ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the objective of this Bill is to enable the Government to implement the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system. Managing demand for road use is an important and key strategy in our integrated approach towards meeting our future transportation needs. We do this in two ways:

First of all, ownership restraint measures which include the Vehicle Quota System (VQS) and fiscal measures like ARF, customs duty and road tax.

Second, usage management measures like the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) and Road Pricing Scheme (RPS).

The ownership restraint measures, principally the VQS, has enabled us to cap the growth of the vehicle population to 3% per annum. Our vehicle population today stands at about 680,000, about double the population ten years ago. We could not have sustained this rate of growth if we had not during this same period implemented the various road pricing schemes like the ALS and RPS.

We have accumulated 23 years of experience in road pricing. We implemented the ALS for the Central Business District (CBD) since 1975. In the last two years, we extended the concept to the expressways with RPS. The decades of experience have proven beyond doubt what most transport economists and town planners have long advocated, that road pricing is an effective policy for dealing with traffic congestion. Traffic conditions improved significantly after road pricing. Motorists were willing to make changes to their travel patterns, and viable travel alternatives in the form of bus and rail were available for commuters. By making the true cost of driving transparent, motorists have been encouraged to choose a different route, destination, time of travel, or even to decide not to make that trip at all. Some have also car-pooled, others have used public transport. Those who choose to pay have been rewarded with a smoother and faster drive.

Reasons for Switching to Electronic Road Pricing System

Mr Speaker, Sir, the current ALS and RPS schemes are manual systems and they have several inherent shortcomings. For example, they do not allow us to vary the road pricing charges according to the level of traffic congestion. Traffic surveys have shown that traffic flow during the peak hours vary, with a distinct peak-within-peak period. We should in theory levy a higher rate during this peak-within-peak period. But we cannot do so under the manual system for practical reasons. The number of licences for one would have to be increased from the current 14 types. Both the motorists and our enforcement officers would be thoroughly confused, and enforcement would be much more difficult.

Another shortcoming of the present system is the need to operate and maintain a wide distribution network including roadside booths and petrol stations to sell the ALS/RPS licences. From the motorists' point of view, the need to look for such outlets is always a major hassle.

The ERP system will overcome the shortcomings of the manual system. It will allow us to charge for road usage in a more flexible, efficient and equitable manner.

We will be able to implement a pricing structure that is more sensitive to the actual level of traffic congestion experienced on the roads.

The system will be more convenient to motorists as it does away with the hassle of queuing at sales outlets to buy the daily or monthly licences. An automated system will also minimise the potential for human error in the area of enforcement.

More importantly, the ERP system will make motorists more aware of the cost of road use. It will encourage motorists to choose the most optimal time, route and mode of transport for their journeys. The result will be a reduction in the number of trips made by private vehicles, more efficient use of our roads, smoother flowing traffic and less pollution. As the roads become less congested, we can review our vehicle quotas and, if feasible, release more COEs. Together, ERP and the Vehicle Quota System will provide a long-term sustainable and effective framework for managing the traffic on our roads.

It has taken us many years to realise the ERP System, from conceptualisation to testing and now to final implementation. We first started discussion on the concept in 1989.

International tenders were called for contractors to design and supply the system. Tenderers were shortlisted in 1993. Site tests were carried out on three prototype systems in 1994 and 1995, before we finally decided to go ahead with the system.

We virtually had to start from scratch. There was no system similar to what we wanted elsewhere. We could not refer to any other system at the time. For example, we had some very special requirements: the ability to process vehicles across many lanes, and to process them as they are travelling at high speeds. That was one requirement. We also called for reliability standards which were higher than currently available in the industry and, of course, there was the need to customise the system to suit our local traffic and weather conditions.

Our ERP system has undergone extensive testing, both in the laboratory as well as in the field, to ensure that it meets the highest technical standards. But as Members would appreciate, as technology improves, there will be the need to upgrade and we will do so, and we will improve the ERP system over time.

LTA is currently in the midst of fitting the In-vehicle Units (or IUs) onto all vehicles. The exercise is scheduled to be completed by July this year. The RPS and ALS gantries are also being progressively replaced by the ERP gantries.

ERP Implementation Plan

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will kick off ERP by implementing it first on the East Coast Parkway before we extend it to the other ALS and RPS points. The reason for this phased implementation is prudent. We want to ensure minimum hitches for full scale operation of this complex system. Motorists will also be able to familiarise themselves with the system under this approach.

I announced recently that the two RPS points on the East Coast Parkway, one at Fort Road and the other one at Ophir Road, will be replaced by the ERP system with effect from 1st April this year.

Over the next few weeks before the ERP begins at the East Coast Parkway at these two points, LTA will be testing the system using the five sets of gantries already installed at the East Coast Parkway, the Pan-Island Expressway and the Central Expressway. This is to ensure that the various equipment and the IUs installed on vehicles are functioning properly.

Motorists are encouraged to insert Cashcards into their IUs when they drive through the gantries. No deduction will be made. LTA will announce details of the tests shortly.

The ERP rates - a matter of interest, I am sure, to Members - are now being finalised. LTA is monitoring the traffic flow on our roads, and will set the charges based on the actual traffic pattern at the time of implementation. We will also make full use of the flexibility of the ERP system to implement `shoulder pricing', in other words, to implement different pricing within the peak period and the period just outside that, and this is to spread out the traffic evenly during the RPS operational hours.

Mr Speaker Sir, as I mentioned earlier, our experience has shown that road pricing works. It helps to bring about free flow of traffic on our roads. The ERP will be more than an improvement over the manual system of road pricing. With ERP, we are able to fine-tune the charges to respond more specifically to the times and areas of congestion. At the same time, we will revise our vehicle tax structure and introduce a package of road tax rebates in order to shift more of the fixed cost of owning a vehicle to the discretionary cost of using it. I will be announcing details of the new vehicle tax structure and the road tax rebate package together with the ERP implementation plan next month before the Budget debate. Before we are able to make the requisite changes, we will have to amend the Road Traffic Act. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill

Sir, let me now address the key provisions of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

Clause 3 of the Bill empowers the Minister for Communications to prescribe road-user charges to be paid by the vehicle driver in connection with the use of any specified road. The Minister may also make rules to specify the roads for which road-user charges will be levied, the days and hours during which a road-user charge is levied, the different charge amounts for the different roads, hours of the day, days of the week and vehicle classes or descriptions, and the manner in which the road-user charges are levied and collected.

Clause 3 also provides for the Registrar of Vehicles to require a vehicle owner to produce his vehicle for inspection of the In-vehicle Unit (IU).

Clause 4 of the Bill empowers an employee of the LTA to require a vehicle owner to furnish the identity and address of the driver of his vehicle who is suspected to be guilty of an offence under the Road Traffic Act or its rules.

Clause 5 of the Bill makes a vehicle owner liable for any offence under the new Part IA of the Road Traffic Act or its rules, committed using his vehicle unless at the time of the offence his vehicle was stolen or illegally taken or used.

As the Road Traffic Act is overseen by both the Minister for Communications and the Minster for Home Affairs, clauses 6 to 9 of the Bill allow the Minister for Communications to exercise the same powers under the provisions mentioned in those clauses which are within his purview.

Clause 10 of the Bill relates to the authentication of any notices, orders or other documents issued under the Road Traffic Act or its rules. It allows for documents such as summonses for ERP offences to be generated automatically with official facsimile or electronic signatures. Conclusion

Sir, the introduction of ERP is a significant milestone in the history of land transport in Singapore. It marks a fundamental shift in the way we manage the use of our roads - from an ownership-biased regime to a more balanced one based on usage as well as ownership. This shift is necessary to ensure that our roads remain free from congestion to support economic growth and a better quality of life for our people. I am confident that the ERP system will help us manage our traffic problems well into the next century and bring us a major step closer to our vision of a world-class land transport system.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of this Amendment Bill in the name of the Minister for Communications.

Sir, this Bill serves to tie up some of the administrative and legal ends for the authorities to implement the electronic road pricing system which is due to begin in over a month's time. We are all aware, as pointed out by the Minister, that this will be the first of its kind implementation programme for the ERP in a big major city in the world. Naturally there will be some nitty-gritty issues to tie up, especially to take care of the people who for one reason or another do not comply.

I hope the Minister can consider some grace period at the beginning of this phasing-in to give the benefit of the doubt to those drivers who may forgetfully miss the important thing to do on those days. A publicity blitz instructing drivers what to do may be necessary to sink in the message.

I also hope the Minister can also allow not too costly penalties in the beginning for offenders, in order to give them at least a chance in the event that they commit the offence, especially as they may not be so familiar initially.

I wish to seek a clarification on whether and how these laws will apply to foreign cars, especially those from Malaysia, whose drivers may be truly unaware of the hazards driving on the highways once the Amendment Bill is passed. The question is, for those Malaysian cars, how to effect these penalties, as mentioned in the Amendment Bill, when the owners of these vehicles, not necessarily the drivers, may be far away, as the Amendment Bill puts a lot of burden of penalties on the owners of the vehicles.

I suggest also that some kind of leaflets, publicity leaflets on the ERP for foreign drivers, may be necessary. Also, some kind of leaflets or publicity/introduction materials on planes may be necessary to familiarise the foreign visitors from overseas. In particular, I am not clear about new section 34E(6). If a vehicle where the ERP device, the IU as mentioned by the Minister just now, is faulty or caused to be faulty, the vehicle is seized, and if the vehicle after investigation is not claimed, it may be sold and the net proceeds paid to the Consolidated Fund. Is the fault of non-compliance the fault of the driver or the owner? How is the burden of non-compliance distributed between owners and drivers? Does pin-pointing all the cost and blame on the owners alone, as apparent in the Bill, solve the problem? Or does it provide a loophole for errant drivers to bypass the ERP process? Should the Bill not place some responsibility on the drivers who do not comply?

Another section of the Amendment Bill, new section 34B mentioned that the Minister may prescribe road-user charges. As mentioned by the Minister just now, he intends to make this announcement of the scheme of charges in the coming Budget. I thank the Minister for pre-empting this point and in believing that this principle of neutrality that he has announced, the scheme of charges would be such as to generate neutral budget values. If that is the case, I wonder whether it is at least possible to consider announcing this scheme of charges even earlier, to let the public be informed on these various schemes of charges and adjustments so that there is ample time for the members of the public to re-evaluate switching transport mode and for making investment decisions.

Dr Toh See Kiat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill, but I have two simple points to make.

Firstly, the new sections 34C and 34D refer to "such electronic or computerised or other facilities". Because of the ejusdem generis principle of statutory interpretation, I think this is not sufficiently broad to cover technologies which may use, for example, optics (or light), microwave, radar, sonic or other non-electronic telecommunication media. Our ERP devices would be using all these technologies too, I suppose, and in fact there is a word which would be broad enough to cover all these technologies. It is a word which is used in section 65 of the Evidence Act. I refer to the word "telematic" and would urge the Minister to consider inserting that word in front of the word "electronic".

Secondly, I refer to the new section 139A and would like the Minister to clarify that "an official facsimile" of a signature would have certain control measures and safeguards to prevent fraudulent notices.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern again is with the concentration of power, and before I finish, I propose to read what a former Deputy Prime Minister of this Government had to say about this. I see under the new amendment, clause 3, new section 34B, "The Minister may prescribe road-user charges to be paid in connection with the user of any specified road." And then under the new section 34D, he is allowed to specify different charges for different time users.

Article 143 of the Constitution enacts that no tax or levy may be imposed, except upon the authority of law. Of course, it may be argued that section 34B is the authority. But it is questionable whether this complies with that Article because the Minister would appear to be given a carte blanche as to what the charge or charges should be. If he is in a generous mood, he might reduce it. If he is not in a generous mood, he might just up it. Is it right that a Minister should be given the power to decide what tax or levy should be imposed on citizens in Singapore when under the Constitution the requirement is that it should first be authorised by a written law, that is, law passed by Parliament? Should not the prescribed road-user charges be first approved by Parliament before they are put into use or collected from road-users?

Secondly, there is again this concentration of power in the Registrar as seen under the new section 34E, Mr Speaker, Sir, "The Registrar may remove any device or appurtenance which he considers to be fitted in contravention of any of the provisions of this Part or the rules made under this section." There would appear to be no recourse for any owner or driver against the decision of the Registrar or authorised officer. Subsection (4) deals with a person who fails to comply with a notice issued under subsection (1) who shall be guilty of an offence which would suggest that a person who fails to comply with the notice shall be prosecuted in court. But subsection (1) merely requires the person on whom notice is served to produce the vehicle, and by subsection (4), if he does not produce the vehicle, then he may be prosecuted. Subsection (4) does not seem to apply to subsection (3) where the Registrar decides to remove any device or appurtenance fitted into the car. Is it not, again may I ask, right that a right of appeal should be given to the aggrieved person, not to the Minister or to any other higher officer, but to the court so that the decision of the Registrar may be challenged in the court?

I said at the beginning that I was going to quote what a former Deputy Prime Minister of this Government had to say about the concentration of power. May I just read what he said, and this is none other than Dr Toh Chin Chye who was a former Deputy Prime Minister. And he was reported to have said:

`Now everything is centralised and the computer databanks make it easier for more and more power to be concentrated. Anyone who applies for a job now has to fill in a form with a complete history. Everybody carries an identity card and everything is in the computer. I see that even people who take video tapes of people's weddings now have to get a licence. The amount of control is just fantastic. The danger is that we have no check on the use of power. [May I repeat that, Mr Speaker, Sir, "the danger is that we have no check on the use of power."] Yet, few people understand the significance of this. They are just resigned to it. It is called democratic centralism. Well, it is centralised, all right, but it is far from democratic.'

Earlier, the Minister for Information and the Arts, in moving his Bill, said, "I have very few appeals. I have very few objections." Perhaps, I should have read this to him then. Is it because our people have become resigned to all these controls and feel that they are just helpless in the face of power that is overwhelming?

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, once the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is passed today, land transportation in Singapore will enter a new era. It means that from now onwards the Government can levy any charges on the motorists at any time and anywhere, or to increase the levy on any particular stretch of road.

In most countries in the world, when the government levies charges or tolls on the motorists, it is to recover the cost of construction of the road. In Singapore, our cars are the most expensive in the world. The Government has imposed so much taxes on the cars that they far exceed the cost of construction of the roads. It does not have to resort to levies to recover the construction cost. It is said that the experts are of the opinion that road pricing could help to alleviate congestion on the road. I am not an expert. But I know that the system is operated in Singapore in such a way that whenever there is a congestion on any particular stretch of the highway, the Government would levy charges for the use of this stretch of road. If there is still congestion despite the levy, the levy will be increased again and again until such a point when the motorists find it too expensive to drive through that stretch of road, and avoid passing there. Then, there will be no congestion and traffic will be flowing smoothly. However, when the motorists do not use that stretch of road, they will have to use other alternative roads. As a result, congestion will be transferred to another part of the island. Then what would happen? Eventually, are we going to have road pricing on each and every road in Singapore and to keep on increasing the charges so that there will be no more congestion? Is that a rational solution?

In 1990, the Government used the excuse of controlling car population in Singapore to implement the COE system, resulting in the cost of owning a car in Singapore being exorbitant. Now, with the quota system in place, the Government says that with the introduction of the ERP system, more COEs will be issued so that more people can own cars. So on the one hand, the Government says it wants to restrict the growth of the car population in order to ease congestion, yet on the other hand, it is going to issue more COEs to increase the number of cars on the road. The fact is that the Government is encouraging people to buy cars, and when there are too many cars on the road resulting in congestion, it would find justification in imposing heavier charges for the use of the road, and the motorists will have to pay more to the Government. Apart from paying road tax for owning a car, the motorists have to pay again every time they use the roads. This means multiple charges on the people, and more revenue to the Government.

For those who are well-to-do, these road charges mean nothing to them. They can afford it, and by paying these extra charges, they enjoy congestion-free travelling on the road. But for those who have to depend on their vehicles for their work or to earn a living, the burden would be so heavy! So, is this a fair system? The elite from the PAP Government introduced this system to reap in more levies and more revenue for the Government. But they do not seem to have solved the problem of congestion on the road. It seems that the Government's solution is basically to squeeze more money from the motorists. Squeeze them until they could not afford it, give up driving, and sell their cars. The Government will then say that the traffic congestion problem is now solved! The policy of the PAP Government is to have this pricing mechanism. Levying charges to deter motorists from driving has very little effect on the wealthy people. But it certainly increases the burden of the ordinary citizens. Under this monetary policy and with the charges increasing, of course, the cost of doing business in Singapore will keep on rising. This will definitely affect our competitiveness!

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first of all thank the two speakers who supported the provisions of the Bill. They have raised several queries which I would like to deal with first.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen asked several questions concerning the publicity for the ERP system. I do share with Mr Chay his concerns about having adequate publicity and this is the reason why I have asked the LTA to launch a publicity campaign before the implementation of the ERP. And this public education programme was in fact started last year when the fitting of the In-vehicle Units (IUs) was started, I think, sometime in September. During this publicity programme, motorists will be educated not just on the operation of the system but also the technical functions of the In-vehicle Unit. Members may recall there were information booklets that were sent to all the motorists. There was also a publicity blitz on television and newspapers to explain the rationale for the ERP scheme and to increase the awareness of the ERP scheme. Obviously, that message has not got through to Mr Low Thia Khiang and I will deal with his concerns later on.

The publicity for motorists will not stop here of course because we are going to implement the scheme in April which is only 1 1/2 months away. LTA would be stepping up the publicity programme. In the next week, they will be announcing the testing of the IUs whereby motorists will be invited to drive through the gantries in order to allow motorists a chance to actually make use of the IUs, to test them and be familiar with the system. The LTA will be giving some details on this later on. Closer to the time of the implementation, which is sometime in March, the publicity will be stepped up.

Mr Chay also asked about the foreign cars, what is going to happen to foreign motorists. By this, I mean Malaysian motorists in particular. Malaysian motorists will be subject to the same rules and charges as our local motorists. So long as they use the ERP price roads, they will be subject to the same charges. And this is in fact no different from the current manual system where all the ALS/RPS charges are also applicable to Malaysian motorists. We recognise the fact that Malaysian motorists do not come to Singapore so frequently and they may not be aware or subject to the same campaign of publicity blitz. We have therefore made special provisions to distribute brochures and leaflets at the Causeway as well as at the Tuas Checkpoint. So every Malaysian motorist coming in over the last few months has been given this brochure in order to make the Malaysian motorists more aware of what is the ERP system, where they can fit the In-vehicle Unit if they wish to, if they are frequent visitors to Singapore, or if they do not wish to, where they can get a temporary IU.

He has also suggested that we may want to consider giving some publicity to those non-Malaysian motorists, for example, those who arrive by air. I think this is a good suggestion. I will take it up. For example, they may be coming here and they rent a car. We can certainly implement that suggestion.

As for the penalties for ERP violations, I would like to inform him that the penalties will be consistent with those for similar violations of the ALS and RPS system. Yes, this will be a brand new system. It will be something that will be very unfamiliar to many motorists initially, and I would expect that there will be a little bit of confusion in the beginning. I take his point and I assure Mr Chay that I will ask the LTA to be flexible in its enforcement of the ERP system in the first one or two weeks.

Specifically, he asked about new section 34E. Section 34E actually talks about the liability of owners vis-�-vis drivers or users of the vehicles. What this section seeks to do is to allow the Registrar of Vehicles to detain a vehicle if the owner fails to comply with the notice to produce the vehicle for inspection and testing of the IU. This is really to cater for situations where the LTA suspects that the IU has been tampered with. We are talking about 600,000 In-Vehicle Units by the time we finish the exercise. The possibility of tampering is a very real one and I think it is important, for the integrity of the system, that provisions are put in place in order to allow any tampering of the IUs to be nipped in the bud before it becomes more pervasive. This provision is really to allow the Registrar of Vehicles to actually call in a vehicle, test it and check that no tampering has taken place. I hope that clarifies the point for Mr Chay.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: I am more concerned about the burden of non-compliance between owners of vehicles and drivers. When the owners comply, the drivers may be deliberately bypassing the ERP process.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: In the same way that other provisions under the Road Traffic Act require the owner to furnish particulars of either himself or the driver, ie, whoever was driving the vehicle at that time. So, in the same way, it is up to the owner to furnish the relevant particulars of the driver. If he is not the driver, then it is up to him to furnish the relevant particulars. Thereupon, of course, the LTA will take the necessary steps to either prosecute the driver or the owner, whoever is appropriate.

Mr Chay also asked whether we can announce the scheme earlier in order to give the public time to consider and make decisions. I presume those decisions refer to whether or not a person wishes to buy a car. This is precisely the reason why I will be making the announcement after the Budget statement is made, because it will allow motorists, in fact, before the next COE bidding cycle starts, to know what is the new tax structure like, what is it going to be, how it will affect him, what is the quantum of the rebates that will be given, whether he decides to continue to bid for a car or whether he wishes to look for other alternative travel modes. So sufficient time will be given whereby all motorists or would-be motorists will be able to make such an informed decision. This will also allow Members in the House, during the Committee of Supply debate, to further seek clarification on the matter or to debate the matter in the House.

I turn now to Dr Toh See Kiat who made two points. The first point was his suggestion, I believe, to add the word "telematic". I think the intent behind this suggestion is correct. He is right in saying that it is likely that with the progress of technology, with the advancements in this particular field, that it is likely that we will use such technologies in the future. I thank him for his suggestion and I will look into this. For the moment, I would like to inform him that I believe the proposed provisions are adequate for the purpose today. And it is not intended to preclude, of course, the use of such new technologies in the future, as and when they become available.

He also wanted to know what is the official facsimile. Basically, the official facsimile refers to computer-generated or rubber stamp signatures which I think some, if not all of us, are familiar with when we receive either property tax notices or even traffic violations today. It is essentially the same thing. It is simply a question of making the dispatch of notices, offers of composition and so on more efficient. The term, as I said, refers to the computer-generated signature. Similar provisions exist in other legislation dealing with other Government business like property tax and traffic summonses.

I believe I have covered Dr Toh's questions.

Dr Toh See Kiat: My question was more on control measures. Could the Minister assure us on the control measures for this because it is mass produced?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: The control measures pertain to, first of all, signatures which can only be used by authorised officers. The control measures are contained within the internal housekeeping rules and regulations pertaining to the use of such important signatures. These are in-house regulations which are regularly audited to make sure that there is no abuse. As I said, this is quite a common practice for other Government departments as well.

I now turn to the points made by Mr J B Jeyaretnam. I think the main thesis of Mr Jeyaretnam's point was that there is too much concentration of power. I do not know how that linkage is made from what he has quoted, ie, there is too much concentration of power, and new sections 34B, 34D and even 34E. I think the nexus is a very tenuous one. I guess this is just another opportunity for him to make his favourite speech. However, having made it, I think I owe him an answer in that respect. Sections 34B and 34D are simply provisions which are actually in compliance with what is in the Constitution, that there be no tax or no levy that can be imposed except upon the authority of the law. And this is the reason why I come to Parliament to seek approval for such a charge to be imposed.

The question may be: why do we not specify the charge in this particular Bill? The answer is very simple. The charges may change. The levies may change from time to time. It is not uncommon for the levies to change fairly quickly or fairly frequently in response to changes in the traffic pattern. And this is precisely the reason why the ERP system is being implemented in the first place. It is being implemented in order to respond to traffic patterns. If we were to come back to Parliament every time we need to change those charges, I think Parliament is going to be utterly bogged down by all these various changes. When we implemented the ALS in 1975, we changed those charges after one month. We implemented a certain rate. We found that it was too high because roads were too free, underutilised. We changed it one month later.

Over time, we have had occasions to vary those charges depending on how the traffic pattern built up, depending on how the traffic pattern moved. It is quite within the purview of the Ministry. In fact, it is the responsibility of the Ministry to keep track of these things to make sure that the ultimate objective of this scheme, which is to remove traffic congestion, is achieved. And you cannot achieve that by having to come to Parliament every time just to change the levy from $1 to $2 or from $2 to $1.50. I do not think Members of Parliament are going to take very kindly to that kind of amendment. So it is a very straightforward matter. It is something which is completely within the purview and the responsibility of the Ministry or the Minister concerned, and this is the reason why we have sections 34B and 34D. Within these two particular provisions, it is not just a question of what are the charges. It is also the time of the charges, the location of the charges. Do we have to come back to Parliament every time we want to add a new gantry or remove one? Or every time we want to move the time from 7.00 am to 7.30 am, or from 9.00 am to 9.15 am? I think it is totally unnecessary. It is really quite an administrative matter which should rightly be left to the Ministry concerned.

It is not a matter of whether the Minister is in a generous mood or not that the charges are levied up or down. I think even Mr Jeyaretnam does not believe when he said that. However, the fact is that he has given me an opportunity to explain again why we have to change the charges. Yes, the charges have to be varied but it is only varied for the ultimate purpose of making sure that the traffic is free flowing. And there have been occasions where charges have actually come down, as there have been occasions where it has gone up. Ultimately, the traffic engineers will recommend what is the optimal charge. We do not want the roads to be under utilised but we certainly do not want them to be clogged up either. It is very simple. Surveys are carried out. Recommendations are made by the Land Transport Authority and they are then discussed and decisions are made. It is certainly not at the whims and fancies of the Minister.

Finally, I turn to Mr Low Thia Khiang's concerns about the ERP system. They are not new concerns. They are concerns which have been voiced many times in this House by him. That, of course, does not mean that those concerns are valid. It just simply means that it is politically expedient for him to make those points. Why do I say that?

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is wrong with that?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: No, nothing wrong at all. But I will seek to explain to the other Members of the House who are not so blindfolded in their thinking as to why those concerns are not valid.

This year alone, I had occasion to monitor very closely what are the developments in this area, road pricing, in particular. For this year, the question of traffic congestion and road pricing has been discussed in many, many journals and magazines. Asiaweek wrote about the traffic jams in Kuala Lumpur. Asia Magazine wrote about the traffic jams in other Asian cities. Newsweek wrote about traffic jams in Europe. The Economist wrote an article called "Road Pricing". In fact, it was entitled, on the front cover "Jam today, Road pricing tomorrow". Let me take this opportunity to quote part of that Economist article:

`If roads continue to be operated as one of the last relics of a Soviet-style command economy, then the consequences will be worsening traffic jams and eventual Bangkok-style gridlock. If, on the other hand, roads were priced like any other scarce commodity, then better use would be made of existing space and the revenues raised could be used to improve public transport. The mere fact of making motorists pay their way would free capacity to such an extent that bus travel would become easier and faster, and subsidies can be reduced. Politicians have long shied away from this approach because it is difficult to persuade voters to pay for something that has long been free. But some governments are starting to accept that there may be no alternative. Charging for ownership rather than use, as most tax systems do, make little sense. Heavy fixed costs, including vehicle duties, insurance and depreciation, merely encourage drivers to use their cars more because the perceived marginal costs of motoring are so small. The way forward must be to make cars more expensive to use.'

Another part of the article goes as follows:

`Those who argue that road pricing is unfair because it discriminates against the poor [I think this is what Mr Low Thia Khiang has said] ignore the fact that the people too poor to own a vehicle suffer the ill-effects of congestion without the benefits of personal mobility. And if the revenues were used to improve public transport, the poor would benefit disproportionately.'

So really the purpose of electronic road pricing is fundamentally as follows:

It is to restructure our tax system and restructure the way we manage our traffic to manage our roads. The objective of this is to make our transport system more efficient, to keep our roads which are our economic arteries free-flowing. Why? So that Singapore can remain as a good place to do business. Surely, ultimately, that must be of benefit to everybody the poor, the rich, the businessmen and the consumers. Rather than saying that this is going to add to the burden of businesses, I argue that in fact a good transport system free of congestion actually helps to lower business cost in the long run rather than to add to their cost. As the Economist article says, you do not say that the ERP penalises the poor and helps the rich because the people who drive cars cannot be considered poor by any means. If they can afford a car, surely they are not that poor. It is the people who are in the buses who are the ones who are ultimately going to be one of the main beneficiaries of free-flowing roads. So I say that, rather than looking upon the ERP as an enemy, it is actually an ally of the businessmen, including the small businessmen.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister? First, the Minister refers to the Economist article for justification of the ERP. My question is: will the Minister say how much of the revenue collected from ERP will be committed to the improvement of the public transportation system in the future? Second, we are still fresh in our minds how the Government dragged its feet on building the North-east line and I think the Member for Potong Pasir will tell you that the Government is very stingy in its expenditure on public transport and it is not going to build the Sennett line. Third, would the current ERP system capture the identity of a car that passes through the gantry? If so, could this information track effectively the travelling pattern of a particular car or the owner of the car? How would the Minister propose to safeguard this information to prevent its abuse?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, there is really no need for this Government to commit to expenditure on public transport. We had a debate in this House on the White Paper on land transport. In that paper, we committed to the development of a world class public transport system. In order to develop that, the amount of money that has to be spent on public transport, ie, the amount of money that has to be spent on building MRT lines and LRT lines, is well in excess of the amount of money that is being collected in terms of tax at any point in time. If it were that simple that we just link the collection of ERP revenues with public transport, I think that is one of the simplest decisions we could take. But that does not address the question about what kind of public transport we want, what kind of transport management measure we want, what kind of roads we want, and what kind of infrastructure development we want.

Let me clarify. What I am saying is that we need to justify every expenditure, every project, on public transport. If we can justify that expenditure, we will be able to proceed to build. The North-east line is a classic example. We are going to spend $5 billion on the North-east line. We started ground breaking early this year. Even as my Ministry is working on the budget for the North-east line, we have gone to the Ministry of Finance for funds and the Ministry of Finance has given us the approval to proceed in spite of a possible reduction in Government revenues, as a result of the economic slowdown. This is because it is an economically justifiable and worthwhile project. It is not something that we created out of political expediency. Neither was it because of Mr Low Thia Khiang nor Mr Chiam See Tong that we took so long to build that line. It was because we needed to do the studies and convince the Government that this was a project worth spending $5 billion of taxpayers' money.

Looking at it on a macro basis, expenditure on public transport infrastructure is a commitment that has been made. This commitment was made in this House when this House approved the White Paper on land transport. I do not believe that the Member actually made any comments in that particular debate. But a major debate did take place in this House. Many Members spoke and one of the key recommendations of that White Paper was a major change in the way we fund public transport infrastructure, especially heavy rail transport infrastructure. So I do not think there is any need for me now to make any particular commitment on expenditure of public transport. The developments this year and the next few years will amply demonstrate the amount of effort that is being made in this area. This is one of the key pillars of our total transportation policy.

The difficult part is to convince Singaporeans that transport management measures and road usage management measures like ERP and the Vehicle Quota System are beneficial in the long run. That is the difficult part. But we know that this is something that is worth doing and we know that we can do it because, at the same time, we are using the money that has been collected for public transport expenditure. Ultimately, as the Economist article puts it, when people see the benefits of road pricing and the benefits of all these measures, it will become more acceptable. Let me quote to the Member another part of the article. It said:

`Governments around the world are still nervous about the impact of road pricing. But as more and more charging schemes are implemented and as the benefits of less congested unpolluted roads are felt, attitudes will change. In 20 years' time when paying for road space will be regarded as the norm, people will look back and wonder why they were ever prepared to put up with the pollution, noise and paralysis of today's cities.'

I believe he asked another question about the identity of cars passing through the ERP. The system that we have adopted, which is the Cashcard system, bills cars only as they are going through. So the identity of the vehicle is only captured if there is a violation. In other words, if you pass through a gantry with your Cashcard inserted and fully loaded, the charge is deducted, there will be no problems and there will be no identification. But, of course, if there is some violation, whether it is insufficient balance in the Cashcard or you do not have a Cashcard, or whether IU is faulty, yes, there will be an identification. That identification will be captured by a camera for purposes of sending you the notice of composition. That particular information will only be kept for so long as it is required to send you the summons. Thereafter, it will not be in the system. In other words, there is no possibility of violating the privacy of any particular motorist.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, may I ask the Minister by way of clarification? He mentions, really jibes, about my Party's concern that the whole thing is a discrimination against the poor. Will he not agree that the whole system of road pricing, ALS, or what have you, does not take into account the needs of the small tradesmen or persons whose jobs needs them to have a car to get around, which adds to their cost, reducing their income considerably whilst allowing those who are rich and wealthy to have unlimited access to our roads?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: I think it would be worthwhile perhaps for Mr Jeyaretnam to hold his fire on this one until I announce the details of the road tax restructuring, the vehicle tax restructuring and the road tax rebates. Then we can debate this in the Committee of Supply. It can then be a more meaningful debate because at the moment he does not have information available. If he raises this matter again after the details are announced, we can have another discussion on that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.