One major factor is the explosive growth in the Internet. The Internet transmits data, E-mail, images, and voice. And it can also already carry telephone conversations at a fraction of the price of an IDD call, although voice quality is still not very good at the moment, it will get better. Broad-band Internet services will be even more versatile. International "call back" services allow foreign telephone companies to access local customers for international calls. They too offer much cheaper rates than IDD. Several consortia are planning to launch satellite based mobile telephone systems, which allow seamless, cross-border personal communications. ST itself is participating in several such projects overseas.

So even if we could enforce ST's exclusive licences in such an environment, it would be at great cost to the economy. For Singapore to stay competitive as a business and service hub, we must keep pace with the technology, and offer telecommunication services which are as comprehensive, as convenient, and as cheap as our competitors.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.18 pm

The Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Both TAS and ST are fully aware of these worldwide industry trends. They also know the regulatory philosophy of the Government, a philosophy which TAS as a regulator has followed since 1992 and which I am taking the opportunity to restate in the House today.

ST has been actively gearing up for competition, both at home and abroad. It has shown over the last few years that it is more than able to hold its own against competition. I am confident that in a more competitive environment, it will continue to do well as a company, and to provide Singaporeans and all those who do business in Singapore with first class telecommunications to link up with the world.

There will be more changes to come, and at an even faster rate because the environment is a dynamic one. All those with a stake in the industry - governments, regulators, operators and consumers - must closely monitor developments and trends. We must constantly review and, whenever necessary, adjust our policies, if we are to stay ahead and reap the benefits of these changes. I wish to assure the Member that this is what MinCom and TAS are doing.

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng: Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Chin Harn Tong.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IA 1500.

Sir, developments in information technology seem to have swamped the Ministry of Communications officials. They seem to be unaware of the use or mis-use of facsimile transmission or they are not doing anything about it. A number of owners or operators have adjusted their facsimile machines to send messages without disclosing their fax numbers. Some advertisers are too ashamed to include their fax numbers in their junk mail which they regularly dump on other hapless owners or operators of the fax machines. However, there are others taking advantage of the ability to remain anonymous for their own nefarious purposes, by courtesy of the Ministry. These anonymous and nameless persons fax religious articles and messages that are bound to cause unrest and provoke resentment among the adherents of other faiths.

Sir, we have a law against the purveyors of religious hatred. Yet the Ministry's officials seem to be unaware of the abuse or mis-use of the fax facility in this manner or are not doing anything about it. The Singapore Telecom has been marketing for some time an appliance which enables a recipient of a telephone call to know the source of the call. But unlike the ordinary telephone set, a fax machine enables the recipient of a fax message to know the source of the message without the need of an additional appliance. It should not be beyond the means of the Ministry to forbid and prevent owners or operators of fax machines from adjusting their fax machines to omit the fax numbers when sending out messages.

The Minister of State for Communications (Mr Goh Chee Wee): Sir, Mr Chin Harn Tong is concerned about junk mail or sensitive materials coming through the fax machine. Unsolicited messages via the fax machines are like junk mail sent through the letter-boxes. Until a mail is received, there is no way for the recipient to determine whether it is junk or not. Furthermore, what is considered "junk" by one person can be taken as useful information by another. We cannot stop people from sending information through the fax machines. But if someone sends through materials, the content of which is objectionable and infringes our laws, the recipient can always report it to the Police who can then investigate.

Apart from this, there is a way for fax users to avoid receiving unsolicited messages via the fax machines. They can subscribe to call screening facility provided by Singapore Telecom. The facility allows a recipient to pre-programme his fax machine to receive messages from select numbers, making him unavailable to numbers not in his list. And for fax users who prefer not to pre-empt or limit whom they wish to receive faxes from, Singapore Telecom has also introduced a call-in line identification facility which will allow the recipient to identify the source of the fax message.

Mr Chin Harn Tong: The answer is not entirely satisfactory. But since the Minister of State has got the message, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3), Mr Goh Choon Kang.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Sir, the point has been covered. So I am not moving.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IC 1500.

Sir, the recent spate of SBS bus accidents has generated unfavourable publicity on the safety of public transportation system. These are unfortunate since the White Paper on a World Class Land Transport System places great emphasis on the role of the public transportation system in serving our needs.

Sir, it is in the nature of things that accident happens. Nonetheless, the public must be satisfied that the public transportation system should be designed and operated with safety uppermost in mind, let it be MRT, LRT or the bus system. Safety must be an inherent feature of the public transportation system. In this respect, I am reassured by the Minister's earlier comment that safety cannot be compromised.

Since buses also use the road, then the road system should be made as safely as possible and when accident happens, maybe measures should be taken to reduce the severity of the accident. In a recent accident where an SBS bus rammed head-on into a tree, I was perturbed that many people were injured in that accident. My question is whether casualty could be minimised by having safety measures like collision protection guardrails in front of trees along those stretches of road.

I am sure the Government is looking into improving road safety as a result of past accidents. For instance, I recall that after a vehicle rammed into a bus stop and killed a woman, the LTA installed bollards in front of every bus stop in Singapore. I also note the programme by LTA to raise the crash barrier of many viaducts. This says volumes of the safety consciousness of the LTA officials. But sometimes it is regrettable that the authority only swings into action after a serious or fatal accident. Especially when obviously dangerous stretches of road were brought to the attention of the authority by the RCs, sometimes nothing was done until a serious accident had happened and lives were lost. I know that it is not the guiding principle of the LTA in this matter but, in many cases, it seems like a serious accident is the price for greater safety in future.

In this respect, Sir, I suggest that LTA should build roads and other public transportation systems with safety as the primary consideration. Where there is public feedback on a potentially hazardous situation, LTA should take remedial action.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Sir, road safety is a matter of great concern for everybody. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Land Transport Authority has set any special standard for road safety in respect of public buses. In the design of new buses, for example, the super-long buses, are they suitable for the roads in Singapore? Can they fit into our bus stops and interchanges? Because they are "super-long", there will be more pressure on the drivers. Can the Public Transport Council ensure that the drivers are not over-fatigued? In order to save cost, bus drivers are expected to work longer hours. As a result, they suffer from very severe fatigue.

In respect of the MRT, I would like to ask whether the Land Transport Authority has any measures to set standards for safety of its operation.

In the case of private vehicles, can the LTA consider exempting car safety devices from import tax? As it is, all cars are subjected to a hefty tax amounting to some 195% of its declared value upon import. This includes all their accessories and safety devices. Because of this, most cars are imported without the safety devices which are usually the standard features in other countries. I think the LTA should consider exempting tax on these safety devices, such as air-bags, etc, installed in the car for greater road safety. Singaporeans who bought cars have already paid a hefty price for them. The Government should not further tax the safety devices as this results in car owners not able to enjoy safety protection of the devices. If the Government is of the view that these parts cannot be separated from the car itself, then perhaps vehicles with these safety features should be given some tax rebates to protect the safety of the drivers. 5.30 pm

The Chairman: Mr Goh is not speaking. Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, there were nine bus accidents which took place in the last two months and I would like to highlight only one of them which involved a SBS double decker bus. That accident was vividly captured in a photograph published in the Straits Times. The bus had collided head-on into a mature tree. It was badly damaged. When I looked at the photograph of that damaged bus, it reminded me of buses which had suffered terrorist attacks in London and Jerusalem. In that SBS bus accident, many passengers were injured and one of them was a housewife. It was reported that her leg was trapped and could not be dislodged. I am not certain whether the rescuers had to amputate her leg to save her life. But I do know that the housewife's leg was finally amputated as a result of that accident. It was really a terrible accident.

The accident raises many issues. (1) Have the bus companies, due to their near monopolistic position, become complacent due to a lack of competition? (2) Has the aim to improve productivity compromised their safety standards? (3) Has the Government's supervision of bus companies become lax? (4) Are the requirements for training of bus drivers stringent enough?

If Singapore wants to achieve a world class transport system, which we welcome, we can only hope that under this system, there shall be provisions for close and stringent supervision on public buses so that the type of accidents mentioned above shall not happen again.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, it is not uncommon to find two drivers involved in an accident having a dispute. I came across a case where a man reversed his car and hit the car behind, then went out to accuse the other driver of hitting him from behind. Fortunately, there were witnesses around and he was told off.

Recently, the press reported a spate of bus accidents. Bus accidents are of great concern to the public because buses carry a large number of passengers. It is therefore important to know what exactly has caused the accidents.

I think a vehicle "black box" would save drivers involved in accidents a lot of disputes. It will also help the police to investigate the true cause of the accident and make their job much more efficient. There will be no need to take lengthy statements from the drivers who may be telling half truths. For bus companies, knowing the true cause of accidents will go a long way in helping to enhance bus safety and give better confidence to the public.

The black box should record the last 5 to 10 minutes of the vehicle activity. Speed, steering direction, and the state of indicators and lights, etc, would tell a lot in the reconstruction of any event.

The black box should, in the first instance, be introduced to all buses and heavy goods vehicles. This is because accidents involving these vehicles are usually more severe. It can then be introduced to all vehicles later if found to be useful. I hope the Minister would consider my suggestion.

Sir, I go on to parking meters. Sometime ago, when the Ministry was considering what type of Electronic Road Pricing system to be introduced, I told the then Communications Minister Dr Yeo, that we should go for the smart card system.

Besides many advantages for the execution of road pricing, the smart card system also offers additional advantages, such as the facility of a parking meter.

The parking coupon system for public car parks has been around for a long time. The disadvantages of this system are, first, the user has to spend time tearing the coupon. Second, if the user makes a mistake and realises it, he will have to take the trouble to exchange the torn coupon for a new one. Third, if he does not realise that he has torn the coupon wrongly, he will then face the danger of receiving a parking summons.

Sir, all these disadvantages can be avoided if we exploit technology. The Electronic Road Pricing gadget which will be installed in all vehicles can be easily extended to provide parking metering. The same smart card which the motorist uses for ERP can be used for parking. If this is adopted, the problems which I have mentioned earlier would be solved. There will be higher productivity for car park attendants and less littering problem for the environment. May I ask the Minister whether he intends to introduce such an electronic parking meter together with the ERP?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, first of all, I would like to assure all Members that safety is a primary concern, whether it is in the design of our transport network, our roads, or when we set standards for the vehicles that ply our roads, especially public transport vehicles. I said, in an earlier reply, that safety cannot be compromised. This is a commitment on the part of the Government.

The LTA can do some things. It can and it has set up a special unit that looks at safety, safety standards of buses, MRT, etc. The name of this unit is the Safety Assurance Unit and this unit was one of the first units that was set up when the LTA was formed in September 1995. The role of the unit is to make sure that there is total transportation safety, in other words, safety not just on the hardware side but also safety in respect of the software aspects. Therefore, there are stringent safety standards - Mr Low Thia Khiang asked about them - for the construction of buses, MRT and the soon to be constructed LRT. There are safety standards for facilities like roads and rail. There are also safety standards that serve to protect the safety of passengers as well as the workers. This is done not just by LTA alone. It has to be done in conjunction with the other authorities. It has to work with the Traffic Police, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of National Development, URA, and so on. But I cite this to indicate that there can be no compromise as far as safety is concerned. But at the end of the day, I think Members will not disagree with me that even with the best of efforts, accidents will happen.

Mr Chiam has given us a very graphic description of one of the nine accidents that took place. I do not want to trivialise the incident. I think it was a serious accident and the people who were hurt and injured in the accident deserve our fullest sympathy and assistance. But having said that, I believe that there are measures being taken that indicate that all concerned are taking the situation very seriously.

Earlier, in answer to a question from Mr Chiam in this House, I indicated that SBS accident rates are comparable with those of other countries. I cited those statistics not to show that we are doing well. I cited those statistics to show that even in countries where public transport in a major crowded urban conurbation operates effectively and efficiently, they still suffer from accidents. I cited the figures for Hong Kong which is probably the closest to us.

The point I want to make was that the accident rates have come down over the years. There was a spate of accidents which were more serious than normal in the first two months of this year. They caused a lot of concern. Many reasons were advanced as to their cause. The Traffic Police has investigated these nine accidents. They have come to their conclusion. As far as these nine accidents are concerned, their conclusion is that it is not due to mechanical faults. They will be taking the appropriate action thereafter. But the bus company, the union and the authorities have taken very seriously this spate of accidents and have left no stone unturned to look for the probable causes and to make sure that they do not repeat it. Since then, the accident rates have come down, which appears to indicate that the measures that they are taking are beginning to take effect. I do not wish to go into the details as far as the specific measures are concerned. I cited a long list of measures the last time I spoke on this matter in this House. But I just want to reiterate one last point and, that is, it is not just the responsibility of the operators or the drivers, I think we, as other road users, also have to play our part. And if everybody involved plays his part, our roads will be safer and accident rates will come down.

There were some specific queries from Dr John Chen about using the black box. Yes, the black box has been installed. It can be installed. It can make drivers more conscious. It can also assist us when we investigate. There are in fact some fleet owners and operators who have already installed a device such as this. But both the LTA and the Traffic Police are of the view that, at this moment, there is no need to make it mandatory. The majority of our road accidents are minor and the causes are relatively easy to determine. However, if any operator or fleet owner wishes to install this, I am sure the Traffic Police and the LTA will welcome such an installation. But they will not insist upon it as a compulsory device at the moment.

On the question of parking meters, yes, I think theoretically, it is a good idea to incorporate a parking meter in the vehicle unit. But at this stage, let us allow the ERP system to be introduced. It is a leading edge technology in the sense that we are the first people to use such a technology on such a scale for this purpose. The design is already pretty complex. I do not think we want, at this stage, to further complicate the design by incorporating other uses. So let us keep this matter in view and we will consider this when we upgrade the system in the future.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister has not answered my query on air bags and ABS for private cars?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: I am sorry. Mr Low is pushing for some kind of a rebate for safety devices like air bags, etc. 5.45 pm

The Chairman: Order. It is "guillotine" time.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $304,609,460 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $529,817,900 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: I shall now deal with the remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement.

In respect of the Main Estimates, they are Heads B, C, D, F, G and Z.

I propose to take those heads of expenditure en bloc.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads of expenditure which appear in the last column of the Schedule of Estimated Expenditure under the Main Estimates on page 39 of Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996 stand part of the Main Estimates," put and agreed to.

The Chairman: In respect of the Development Estimates, they are Heads B and F. I propose to take those heads of expenditure en bloc.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads of expenditure which appear in the last column of the Schedule of Estimated Expenditure under the Development Estimates on page 40 of Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996 stand part of the Development Estimates," put and agreed to.

Question, "That the sum of $26,761,608,640 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the Financial Year 1st April 1996 to 31st March 1997 contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996," put and agreed to.

Question, "That the sum of $16,140,104,770 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the Financial Year 1st April 1996 to 31st March 1997 contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996," put and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions.

First Resolution reported -

"That the sum of $26,761,608,640 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the Financial Year 1st April 1996 to 31st March 1997 contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996."

Second Resolution reported -

"That the sum of $16,140,104,770 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the Financial Year 1st April 1996 to 31st March 1997 contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996."

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions accordingly agreed to.