PUBLIC TRANSPORT COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology (Dr John Chen Seow Phun): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Public Transport Council (PTC) was formed on 28th August 1987 with the enactment of the PTC Act. The Council approves and regulates bus routes and public transport fares, balancing the interests of the commuters with that of the public transport operators. The PTC Act has not been amended since its enactment.

Over the years, various developments have taken place, such as the deregulation of taxi fares last September and the expansion of types of bus services such as shuttle bus services between private housing estates and the nearby MRT stations. The Ministry and the Council have, therefore, reviewed the PTC Act and are proposing to amend the Act to:

(a) bring it up to date with latest developments;

(b) increase the Council's size to widen its representation; and

(c) facilitate the Council's discharge of its functions more efficiently.

Let me explain these amendments in greater detail.

First of all, we propose to include a new section 24 in the Act to empower the Council to exempt any person or class of persons from all or any of the provision of the Act or regulations made. This amendment will give the Council more flexibility in the application of its decisions and operations. For instance, the Council has deregulated taxi fares from 1st September 1998, hence this new section will enable the Council to regularise the policy and exempt taxi operators from requiring the Council's approval for any taxi fare revisions.

Next, we are proposing to amend paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to increase the number of Council members who are not representatives of public transport companies by two, from nine to 11. This is to allow the Ministry to widen the representation of public members on the Council so that other key segments of the population may be represented on the Council. This will allow the Council to take into account the views of a wider segment of population in its deliberations.

The remaining amendments, mainly in sections 5, 12, 13, 19, 21 to 23 and 25, are to regularise the various functions and to enable the Council to carry out its role more effectively.

Section 5 is amended to be consistent with other statutes on appointing and employing officers, employees and agents to carry out its functions. In addition, new sections 5A and 5B have been drawn up to provide members, officers and employees of the Council and persons acting under the directions of the Council protection from personal liability for functions undertaken in good faith under the Act. Likewise, it is proposed that all members, officers and employees of the Council be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Penal Code. These amendments will make the Act consistent with other statutes where all employees of statutory boards are deemed as public officers. It will formally give explicit powers and protection to PTC officers.

Section 12 is amended to allow security deposits collected for the issuance of bus service licences to be made to the Council instead of the Accountant-General. Sections 13 and 19 are consequential amendments arising from the amendment to Section 12. Currently, the security deposits are held in the Accountant-General's account. To enable the Council to carry out its functions more efficiently, it is better for the Council to hold these deposits in trust.

The amendment in section 21 is to provide for the procedures and requirements for the application of public transport fare revisions to be clearly spelt out.

Sir, currently, paragraph 4(3) of the Second Schedule requires the Minister to present the audited financial statements and auditors' report to Parliament. The amendment in section 22 is to include this in the main Act.

Section 23 empowers the Council to compound any offences committed under the Act. This is not provided for in the current Act. This amendment will give the Council more flexibility to take action against public transport operators or commuters who flout the rules set by the Council.

Section 25 contains the provisions of the existing section 22 and further empowers the Council to make regulations necessary or expedient for carrying out the provisions of the PTC Act. For instance, the Council may prescribe the procedures for application of bus service licences and fees payable and other procedures pertaining to the hearing of appeals, the powers and duties of officers, etc.

My Ministry has also taken the opportunity to update the provisions on financial and auditing matters in the Second Schedule of the Act to bring them in conformity with standard provisions of the Government which had changed over the years.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, I speak in support of this Amendment Bill.

I have, in general, no questions about the main items relating to this Amendment Bill. But there is one clause 11 which refers to section 21 of the principal Act which I am a little bit concerned. It concerns the application for the approval of fares. Under this proposed amendment, this application for the approval of fares should be supported by documents, including certified copies of the balance sheet and profit and loss account, and any auditor's report, relating to the applicant's undertaking as the Council may require. And in considering such applications, it is written in the Bill that the Council shall take into account the need of the applicant to remain financially viable as well as the need of the public interest. I want to ask the Minister to consider the possibility that there should be some efficiency criteria to be built into this kind of application to review or increase bus fares or public transport fares. The reason is that these are public charter monopolies in a sense.

Proposals to raise fares in public bus companies or public transport companies can be made of course provided they are justified. The justification of it is not necessarily just on balance sheet or profit and loss account, but of course the need of the public. But there should be also efficiency critieria. How do our public transport companies, in discharging its functions and answering to the public, match themselves against other such public transport companies in delivering such services worldwide? With this benchmark, at least we know that such fare increases are justified and not just based on balance sheet and profit and loss account alone. I hope the Minister will consider this point and raise it with the PTC.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: Mr Speaker, Sir, as mentioned by the Minister of State, the Public Transport Council is set up by an Act of Parliament in order to be a watchdog body to look after the public interest where public transport is concerned without detriment to the financial viability of public transport operators.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House three features of the Public Transport Council. First, the Council is meant to approve and regulate bus routes and bus, taxi and MRT fares. This is a laudable objective. However, the First Schedule of the Bill provides for representatives of the major public transport companies to sit on the Council as members. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Council finds difficulties in carrying out its responsibility in being a watchdog body in regulating public transport fares and routes when the very operators themselves are members. Is there no conflict of interest? Would it not be more appropriate for the Council to be independent of the public transport operators since it is meant to regulate them? How does it regulate itself because the public transport operators are themselves members? Furthermore, if, in addition, in the event of a fare increase, supposing that the public transport operators would have to provide their financial data and you have other public transport operators also in the Council sitting at the table, how then can proper deliberation be done because these are private financial data belonging to a private operator? So I am a bit puzzled by this particular clause in the First Schedule and I would like to ask for clarification from the Minister of State.

In addition, since the Bill seeks to increase the Council size, can the Council not make it a point to include at least one representative of the handicapped as a member in order to represent them?

Second, assessment of applications for fare increase and changes in bus routes requires a thorough understanding of both the demand and supply of public transport, as well as the financial operation of the public transport companies in order to assess the financial implications for the companies concerned.

I therefore support the new section 21 which gives the Council powers to ask for supporting documents such as profit and loss accounts to support an application for the change of fare. In addition, I believe that in the event of an application to increase fares, the Council should perform an independent assessment of its implications, both for the public as well as for the operators concerned. It should not merely rely on the analysis provided by the operators themselves. I would therefore like to seek an assurance from the Minister of State that an independent assessment is indeed made by the Public Transport Council before a fare increase is agreed to.

I would also like to seek clarification from the Minister of State as to the resources that the Council has to do this detailed and complicated work and whether this is done by the six staff at present comprising the Council secretariat. After all, unlike other regulatory agencies such as the Singapore Broadcasting Authority or the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore, the Public Transport Council is not a statutory board but a part-time council, comprising at present 13 members representing all walks of life. I also presume that this kind of analysis is not done by the Land Transport Authority as the Council's annual report states that the LTA acts as the agent for the Council in carrying out its operational decisions.

I would like to seek clarification with the Minister of State regarding the relationship between the Council on the one hand, and the Ministry on the other. I am sure that close consultation occurs between the Council and the Ministry. After all, I believe that the Minister appoints members to the Council. My question is: can the Council make decisions independently and if necessary, contrary to that of the Ministry's? Is it an independent body from that of the Ministry?

I support Mr Chay Wai Chuen's point that he made just now that the need for financial viability should not be the only criterion for assessing fare increases. I think his point about including an efficiency criterion is a very good one because in all that I know of the way the Government handles private companies, financial viability has not been a major criterion for assessing an issue which is of public concern.

Third, since public transport has a direct impact on the lives of Singaporeans, there is a keen interest in the decisions of the Council with regard to fare revisions, changes in bus routes and so on. The new section 22 states the Council should submit an annual report to the Minister which should be subsequently presented to Parliament. The annual report provides useful information regarding the work of the Council in the preceding year. I therefore support this new clause.

In addition, however, in the interest of providing the public with information and the reasoning behind the decisions taken by the Council, I would like to suggest that the Council goes beyond the publication of an annual report. The Council should, soon after making a major decision such as approving a fare revision, hold a public forum to explain to the public the rationale for its decision. I am sure that there are good reasons for its decision and such a face-to-face dialogue with the public would help clarify doubts and concerns. This forum should also be open to the media so that the subsequent discussions, which would include answers to frequently asked questions that many of the public may have, would be covered and publicised.

In conclusion, I support the motion, but I would like to seek clarification from the Minister of State regarding a number of points.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Transport Council is doing a lot of work. In fact, our transport services, both the buses and MRT, have improved by leaps and bounds. But I would urge the Minister of State to take note of some of the areas which I am going to address to him.

First of all, I agree that there should be a handicapped representative. Most of the Council members are car users. We should get a bus commuter to sit on the Council. I know we have an NTUC representative but it is not enough.

The second point, which Dr Lee has mentioned, is to have a feedback unit. The bus and MRT are a very important part of our industry. The passengers are the best people to give feedback on the changes of routes and fares. On the fares, Sir, I share the concern of Members. The Council has members from MRT and bus operators and they are going to decide how much fares should be charged, subject to the Minister's approval. We should be more transparent. Whenever decisions are taken, there should be a convention that those who are involved directly in the operation of the bus or MRT should not take part when a decision is taken to raise fares. We should make it a point to see that these people do not vote. Otherwise, we will lose our maxim that justice must not only be done but seen to be done.

The other point which I would like to comment is this. I think the regulatory power that is given to the Council is laudable. It should be because after all, the Council is in charge and clause 25 has laid down all the areas which it has to do and I welcome it.

Another point which I would like to mention is the composition of offences. Why do we restrict ourselves to $200 for a fine? Instead of coming back to this House again, what we could have done is to state $200 or such a figure as the Minister may approve. That would save us the trouble of coming to this House, because $200 is a pittance if you really want to regulate some of the offences.

My final point is to have a feedback where the public at large, the users of public transport, can give its views and the Council could study them and serve the public better. With that reservation, Sir, I support this Bill.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I too rise in support of the Bill.

By and large, ever since the Public Transport Council was established, I believe the public transportation system in Singapore has been operating very well. Fares have been quite reasonable even though from time to time, I have spoken in this House regarding the lack of service in my constituency but by and large, things are going very well.

But I think the Public Transport Council was established at a time when the public service providers are very distinctly classified - taxi operator, bus operator, MRT operator and so on. As we look into the future, we already understand from the LTA that the future operators will be different. The bus and rail will be merged and the geographic areas will be partitioned and competition will perhaps be restricted whereas performance measures will be slightly different.

My question to the Minister of State is that, in the future regime, how would PTC play its role, or whether its role would be changed because of the new public transport scenario.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, allow me to say a few words regarding the amendment Bill.

I agree and support the amendments that are proposed. But there are a few issues that we need to address. The other changes that are to be introduced are going to make commuting more efficient and to allow for greater input by commuters themselves. That is a basic question that needs to be addressed. Are the changes to the composition of members to the PTC going to be a better check to upgrade and improve the work of the public transport system? If that is the case, then the amendments are worth its salt. Otherwise, I do not think it is going to be worth its salt if no changes are going to be made and the interests of the commuters are not going to be taken into consideration.

I support the viewpoint raised by the GPC Chairman for Communications. He has got a few valid points and I think it is worth looking at. But what I would like to say is that there is a need to ensure that a balance be maintained between operators and commuters. I know it is a difficult task. One has to ensure that public transport remains viable but there is obviously an interest to ensure that there is no run away price increase. In order that the interest of commuters is looked into, there is a need to increase the number of people from nine to 11. Why nine to 11? Why not 15? That is the basic question. What type of representations are you going to have? These members basically have not even taken a bus ride at all, and I think quite a majority of PTC members are not bus commuters. They are people who live in ivory towers. One needs to examine and see that there is adequate input. If that is the objective of the Public Transport Council, you have to bring in inputs of commuters to ensure the quality and efficiency are maintained. You may argue that all this is at a price. I agree that there is a price to be paid but not at the expense of the commuters.

There is also a need for PTC to ensure that there is adequate audit of the different services offered by the companies, and at the moment there is a duopoly. Only two major companies, other than SMRT, are providing the service at the moment. I think it is timely that PTC allows for greater competition. There is a need to re-look at the current bus transportation system provided by the two companies alone. Perhaps, one should look at the possibility of introducing more changes for ordinary travelling commuters, at the new town level, particularly the feeder bus system. And if more competition can be brought in, there is a possibility of improving the services provided by the different companies. I am sure that the Minister of State would agree with me that the more competition we have in public transport, we may be able to increase efficiency and allow the commuters to have a wider choice.

With that proviso, it is very important that representation on the PTC be re-looked at and a wider representation of commuters be brought into the PTC. The idea is to allow for better inputs and to bring public transport to a greater height.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Sir, there is another point which I forgot to mention.

Mr Speaker: Mr Rai, you have already made your speech.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Could I just add one point that I have left out?

Mr Speaker: I am sorry. Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to speak on any particular amendment. But I do wish to bring up a few points which have already been raised. I do not wish to repeat what has been said. But I think a valid point that has been made is the over representation on the Council by people who run the transport service and people who do not travel on public transport.

I do not know how you are going to remedy this imbalance. One way may be to form an association of commuters, encourage all over the island associations of commuters and then ask them to delegate somebody on to the Public Transport Council to look after their views. Alternatively, may I suggest that the Government consider appointing an Opposition Member of Parliament on to the Council.

An hon. Member: NCMP?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Please do not laugh at this. I am saying it quite seriously.

In one of the earlier motions that I moved in this House in 1997, I had proposed an all party parliamentary committee, ie, including Opposition Members and the Government Members, to review any increases in prices for basic services - transport, utilities and other basic services - that are provided for our people. That, of course, was rejected. It could not have been passed. But would the Government now consider seriously setting up an all party parliamentary committee, consisting of Members from the Government and the Opposition, to consider any applications from the operators for increase in fares? They can then make their recommendations to the Council. You may perhaps think that the Council should not be bound by it, but at least they will have the views of people who have been elected by the people, and they can take them seriously. That is my suggestion for enlarging this Council, to try and find a way to allow commuters to have representation on the Council.

The second point that I wish to put forward is the holding of a public inquiry when any operator or operators decide to withdraw any particular service. In other countries, when an operator plans or announces that he is going to withdraw the services, and if there is an objection from people who are served by that service, the Minister then appoints an inspector to hold a public inquiry to listen to the objections and decide whether the service should be withdrawn or not. Can we not move along those lines, instead of always having Government appointed people on councils? Let us give our people a greater participation in how things are run in this country. That is the whole idea of democracy. So, I would ask the Ministry to consider these two proposals quite seriously, and not just dismiss them as coming from the Opposition.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank all the Members for their support, comments and suggestions.

Let me, first, take the question on representation. I think many Members expressed opinions on representation and asked whether there is a conflict of interest when we appoint representatives from the public transport companies on to the Council. Sir, I would like to draw Members' attention to the Act itself which we enacted in 1987. In section 21, we explicitly listed the objectives of the Council. Specifically, for fare adjustments, (a) the need for the applicant to remain financially viable; and (b) the need for public interest to be safeguarded.

I believe the reason why we specifically included the two provisions in the Act is to send a very strong signal, because if a public transport operator is not viable, then we are going to have degradation of service and there would be very severe implications on the public transport service. Arising from that, in the First Schedule, we also listed the composition of members of the PTC. There are two provisions there. The first is the appointment of representatives from the public transport companies, and the second is from the other sectors of the population.

The reason for appointing public transport representatives on the Council is to allow them to also voice their own interest. That is the intent of the Act when we first enacted it in 1987. This is the way for the PTC to balance the interest of commuters against the financial viability of the operators. And if Members look at the numbers on the Council, we have four representatives from the public transport companies at the moment. And we have nine members who represent the other sectors of the population. As it is, you will find that the majority are from the other sectors of the population, like the grassroots organisations, unions, community leaders, academia, professionals and so on. So the public transport representatives are there, as I said, to represent their interests and to provide inputs to the PTC on their operations and financial situation, and to justify in front of the majority of the Council members who represent public interest any proposal for fare or route adjustment.

Sir, the Council takes into account views from all interested parties. This arrangement promotes consensus building among its members, and has worked well over the years. In a way, it is not unlike our National Wages Council. I know what Members are thinking of. They are probably thinking that the NWC provides guidelines, whereas the PTC approves fares. But what I am trying to say here is that it allows the different parties to argue their case and then come out with a consensus.

Let me inform Members that since the formation of the PTC until today, not a single vote needs to be taken at the PTC's deliberations. It is all by consensus, and I think that is a fantastic testimony of how we work in Singapore, ie, everybody looks at the overall interest of everyone and comes out with a consensus that will serve us well.

I thank Dr Wang Kai Yuen for praising our public transport system. I think this is a good arrangement and we should continue with the current practice. I take note of Dr Wang Kai Yuen's point about the evolution of the public transport industry. Yes, we are going into a multi-modal public transport operation. In future, I think it is impossible to get all the public transport operators to be represented on the Council. In my view, we would have a future situation where we have a representation from the operators as a whole, and then we have representation from the rest of the Singapore population. So this is how it is going to evolve. And it is also our intention to continue having the majority of the Council members coming from the other sectors of the population.

The GPC Chairman, Mr Chay Wai Chuen, brought up a very important point about the criteria that the PTC takes into account when they decide on approving fares. And in this amendment, we are putting in place, more specifically, the kind of information that the Council will ask from the operators, such as certified copies of balance sheets, profit and loss account, auditor's report and so on.

I agree with the GPC Chairman that efficiency is a very important criterion and, indeed, over the years, when they consider applications for fare adjustments, track record, productivity and efficiency have always been taken into consideration. In fact, the reason why we have two instead of one major bus operator is to allow the PTC to also benchmark one against the other, so that the inefficiency of one operator will be shown up by the performance of the other. And, of course, we are always paying attention to overseas bus companies' performance and inefficiency, but, of course, it is not so easy because of the different systems, subsidies and so on and so forth. But the point is well taken and I assure the House that all these criteria are taken into consideration when the PTC approves fare adjustments.

Dr Lee asked whether there is independent assessment. Dr Lee is right that a thorough understanding is required in order for the Council to properly assess applications for fare revisions and bus route changes. Hence, the Council does not rely only on the inputs provided by the operators. The Council is also assisted by the Land Transport Authority, which provides independent analysis and technical advice to the Council.

If Dr Lee were to look at its Annual Report, it does not say that LTA is an agent to implement operational details only. It says that it also provides technical advice to the PTC. In fact, if you look at the PTC Act, the PTC has the power to appoint agents, and that is a very wide power. An agent includes LTA and any consultant that they want to engage to provide inputs, technical advice and analysis for the Council's deliberations. I would therefore like to assure Members, and Dr Lee in particular, that the Council is given full authority in its deliberations and decisions independent of the Ministry.

Dr Lee also suggested that the Council holds public forums to explain the rationale of its major decision, and other Members have also brought up a related point. I would like to explain that it is already a current practice of the Council to hold a press conference to announce major decisions, such as fare revisions, and explain the rationale. The media usually reports this extensively. To my mind, this is more important than holding a public forum involving a few hundred people to explain the policy, because once the new measures are announced and the press reported them widely, Singaporeans too will react and give feedback to the Council. The Council then monitors these public responses closely and provides further clarifications, if necessary.

In addition to that, there is an on-going process whereby the Council receives and responds to feedback from the public through forums, like the Feedback Unit, and grassroots organisations. So the feedback is on-going and we also receive a lot of letters from members of the public, either to the Ministry or the PTC, and the Ministry will channel them to the PTC for their consideration. So this feedback mechanism is in place and it is an on-going process.

Members commented that perhaps many of the PTC members are motorists and not bus commuters. Let me remind Members that, as far as possible, we will involve people who can contribute, but I do not think it is a prerequisite for PTC members to be commuters before they can become members. I would like to remind Members that all of us are motorists and yet we are here commenting on public transport. How is it? It is because we take the trouble to talk to our residents, our friends, our grassroots leaders, and we get feedback and we are genuinely concerned. We can put up a very credible argument. So I do not think Members can say that just because most of the PTC members are motorists they are therefore not doing their job. Let me inform Members that I know that PTC members, including the Chairman, take the trouble sometimes to go and test out the public transport system. In our review to expand more members and have a wider representation, we can try to include more people, as suggested by Members, but let me explain to Members that they have to bear in mind what I have said earlier. As for the suggestion that the handicapped be represented, we will look into it.

Mr Rai commented that the composition fine of $200 is too low. If he looks at the current Act, there is no composition fine in the current Act. If a person commits an offence, the Act actually allows PTC to bring him to court and if the court fines him guilty, then he will be fined up to $1,000 or six months' jail or both. So the composition fine is to provide that flexibility so that, for fare evasion, you can exercise flexibility. A fine of $200 is in line with some of the composition fines that we have in other Acts. So it is not too low. In addition to that, in the amendment Bill, we also provide for the Council to make regulations and prescribe fines up to $1,000 for different offences. So the flexibility is also there. It is sufficient for this composition fine to be $200.

Dr Vasoo talks about audits and competition. Yes, every year the Public Transport Council audits the service standards of the public transport operators. The PTC has specified the standard of service in terms of frequency and the length of bus route because it does not want the route to be too long. Every year, they do audits to make sure that the bus service standards are within those specified.

As for competition, I would like to remind the House that our public transport market is a very small one and we lack the critical mass to allow free and unbridled competition in this sector, as we had experienced in the 1970s where we had 11 private bus companies competing with one another and the result was chaos and badly maintained buses and a poor level of service. But that is not to say we are not interested in competition. In fact, as I have said, the competition is there in terms of benchmarking. In addition to that, for peak hours where the existing bus companies have got problems in meeting the high demand, we allow the Scheme B service to compete with the bus operators. This has also worked well. If any Member or any company or member of the public feels that there is a need for such supplementary services in other routes and areas, he can put up a case and the PTC will be happy to consider them.

In the longer run, as I have mentioned earlier, the public transport industry is being restructured into a multi-modal one. As far as we can see, we are going to have two multi-modal operators by the year 2002. When the industry structure has become more established and stabilised, and if there is room for more competition, we will consider introducing new players.

Finally, I come to Mr Jeyaretnam's comments. Again, he brought up old issues. He wants an All-Party Parliamentary Committee to review and recommend price increases, including bus fare increases. Let me remind the Member that his proposal was debated in the House and it was rejected.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why?

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Because we do not think the House is the right forum to do that. These are matters that we think should be left to the Ministry, the statutory boards and the Council to do. We do not think this is something that the House should do.

As for a public inquiry to look into the proposal of, say, withdrawal of services, and so on, again this is the role of the PTC. Whether it is an addition of services or withdrawal of services, the PTC is tasked to look into all these proposals and decide. I do not think we should have a public inquiry just to do this. If we conduct a public inquiry, maybe we would never move, and that is detrimental to the development of the public transport industry in Singapore. So I will not support his suggestion.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that the Council's task of balancing commuters' interests versus those of the public transport operators is not easy. It has so far discharged its responsibilities, in my view, fairly and effectively in accordance with its charter. The proposed amendments would enable the Council to discharge its responsibilities even more effectively. With that, I thank all the Members for their support.

Mr Jeyaretnam: By way of clarification, may I ask the Minister of State, on his statement that the Public Transport Council looks into any proposal to withdraw any particular service, whether the Council invites the people who are served by that service to send in their representations? Does the Council call them up and listen to their grievances? May we have an answer to that?

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: The Public Transport Council gathers all the information, including feedback from MPs, grassroots organisations and bus operators. Again, it is a consideration involving all interested parties. So I do not see anything wrong with that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are not answering the question.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: The Minister of State, in his detailed reply, for which I thank him, stated that the public transport operators sit on the Council in order to voice their own interest. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister of State regarding the following related aspects:

(1) Can the public transport operators not represent their own interest by extensive discussions with the members, but not sit on the Council?

(2) The Minister of State likened the PTC to the NWC. The NWC is involved in wage negotiations and discussions among the parties concerned. It is not a watchdog body where wage negotiation is concerned.

(3) Hence, my third point is, therefore, that the PTC is not really a watchdog body, as mentioned in the annual report. It is a Council to deliberate on fare revisions and matters pertaining to public transport. If so, I can see why public transport operators sit on the Council. But in that sense, I think further and subsequent annual reports should exclude and refrain from having this particular description of the Council.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: I think Dr Lee has not understood my point. I said "in a way PTC is not unlike the NWC". What I meant is the consensus part. We know that NWC works on consensus. I was on the NWC Council before and the Chairman always said, "Look, it is always by consensus that we come to the final recommendation." What I am saying is that there are important advantages of having the public transport operators sitting on the PTC. It is not just for them to advocate their own interest, but also to provide opinions on matters concerning the industry. I understand her point that we can always invite them to sit in and ask them questions. But I do not think that is quite the same as members sitting around the table, discussing throughout the whole session, offering their opinions, and when one transport operator proposes something, the other transport operator will be there also to criticise. I think there are advantages in doing that. I just want to clarify that that is what I meant when I said that the consensus and the result are quite like the NWC where we actually have this close relationship between the employers and the unions.

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. - [Dr John Chen Seow Phun].

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