PUBLIC TRANSPORT FARES

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, the fare hike has been hotly debated as it touches a raw nerve among the more than 62% of Singapore's commuting public that relies on public transport. What was found most unpalatable was the manner in which the fare adjustment was decided upon and its timing.

Although the Public Transport Council (PTC) rejected the applications for an across-the-board increase in fares last year, it has approved some of the fare adjustments proposed by the operators this year.

Fare increases of between three cents and 10 cents would bring the operators extra revenue of 2.2% to 2.5%. This figure is lower than what the PTC formula would have allowed for. Annual fare revisions are subjected to a cap based on the formula of change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) + X. The X has been set at 1.5% for five years from 2001 to 2005. If fares had been raised every year, based on the formula, the quantum of fare revenue increase would be approximately 13%.

The PTC has exercised its role well in the past and must be complimented for that. These fare adjustments, implemented recently, will help to defray what operators said were higher running costs, including manpower costs. Understandably, there will be costs involved in providing and maintaining an efficient transport system and fee adjustments may be inevitable, as so humorously explained and illustrated by my colleague, Mr Ong Ah Heng. However, it may be time for us to re-evaluate PTC's formula for approving fare hikes, as proposed in the amendment to consider factors like viability of public transport operators and affordability of commuters.

According to analysts' estimates, the increased fare revenue for the operators could add up to $11 million. Even without the fare hike, the companies are still making profits. Last year, the SMRT made a profit of $56.8 million and, this year, the company is expected to ring in higher profits.

A profit is still a profit, regardless of the margin. Operators may not enjoy healthier bottom line without the hike, but under the current economic conditions, companies who manage to turn in profits should count themselves very fortunate indeed. The criterion for fare adjustment is too narrowly focused on the bottom line of operators; other pertinent factors, like prevailing economic conditions and unemployment, should be given more weight in this equation.

Secondly, PTC is better advised to put in place mechanisms for soliciting public views and feedback before implementing any fare adjustments in the future. Instead of being forced to make frequent clarifications and justifications after the fact, they could introduce the public earlier into the decision-making process. This would also give commuters ample notice of the impending change.

The timing of the fare adjustments raises some concerns as well. In the face of unemployment, high retrenchment rate and a slow economy, the timing could not be more ill planned. Lower-income households have seen their disposable income shrinking on the one hand, and the cost of living increasing on the other. A double "whammy" you could say. The hike is coming six months before the GST increase by 2-percentage point, another burden for the lower income. The quick succession of cost increments is overwhelming for the lower-income group.

The pockets of the poor, especially the retrenched, will be hit hard by these incremental increases. To some, these amounts are trivial; to many others, they add up. Nonetheless, the full impact should not be blamed on the transport hike alone. The timing of the hike reinforces the public perception that the Government is upping cost of basic items now, before the new GST is due.

Some believe that PTC should only decide on fare changes after the ez-link card system completely replaces the magnetic fare card. By then, it would be able to ascertain if the new and fairer system, where cheating is eliminated, has any real impact on the bottom line of operators. The fare hike would be an easier sell to the commuting public then. After all, they are the paying customers.

Sir, these comments carry the sentiments from the ground. The ordinary folks whose means of commuting is by public transportation will face the brunt of the hike. As Advisers to the GROs and MPs of our respective communities, we will explain the rationale for the hike, but we must also be able to represent the views of the ordinary folks on policies impacting their finances with a view to influence and shape improvement in future policy making.

The dilemma that this House is faced with today on the transportation hike, provides one of the most unavoidable lessons of having to deal with disapproval of others and, in this instance, whether we are for or against the Motion.

That praise and blame are all the same; it reminds us of an old cliche, that we will never be able to please all the people all the time. Even in a landslide election victory in which a candidate wins 70% of the vote, he or she is left with 30% of the population that wishes someone else were the winner. Indeed a humbling truth!

The truth shows up all the warts and wrinkles on our face. How do we respond? Pretend we do not see them, or accept them, and still stand head and shoulders above others. Sir, the truth is that everyone has his own set of ideas with which to evaluate a situation, and our ideas do not always match those of others. For some reason, most of us struggle against this inevitable fact. We get angry, hurt, or otherwise frustrated, when people reject our ideas, tell us no or give us other forms of disapproval.

Personally, I find myself yo-yo-ing between praise and blame. One of my children is happy with my action, the other struggles against it. Someone says I am a nice MP because I understand business and strategic considerations in this fare hike incident. Someone else thinks I am not, because I have not been effective in reversing the hike. This back and forth, approval and disapproval, happens all the time. In truth, we would always prefer approval over disapproval because it is easier to deal with.

Where do we go from here as responsible Members of Parliament? How do we deal with the challenge of the unhappy lot? We have to find a balanced approach and take a longer term perspective towards resolving a national issue that understandably embraces a bigger agenda. Sounds like a pie in the sky because, in reality, we have to face the daily grumblings and woes of those affected who will unceasingly question the timing of such an action and the high handed approach of the PTC.

All said, I am encouraged by the amended Motion that will, at least, demonstrate to the ordinary folks that Parliament is a responsible and caring one, and will not hesitate to temper pains with necessary actions.

The amended Motion will signify to the public that, indeed, Parliament is not hearing impaired. That much more credibility this amended Motion would give to the MPs in the eyes of the ordinary folks. Instead of walking out of this House with drooping shoulders and hanging down heads after two days of intense debate, the MPs would be able to walk out of this House with their shoulders thrown backwards and heads held high and straight. I would urge that the PTC take heed of the proposed amendment for a more relevant set of criteria to be put in place. The MPs and the Government, on our part, will take the role of clarifying and explaining to the ground to get their buy-in through better communication.

On this note, I support the amendments to the Motion.