PUBLIC TRANSPORT FARES

Debate resumed.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, let me now move to some of the points raised by Members.

Let me start with Mr Tan Soo Khoon. I have replied to most of his points. He has also talked about the willingness of the school bus operators to forgo a fare increase now, despite the increases in insurance premiums, and that they will only look into it in the future. I checked into the fares charged by the school buses. They range from about $30 to $120, depending on the distance travelled. These are much higher than what the public bus services charge. For example, a primary school student can enjoy unlimited rides on our public buses any time of the day for a cost of $22.50. As such, if I were a private bus operator, I would also be very worried if I have to increase my fares, especially if the fare increase is likely to be large. The speculation in the newspapers is that the fare increase is likely to be between $10 and $40. Sir, this is not a 2.3% increase. The fare increase is likely to be in the region of 30%. If I am the private bus operator, I will also shelve the 30% increase today, especially after all the complaints about the 2.3% increase.

Sir, Mr Tan Soo Khoon has also given some suggestions for the public transport operators to look into. And so has Mr Zainudin. They have asked the PTOs to look for innovative ways to reward the loyalty of commuters. Sir, the PTOs are all here upstairs. I am sure they have heard and taken note of Mr Tan's and Mr Zainudin's suggestions, and I will leave it to them.

Mr Chiam See Tong gave some feedback about the ez-link card. He said that the feedback given to him is that the card is giving a lot of trouble, and there is a 20% failure rate. Sir, with 20% failure rate, the transport system will break down!

Mr Chiam See Tong: From one particular complainant.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: May be one particular complainant. Sir, the fact is that the failure rate today is about 1.5%. But 1.5% is still high. I am not happy, and I have asked TransitLink and the operators to look into it as quickly as they can, and to bring the figure down rapidly. But when I look at the magnetic card when it was first introduced in 1990, I was told then that the failure rate, when it was introduced, was one in ten or 10%, even higher. In comparison, the ez-link card is not doing badly, but there is plenty of room for improvement. So we will pressure them to bring the quality of the system up.

Mr Low Thia Khiang suggested that we nationalise and subsidise public transport. A lot of Members have joined in to disagree with him. I shall not belabour the point. Sir, to nationalise the two operators - SMRT and SBS - today would be sending a very, very wrong signal to investors all over the world. We will be one of the few countries in this day and age to go out to nationalise a company. And we should also not subsidise public transport operations, because public transport has a consumption factor in it. If we subsidise, we are going to distort usage, and we are going to encourage even more usage. With our roads already being clogged up, I think we should do our best to minimise usage rather than encourage usage by distorting the usage.

Mdm Halimah Yacob urged that we treat feeder services differently from the trunk services because many people in the heartland use it. Sir, yes, I sympathise with them. But we have to look in terms of what are the resources needed to provide the feeder service. Is the feeder service requiring resources which are very different from the trunk services? The answer is no. In actual fact, the feeder services are still charging a flat rate of 63 cents today, despite the length of travel. In that sense, the feeder bus riders are being treated specially compared to those who are on the trunk services.

Sir, let me now move on to Mr Yeo Guat Kwang. He urged the LTA to allow the bus operators to keep their rental income to offset the cost of maintaining the interchange, ie, to give the bus companies the same treatment as SMRT. The two sets of assets - the land and the investment - come under two different treatments. And that is why for SMRT, we are able to give the entire premises to SMRT and let them operate it as if they have leased the entire asset. Unfortunately, for the bus operators, we are not able to, but we are looking into it.

Prof. Low Seow Chay said that the 3 cents increase for a rider who pays 60 cents is not a small increase, it is a 5% increase. Sir, I agree with him, but we have decided to do it as an across-the-board increase, with equal pain for everybody, ie, no matter how far you ride, the same increase applies. We could do it on a percentage basis, but I think that would be a little bit messier. In any case, for those who are taking the trunk rides for 60 cents, I would like to inform the House that the 60 cents charge for air-con services has not been changed since 1984. So, those people who have had the privilege of riding short distances have enjoyed the same fare for over 17 years. The 3 cents increase in this present fare revision is a very fair one for them.

Ms Irene Ng mentioned about the Fuel Equalisation Fund. Sir, the Fuel Equalisation Fund was set up to help the operators in times of violent and short-term fluctuations of the fuel price. So, in this way, if it goes up very quickly and it impinges on their profitability, they can tap into the Fund for some relief. This is because we do not want the bus companies to be changing their bus fares every few months, just like we do for the utilities. It will be very confusing. So, this is meant to be a stabilisation fund, and it should not be used to subsidise the fuel cost, because the fuel prices are going to remain high, I think, for quite some time to come.

Ms Ng also tried to promote cycling as a cheaper alternative. Sir, I also like to cycle as a form of exercise, but only when I want to have a good sweat out. In Singapore, there are two reasons why cycling is not really feasible as a normal means of transport. First, our weather is very, very punishing. Even with the breeze blowing in your face, by the time you arrive in the office, you are already all hot and sweaty. Secondly, to promote safe cycling, we need to have cycling lanes, specifically set aside for the cyclists, which is what Ms Irene Ng had also mentioned.

Sir, unfortunately, in Singapore, we are already scrambling to look for space for an additional car lane, let alone an additional cycling lane. So this is an idea that is not really feasible in the context of our local environment. But as a weekend activity, yes, and I would urge MND to provide more riding lanes, to link up the different parks so that those people who do it as a recreational activity, like me on a weekend, can cycle from one park to another. I think this is a very good idea.

Sir, several Members have asked why do we not defer the fare revision until the ez-link system has been implemented because of the speculation that it is going to cut down on people cheating the bus companies, and therefore is going to lead to an increase in revenues. If this is true, it would impact on this year's operating cost, and that would be good news for commuters next year. So, let us implement the ez-link system and see whether there are actual savings coming from the system. If so, next year's fares may not have to increase.

Sir, let me go on to some other points. Ms Braema and Mr Arthur Fong asked that we look into providing buses that are friendly to the disabled, buses that will kneel down in order for those who are in wheelchairs to board the buses. This is a concept which is applicable only if that bus service is not meant to be a high capacity service. In Singapore, we need to move the buses along as rapidly as we can. In fact, the PTC and the bus companies are always looking for ways to see how we can speed up the time taken for people to board the bus and to come down from the bus. That is why we have the ez-link card, and why we have the bigger doors in the public buses. I think this system will not be applicable for Singapore, as it stands today, because for the bus to tilt and for the bus driver to come down and all that, it will lead to tremendous delays. I think it is better for NCSS to work with MCDS to come up with an appropriate system for transporting the disabled. But, nonetheless, I will request the bus operators to continue to see whether they have another solution.

Conclusion

Sir, I think I have finished with the replies. Let me now conclude. We have heard from many MPs reflecting the unhappiness at the ground level. The accusations are very wide ranging - from the Government not listening to the people, an uncaring PTC, an uncaring Government, as well as profiteering by the bus companies.

Sir, I can assure Singaporeans that the Government does listen carefully. The Government also has a big caring heart about the welfare of Singaporeans. That is why when the Asian economic crisis hit in 1997, the Government quickly moved to put together a package of measures to help relieve the pain. It also put in place a wide-ranging package of measures to help upgrade the skills of workers and help them remain relevant and employable in the years ahead.

Similarly, when it comes to public transport, the Government has also devoted a lot of resources and energy to make sure that we have an excellent land and public transport system. Those who have travelled abroad will know that our public transport is one that is hard to find elsewhere, in terms of quality and price. We have heard the unhappiness, and we can certainly empathise with the sentiments. But it is important for public policy to be made on the proper basis, based on the long-term interests of the people and the nation.

We must state the facts clearly and accurately. And where the perceptions are wrong, we must be prepared to explain and clarify. This debate has certainly provided plenty of opportunities for all of us to do so. This is not the first time that a fare revision has taken place, and it will definitely not be the last. The PTC and the bus companies must therefore improve the communication process so that the rationale for the fare revision is clearly understood, and the people know, in no uncertain terms, that the PTC has once again safeguarded their interests.

Sir, we have a good regulatory and physical public transport system in place. It may not be the best, as some Members have pointed out, and therefore there is always room for improvement. This we shall do. But we must proceed carefully, as our public transport system would not have developed so well, in terms of both quality and pricing, if the fundamentals were wrong.

Sir, Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendment will reassure the public about the role of the PTC, while preserving the Council's independence. I am happy to support his amendment.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendment. When speaking on this motion, I asked myself whether this debate moved by Mr Tan Soo Khoon has achieved the objectives that he and a group of us have set out. We have listened to the Minister. He has given a lot of explanations. It is not only by him, but by the former Minister for Communications and the Senior Minister of State for Transport on the need for the price increase. A lot of explanations have been given and we do hope that the public will receive these explanations well.

However, I am not so sure whether people understand the CPI + X factor. I know the Senior Minister of State for Transport has said that if we really understand the formula, all things will be solved. I think there will be another session for this.

We have set out three objectives. The first objective is to let the Government know of the sentiment and the feel of the ground. We have achieved this in this debate. I guess we have done very well hearing from all my parliamentary colleagues. We could feel that they have expressed the true feelings of the ground and, to sum it up, do not take them for granted. And the Minister has already given us his assurance that they will listen, and we do hope that the message has been put across to them.

We also have another objective, which is to let the transport operators show to the ground that the efficiency is not at the expense of the general commuter. Again, judging from the numerous suggestions and requests made by Members of Parliament in this House, I think the message has also been put across to them. We also want to let PTC know that we want more transparency. And, again, judging from all the various suggestions, I think the message has already been given to them. They will know that this is an important request, coupled with a better communication process, as suggested by the Minister, would put things right in future.

There are two limbs to this original motion and Dr Tan Boon Wan amended the first limb. He also included, in his amendment, PM's call for his support for the principle of PTC granting small increases. I think we have no objection to that. As for his other amendment in lines 5 and 6, we also have no objection, except that we would like to see the order of the two factors that he put to this House reversed. Can I refer Members to his amendment? Item 3, the third and the fourth lines, it says, "to take into consideration relevant factors such as the viability of the public transport operators and affordability of the commuters." I think the reverse is more correct. Because if we were to look at his amendment, it would seem that we are favouring the transport operators. For us, our concern, as Members of this House, is that the commuters should come first. So we will reverse the order - "affordability of the commuters" should come first, followed by "viability of the public transport operators.".

The amendment, however, fails to address two important issues which have been dealt with at length by Members of this House. One is the state of the economy. I do not want to discuss this at length because so much has been spoken and so many figures have been given. We all know the state of the economy. The other one is the unemployment situation. Figures have been thrown out - 88,000 from the Deputy Prime Minister in the Budget debate, and my colleague, Mr Tan Soo Khoon gave a figure of 100,000. So, the unemployment situation is an important consideration in any future fare increase by the bus operators.

Sir, I would like to make an amendment to Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendment, to take into consideration all the three points that I have brought up. Can I refer Members to lines 5 and 6 again? With my amendment, item (3) of

Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendment would read as follows: "In lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words, "to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares", and there to insert the words, "when reviewing requests for fare increases, to take into consideration relevant factors such as the state of the economy, the employment situation, the affordability of the commuters and the viability of the public transport operators;".

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, before you proceed, can I ask Dr Tan Boon Wan whether he accepts the reversal of the words "affordability" and "viability"?

Dr Tan Boon Wan: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Could you now move your amendment, Dr Tan?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I beg to move an amendment to item (3) of the amendment moved by Dr Tan Boon Wan, as follows: In Item (3), line 3, after the word "as", to insert the words, "the state of the economy, the employment situation,".

I hope Members will support this amendment.

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, as an amendment to the original amendments, after the word "as", to insert the words, "the state of the economy, the employment situation,".

I propose that the debate on the original amendments and the amendment to the original amendments be proceeded with simultaneously. Therefore, Members can speak on both these amendments at this debate.

Question proposed.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, when Dr Tan Boon Wan moved his amendment, Dr Tan Cheng Bock and I, together with a few others who had supported my original Motion, had a quick discussion. I promise Members I would not take too long, but I think Dr Tan Cheng Bock could not have put forward the reasons for moving his amendment more eloquently.

I will not repeat what he has said, but I would like to say, after listening to the Members who have spoken on Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendment, that it is important for us to focus on the process of decision making by the PTC. After listening to the response of Mr Yeo Cheow Tong, I think that the concern has been addressed, especially with regard to the question of timing. The sentiments expressed in this House in the last two days have been that the timing was perhaps a bit off. And when we spoke of timing, we were referring to the very difficult economic situation that confronts the country and our people. We were also very concerned with the fact that there were so many people who were out of job. I think the addition of the words put in by Dr Tan Cheng Bock does address the concern.

I will, therefore, go along with the amendment moved by Dr Tan. I hope the House will agree, and we can then proceed with the debate on the amended Motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the amended Motion. Sir, I rise to oppose both amendments.

Yesterday, when I spoke on the Motion in the House, I pointed out that the crux of the issue on the increases in public transport fares and other increases in public services is the result of the attitude and policy of the PAP Government in providing public services. Although the Minister for Transport has explained the rationale, I am still not convinced that this is the best model. With a nationalised organisation to run the transport services, I believe that it may be more efficient with economies of scale, and we remove the profit factor, which I think is the reason why a lot of people feel uncomfortable that the operators of public transportation should be making profits.

Sir, unfortunately, the Public Transport Council has become a lightning rod in this debate. Although I do not entirely agree with the original Motion moved by Mr Tan Soo Khoon, I am prepared to be counted to support the Motion in its original form, to urge the Public Transport Council to review its decision on the increases. With the PAP Backbenchers moving the Motion, helping to play the role of the Opposition, I suppose they are qualified to join the Opposition, as the Member for Nee Soon Central said. I hope that it would help to provide the Motion, with more muscle and bite, to force the Government to do something, and to lower the cost of living for Singaporeans at this difficult time.

Sir, now it seems that my expectation is a bit too high. Dr Tan Boon Wan's proposed amendment to the original Motion not only watered down the original amendment, but has the effect of asking the House to support the current increases of public transport fares, by noting the Prime Minister's support for the principle of the Public Transport Council granting small increases. So he has, in fact, changed the intention of the original Motion. Although Dr Tan Cheng Bock has moved another amendment to the amended Motion to take into consideration the economic and employment situation, the fact remains that the amended Motion would endorse the PTC's approval for the increases. This would endorse the increases in public transportation fares, which was not the original intention of the Motion.

Sir, I would not support the amended Motion.

Dr Chong Weng Chiew (Tanjong Pagar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I saw the glass of water appearing on the table for the Minister, I realised that he would have a lot to speak. So, after he had spoken, I thought many people would leave the Chamber and go to the toilet, but my guess was wrong. Minister Yeo has given us a lot of explanations and figures, and has also solved many of our puzzles. Actually, the atmosphere is now more relaxed.

To speak immediately after the Minister has spoken is a real challenge. I have thrown away my original script. Honestly speaking, I do not know what to speak about now. So, I will take this opportunity to convey a message to the Government.

Actually, the people's perception of the Government is very important. The people should not misunderstand the concept and intent of Government's policy. As we know, the generation gap between parents and children is a result of misconception and, recently, there was a documentary on the famous celebrity Disc Jockey in Taiwan, Billy. His father was a military officer and from young, he was frequently punished by his parents. As a form of protest, he did a lot of mischievous things against the family. The gap was very wide between him and his parents. It was only when he was suddenly taken ill and his parents took great pains to look after him that he realised how much his parents had loved and cared for him. He began to realise that his perceived feeling that his parents did not love him was wrong.

So, we should not allow such misconception between the people and the Government to exist. I do not wish to see our people do something just to spite the Government. Like what Minister Yeo and the Senior Minister of State Mr Khaw Boon Wan have said, in this round of fare hikes, there is a lot of misconception among the people. Have there been some shortcomings in the form of communication between the Government and the people? Just now, the Minister has said that the PTC needs to do something to improve its communications with the people, and he urged the Council to work harder. I am very glad by what he said.

The PAP Government's rule of Singapore has brought prosperity to Singapore. Its farsightedness and efficiency are well known to everybody. But the Government's style of "more work, less talk", "more deed, less speech" has created some misunderstanding among the people, and people have some grouses against it.

I want to commend Minister Yeo and SMS Khaw for taking great pains to explain the policies. I think it is very good. I suggest that all the public departments and institutions should increase their transparency, and the Government should also review its style of communication and connection with the people.

Actually, I wanted to reflect the sentiments of the people but, at this point of time, I think it is no longer necessary, and I do not want to waste the time of everybody here in this House. But allow me to raise just two points.

I am a Member of the Tanjong Pagar GRC. As we know, there are quite a lot of senior citizens in Tanjong Pagar GRC. In my recent visits to the residents, many of them complained to me that the bus and MRT fare hikes were making life difficult for them. Why do we not give some special consideration to these people, some form of concessions for these senior citizens? They had contributed much to our nation in their younger days. I think the Government should let all the people in Singapore know that in making improvements to our public transport system, we should also look into the welfare of our people. In this way, we can make the people appreciate that the Government and the people are on the same side.

Finally, I hope that, in future, the Government will make more efforts to explain its policies to the people, to show its care and concern for the people. A good government would not only lead our country to a higher level in its economic development, it should also have greater care and concern for the people. I think this is what Singapore would want in the future.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Transport's speech and the facts and figures stated therein are appreciated and noted. I can only hope that, in future, parliamentarians will have all or most of these facts and figures in advance. Perhaps, the relevant Ministries could give parliamentarians summaries of what are given to Ministers or Ministers of State for better and informed debates in Parliament, and for parliamentarians to reflect on what is given to them, so that the understanding within Parliament would be of a higher standard, and misunderstanding or misinformation would be minimal.

However, Sir, what is the issue before this House? For that, I would like to state that the primary purpose of the Government providing public transportation for citizens and people residing in Singapore is for the commuters to have easy access from one destination to another, with speed and as cheaply as possible. All other perks are not mandatory, and are discretionary in nature. To make this possible, ie, relatively an inexpensive means of transport, there must be emphasis on avoidance of luxuries, and to provide just the basic necessities. In adopting this method, there will be a relative reduction of the cost of running buses and the MRT. The issue is not whether bus and MRT fares should or should not be increased. As costs increase, bus and MRT fares would inevitably increase. The issue in this House is whether fares should be increased now, in times of hardship and recession.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chandra Mohan, as a point of order, I hope your speech is leading to the amendments that we are dealing with now, and not a general speech about fare increases, because we are dealing with amendments now. Could you confine your speech to the amendments, or your speech leading to the amendments?

Mr Chandra Mohan Nair: I would support the amendments, but with these observations in mind. Can these transportation companies and entities hold on until next year when, hopefully, there will be better times? If my speech would lead to something that is not relevant to the amended motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will stop here. But as far as the amendments are concerned, I would support what has been proposed.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we read in the newspapers how our people have been queuing up for the National Day Parade tickets. This is a sign of patriotism. We read also about people queuing up for an HDB flat, and this is to get their money's worth. Now, we have Members of Parliament queuing up to speak on this motion concerning fare increases. This is to reflect the feelings and sentiments of the people. I believe, on this occasion, we have the highest number of MPs speaking in this House on one single issue.

I agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock that this round of fare increase has a great impact on the unemployed people. Many MPs have elaborated on why fare increases should not be implemented now. The Minister's reply is that if we want to have a better public transport system, we must be prepared to pay more. We know that the rationale for the fare increase, but there are more than 5.5% of the workforce or 120,000 people who are out of job now. Taking four persons to a family, we are looking at 500,000 people who are not having any income and are probably making every effort to look for jobs. They cannot walk all the way, and surely cannot afford to travel by taxi. So, the most appropriate mode of transport would be by bus or MRT. Although the increase is only 3 to 10 cents per trip, it adds up when you have made several trips in a day.

However, whether we like it or not, the price hike is already implemented. It is a fait accompli. Nevertheless, I hope that the relevant authority would do something for these people who are affected. Could PTC implement some sort of rebates to these people? The bus operators can surely afford them as they are making huge profits. The launch of the ez-link card system has enabled the bus companies to collect huge sums of money as pre-payment for the fares, and these would generate huge cash flows for them to run their business. They would not need to borrow money from the banks. Furthermore, with the reduction in corporate tax rate, they should pass on this benefit to the commuters. Perhaps, the bus companies would consider giving a rebate of, say, 3% for those who purchase an ez-link card worth $50, and 5% for a $100 card.

My point is that in this round of fare increase, those who are paying by cash have to face higher fare increase. This is not fair. The poorer senior citizens do not buy the ez-link cards simply because they could not afford to make the up-front payment. Some do not use it because they are old and do not know how to use it. We should educate them and help them to get used to it. They should not be penalised.

I support the amended motion.

Dr Tan Boon Wan: Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the amendment to my amendment.

I agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock's amendment. I think it strengthens my amendment with the additional two factors. I would also like to reply to Mr Low Thia Khiang's observation that I have diluted the original Motion. The purpose is not to dilute the original Motion. I see the purpose of this Motion as an opportunity for MPs to reflect the feedback they get from the ground, their concern about the increase in fares, the economy, and so forth. In the discussion that we have heard these two days, this purpose has been achieved. MPs have very frankly expressed the concern of their residents and how they feel. Therefore, my purpose of moving the amendment is to protect our institutions because we must not inadvertently, in asking for a review, question the integrity of the PTC, and inadvertently also dilute all other institutions that Parliament has set up. And, in the process, it also questions the integrity of Parliament. As Mr Iswaran has said, if we start questioning our ability to make good decisions and start reversing the decisions that we make, what would international investors, who come to Singapore think, ie, the decisions we make in Parliament will not stand up to scrutiny.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Sir, I just want to seek a point of clarification from the Minister. The Minister mentioned that the 2.3% fare increase only allows the PTOs to offset part of the projected cost increases. I would like the Minister to clarify what are the key areas of the cost increases because I would like to find out whether it is true that these cost increases are mainly from statutory costs, as stated in the SBS' reply published in the newspapers.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, I do not foresee any increase in statutory costs this year.

Mr Speaker: I shall now put the question on Dr Tan Cheng Bock's amendment first. It has been proposed that as an amendment to the original amendments, after the word "as", to insert the words, "the state of the economy, the employment situation,".

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted", put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: We now come to Dr Tan Boon Wan's amendments. There are three such amendments. I will take them in the order they were proposed. The first amendment is:

"In line 3, to leave out the word "and".

Question, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out", put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed as an amendment:

"In line 5, after the word "fares", to insert the words, "and noting his support for the principle of Public Transport Council granting small increases,".

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted", put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The consequential amendment of inserting a comma after the word "meet" shall be made.

It has been proposed as a further amendment:

"In lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words, "to review its decision on the increase in public transport fares", and there to insert the words, "when reviewing requests for fare increases, to take into consideration relevant factors such as the state of the economy, the employment situation, the affordability of commuters and the viability of the public transport operators;".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted", put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Question now before the House is the Original Motion, as amended.

Original Motion, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, being aware that Singaporeans are suffering from the effects of a recession, mindful that many Singaporeans, in particular the unemployed, are having difficulties making ends meet, agreeing with the Prime Minister that this is not the best time to increase bus and MRT fares and noting his support for the principle of Public Transport Council granting small increases, (a) urges the Public Transport Council, when reviewing requests for fare increases, to take into consideration relevant factors such as the state of the economy, the employment situation, the affordability of commuters and the viability of the transport operators; and (b) further urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the prices of public services are not unreasonably increased during these difficult times.