DISABLED AND AGEING POPULATION (Transportation needs)

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the difficulties his Ministry faces in ensuring that the public transportation needs of the disabled and an increasingly ageing population in Singapore can be met, as befitting a world-class transport system, and (b) what steps his Ministry has taken and will take to overcome the difficulties.

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, our public transport system strives to meet the needs of the elderly and the disabled. Wherever practicable, we ensure that the system is user-friendly and accessible to them. However, in making such an accommodation, we have also to take into account the needs of the large majority of commuters who require a speedy mode of transport.

First, trains. For the Rapid Transit System, LTA has, since 1995, required all new MRT projects to comply with the "Code On Barrier-Free Accessibility In Buildings". This 1995 Code sets out the provisions and requirements of building facilities and fixtures, eg, ramps, toilets, lifts, public telephones, signages, to meet the needs of the disabled. Hence, newer stations, such as those coming up in the North East Line and the MRT Extension to Changi Airport are in compliance with this 1995 building Code.

In addition, the LTA has embarked on a major exercise to retrofit the existing stations with lifts, ramps and toilets to make them user-friendly for commuters with disabilities. This exercise is estimated to cost the Government about $82 million. When completed, the entire MRT system will be fully disabled-friendly.

In the case of public buses, LTA mandates that they must have low floor boards so as to facilitate easier boarding by the elderly and those with mild disabilities. Unfortunately, we are not able to require our public buses to kneel or come with special boarding equipment for those who are on wheelchairs. This is because our public bus services are meant for the rapid transportation of the masses. The priority is to speed up boarding and alighting. Making our public buses cater to the needs of the wheelchair-bound will impact this priority. This will affect the cost and service level to the large majority of the commuters.

A better way to address the needs of the wheelchair-bound is to provide a dedicated service for them. The Ministry of Community Development and Sports (MCDS) has therefore set up an Inter-Ministry Workgroup to look into this problem. It is led by the National Council of Social Services. My Ministry and LTA are represented in the Workgroup. And I understand that the Workgroup is in the process of finalising its recommendations.

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang (Nominated Member): Sir, it is one thing to have the infrastructure, except for the public bus transport system, but it is another to make it affordable for the disabled and the increasingly ageing population to utilise the public buses. What schemes are in place for the affordability of those who cannot access the public buses and would have to take other forms of transportation, eg, taxis? Because the increased cost of looking after and maintaining oneself, if one is disabled, is compounded by expensive transport costs if no public transport means are available.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, how we should assist Singaporeans who are disabled and, at the same time, financially disadvantaged is a larger topic. I think it is best addressed holistically. I believe this is the purview of my colleagues in MCDS working with NCSS and the various VWOs. Whether financial assistance for them is best focused on transport needs, medical treatment or skills training can then be examined on an overall basis. In my Ministry's primary focus, we have to target at the rapid transportation of the masses. We will as far as practicable accommodate, be sensitive and sympathetic to those commuters with disabilities. And I think we have been improving over the years, as I elaborated earlier.

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang: As public transport operators, the bus companies, is there an obligation on their part to provide this service to the public at large, and that includes the disabled and the elderly? If so, what measures is LTA having to ensure that the obligations of a public bus operator include helping financially, or in other ways, the disabled and the elderly? Otherwise, the cost will be passed on to the individual families and the disabled themselves or the VWOs, who are already burdened with finding enough funds for the other services that they run.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the Member was in this House when we had a very robust debate about transport fares and the role of bus operators. I think we all know that they are commercial entities, they have to make ends meet. My Ministry is just a regulator of these licensees. They have to make ends meet, and whether they should subsidise a particular segment of their passengers or commuters, we know that finally the overall cost has to be borne by the rest of the commuters. If Singaporeans, the majority of the commuters, are prepared to cross-subsidise the other smaller segment of the population who are disabled, then that is a different consideration.

But, as I said, the overall issue of how we should assist financially the disabled Singaporeans is a larger issue because their needs go beyond transport. There may be medical needs and there may be other occupational training needs. I think it is best looked at holistically and the appropriate Ministry to look at that, I believe, is MCDS. I am just a SMS, Ministry of Transport.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam (Nominated Member): Under the directions of the Ministry in wanting a world-class transport system as well as a seamless transport system, how would the Ministry account for a good MRT system that is currently disabled-friendly in terms of those in wheelchairs? When they get out of the MRT, there is not a good public transport system as in buses to help them. Would the Ministry be looking into perhaps a greater advisory role where the PTC is concerned in this matter?

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the Member's wish to make our system as user-friendly to all and sundry. After all, every Singaporean matters. If they are unfortunate, have certain disabilities, we hope that we can also include them in the transport system. I think that is an ideal that we should always strive for. But to achieve such an ideal requires the part to be played by many parties. It is not just Government. The corporate sector is also involved. The NGOs are involved. The people themselves are involved, and even within the Government, different Ministries are involved. MOT will play its part, but many other people will have to play their part too.

The bottomline is this. If we look back today and, say, 10 years ago, I think we are a lot more disabled user-friendly now than 10 years ago, and we continue to make improvements. We cannot achieve it tomorrow, but we are making progress. As I said, the existing MRT stations which are not yet disabled-friendly, we are putting in a lot of resources to retrofit them. The whole exercise should be completed by 2005; so that makes MRT disabled-friendly.

Bus is quite a different story because to load the whole requirements onto the entire bus service has major implications. I see two major implications. One, financially, because buses which are made to be wheelchair-bound friendly are more expensive than those buses which are not. So, that will translate into higher cost, and that higher cost has to be borne by somebody. It means the rest of the commuters.

Secondly, the time taken to board and to alight by the wheelchair-bound naturally is longer. We can do so in MRT because MRT has many doors, so that at the same time the disabled and those without disability can board. The whole process takes two to three minutes, and it is not a problem. But for a bus, there is only one door. And one-at-a-time sequential alighting and boarding hold up the whole traffic. We are a very busy city. If you look at our bus lanes, there are many buses per hour. The frequencies are huge. So once you pile up, it causes other kinds of problems. And that is why it is not surprising that in many other big cities, whether it is New York, London or wherever, they do not fully load the wheelchair needs onto the public bus system, although they try to. But, at the same time, they supplement with dedicated bus services for the disabled. And I think that is where MCDS, working with NCSS, is working in that direction. I think that is the right direction to take.

So, my message is this. It is good to achieve door-to-door, curb-to-curb user-friendliness for all, but everyone has to play his or her part. MOT will play its part.

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang: I thank the Senior Minister of State for clarifying that an alternative to the bus system is being pursued with maybe a dedicated scheme, rather than this public at large scheme. With regard to that, the crucial aspect would be the cost of even providing a dedicated service. If you look at the National Council of Social Service's latest annual report, CommChest funds are used, that is, the public at large funds are used to provide a public transport scheme for the disabled. This is where the public is also playing its part.

I am just wondering what part would public bus operators be playing. In the initial years when this was first broached, there was actually funding from the bus operators to start a fund for NCSS. But my understanding is that they have stopped providing this. So the whole burden is now loaded onto the individual, the family and the public at large. I know, but I may be wrong here, MCDS also has been trying its best to push this along but it does not seem to have much progress. My concern is that this dedicated service would end up an interesting exercise on paper. But when it comes to implementation, the wherewithal, the funds, would not be available. What would be the obligations for public bus operators to, at least, help in supplementing or complementing the funds required?

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I really would not want to pre-empt the discussion about the inter-agency report, which is led by MCDS, because they are still finalising their recommendations. In due course, maybe we can have a discussion about it. In any case, NCSS does not come under MOT. It comes under MCDS. But the key point is this. Yes, I think for a dedicated service, funding is one of the key elements that has to be resolved. Let MCDS and this Working Group discuss through on how they want to bring them about. Obviously, it has to come from various parties. The Member is right. He quoted the NCSS' annual report about they setting aside a budget for transport needs.

The current system is this. The various VWOs have their own individual systems to serve their own members. It is highly unsatisfactory because there are a lot of duplication and wastages. So I think what the inter-agency Working Group is working towards is some sort of centralisation, so that it can be a shared service and, hopefully, we can cut down on duplication and stretch our limited dollar longer. We hope that they can succeed. But, I think, implicit in the Member's supplementary question was, what is the role of the bus operator? The bus operator's role is to operate. It is an operator. We have a big debate in this House not too long ago. Let us acknowledge that different people play different roles. There is a regulator, there is a commercial player, and there will be NGOs with objectives to help and, of course, the passengers themselves who can be means tested. I think for a system to work properly, we need everyone to play his part. I cannot play your part, neither can you play my part. But I think when all of us play in harmony, we would have a marvellous system.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Just one point. The arguments that were put forth by the Ministry at that time about three or four years ago, on whether to allow MRT trains to become disabled-friendly, sound very similar to the arguments that the Senior Minister of State is presenting now. For the public bus companies too, we are talking about productivity, etc. But it was good news that finally the MRT opens its doors.

Mr Speaker: What is your question, Ms Braema?

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Yes, I am coming to it. The Ministry, in the light of what the Ministry of Community Development and Sports is proposing, is also trying to look into flexi-hours. And from these PEC's recommendations, would the Ministry perhaps align itself to look into flexi-hours where maybe such provision will not affect productivity when it comes to public buses as the rush is not as severe?

Mr Speaker: Can I remind Members to make your questions concise? Please try to develop that skill, so that we can proceed with our Questions efficiently.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I do not know what transpired three or four years ago. That time I was up there in the gallery happily as Permanent Secretary (MTI). But from what I could gather from the Member's comment, she was saying that the arguments used by MCIT then against MRT being made disabled-friendly was on ground of productivity. By that, I presume she meant fast loading, boarding and alighting. As I explained, I think trains are quite different. A train is not a bus. One key difference is a train has many doors. So, at the same time, you can admit and alight passengers easily. Each train has to stop at a station for at least a few minutes. So, even though a wheelchair-bound may take up to two minutes, it is all right. It does not hold up traffic. But buses are quite different.

Earlier I made the two implications - one is cost, and the other is time. These are serious implications. These are not frivolous that we imagine out of thin air. The problem, therefore, cuts two ways. Either there are a lot of such users who are on wheelchair, in which case, the cost will be better spread out. But if there are a large number of users, the problem of cumulative waiting becomes a big one. Or if the numbers are small, in which case the impact on queuing or the productivity she talked about is marginal. But in that case, the cost is high. So it is no wonder that mature cities like New York and London have come to the conclusion that they still need a dedicated service. Yes, they will try to make the routine bus service as friendly as possible, but you have to override that, you have to supplement it. In fact, more than supplement it, that is the dominant mode of travel. It is a dedicated service for those on wheelchair.

Lest we get carried away, the disabled is a whole spectrum of people with different degrees of disability, from mild to severe, and wheelchair-bound. I think for the bulk of the disabled population, they can make use of our public transport. Years ago when I used to run more regularly, 10 km each time, I ran from my house in Upper Thomson to Newton Circus, and I would then pass the junction where the former Toa Payoh Hospital used to be, and the Association of the Visually Handicapped is located. So, very often, I will encounter them alighting from buses, crossing the overhead bridge, and the pedestrian crossings, and they can do so unaided. But I think what is more heartwarming for me is that, every now and then, I will see strangers who offer to help them cross the bridge, or the pedestrian crossing. I have played my part myself. And I think this is what it ought to be. We all want a user-friendly system for all, but everyone must play his part. MOT will play its part.