Abdul Aziz Karim
Singapore
“How much opportunity and time are given to the large number of workers to improve their skills when they are limited to doing routine work? Let us create a climate where the people, like the Germans, for example, are incessantly seeking knowledge and wanting to improve their skills.”
“Sir, the Bill before the House is more modern and progressive than the existing law. However, I have some reservations in respect of certain clauses of the Bill professing to serve the interests of workers. But since it has been indicated that the Bill will go to Select Committee, I reserve my comments on the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are examples of harmful styles for our young generation to imitate. This is the society we create. How much can we blame the present generation. First, we must demotivate ourselves.”
“Sir, the Minister has been discussing the best performance of SBS. I have harassed the Minister for Communications regarding this. I am not sorry. It was my duty, and it was his duty to reply to the questions.”
“Any damage is repaired as and when necessary by the Roads Branch of the PWD or the HDB. Oil drippings from buses are inevitable unless a very high standard of maintenance of the buses is exercised by the bus owners. The PWD and HDB do take action against any misuse of the bus termini.”
“Sir, I was saying that repair and maintenance bills are given tax allowance. My question is this. Is it possible for excessive repair and maintenance bills to cause leakages in the SBS finances, when it comes to taxation?”
The complete record
Every one of 241 lines we hold for Abdul Aziz Karim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“How much opportunity and time are given to the large number of workers to improve their skills when they are limited to doing routine work? Let us create a climate where the people, like the Germans, for example, are incessantly seeking knowledge and wanting to improve their skills. In this connection, I think the Adult Education Board and such like agencies should now get out of their normal way in creating interests amongst our adult population in furthering their education. I do not believe the Minister for Finance will agree with me after he had formulated his Budget and presented it to Parliament. However, who knows, he might!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir. just now the Member for Katong pointed out that I raised the question of payroll tax a few years ago. I am going to raise it once again. I propose, for the consideration of the Minister for Finance, that payroll tax collected should be designated and expended for the purpose of approved courses in industrial joint training centres conducted by the private sector and courses conducted by the Industrial Training Board, the National Productivity Board and the Adult Education Board. I consider it quite appropriate that the tax which has been imposed on employers, based on their payroll, should benefit both the employers and the employees. Consideration might also be given to exempt employers from paying payroll tax if their annual expenditure for their own courses designed to upgrade the skills exceeds the payroll tax they are liable to pay. Payroll tax is levied under the Finance Act (Payroll Tax) (Cap. 139) at the rate of 2% on the total payroll of a trade, business, profession or vocation carried on in Singapore. Payroll tax collected for 1975 was roughly $49 million. For 1976, payroll tax to be collected is an estimated sum of $57 million. The total amount of payroll tax collected from February 1965 to February 1976 was $263 million. If this tax is utilised for the purpose I have proposed, it should give the incentive for employers to devise and to conduct suitable training schemes. 3.15 p.m. The Minister for Finance in his Budget statement has urged the workers to upgrade their skills and the employers to improve their personnel management for the sake of improving productivity. The workers at large are normally blamed for any high cost in wages or payroll. This tax is no exception. This tax has not been used for the general good of the workers.”
“Sir, I would like to question the Minister for Home Affairs, and Education regarding the Government's policy on crime and punishment, especially in regard to sex crimes. Every time a rape takes place, every decent person is shocked and shocked to the extreme if the victim is a young child. We are overcome with anger if naked violence is used on the victim. Even if no violence is used on the victim, the heinousness of the crime is not lessened. Imagine the pain and suffering the victim has to bear. When a victim of rape is bound and gagged in a secluded place or in similar environment and is left to languish and die, the brutality of the crime should fall within the definition of murder and warrants the imposition of the death sentence. I wonder if the Minister for Home Affairs and Education is of the view that the relevant sections of the Penal Code need to be reviewed, in view of what I said. Sex offences I believe are on the increase. We know that in a number of cases the victims were young girls. I hold a strong view that sex offenders should be more severely punished. I am of the view that corporal punishment and life imprisonment without remission of sentence should be meted out on violent and dangerous sex offenders and the death sentence should be mandatorily imposed on offenders who have caused the death of the victim by whatever criminal act, including the act of criminal negligence.”
“Last but not least, I wish to state that I would agree that our road and transport policy must be in the direction of further development and utilisation of the public transport system.”
“, as at present, are causing a lot of hardship to private car owners who have to send their children to school. Mr Speaker, Sir, you could imagine how early these children would have to be awakened from their sleep in order that their parents could beat the restricted hours. I wish to repeat what I said during last year's debate: that the restricted hours should begin at 8.00 am, and not 7.30 am. It is my experience that our roads are never congested at this hour, but only much later, most unfortunately when the big wigs in Government profession and business go driving into the Central Business District. I am of the view that the introduction of the Area Licensing Scheme is not to thin out road traffic so much as to give the appearance that the roads have to be cleared for Government bureaucrats, business executives and successful professionals to drive smartly into the City like emperors, maharajahs and sultans of days long gone by. If this is so, I envisage that the development costs of roads, whilst borne by the taxpayers, would benefit relatively fewer car owners. I wish to state, however, that most of the measures taken to discourage private car ownership and the entry of traffic into the CBD are necessary. The nation's administrative and business life should not be smothered by traffic congestion. In the same connection, our industrial and transport activities must not be slowed down. There are growing signs that roads leading to Jurong Town are becoming congested with traffic. Therefore, it might be feasible to curtail the flow of private transport into Jurong Town in the not too distant future. It might incidentally cut down the volume of traffic along cross-town roads, like Scotts Road.”
“It is my calculation that it will cost millions of dollars to improve on the bus service and to construct the MRT. It is my guess that the millions of dollars which would be raised by the increased Area Licence Fees, road taxes and additional registration fees, would come in handy for these two purposes, namely: (1) For the Government's intention to purchase SBS shares, should the company go public. (2) For the development of the MRT system. After the new taxes and fees were introduced, it was explained, if I am correct, that the taxes and fees were not revenueorientated. In passing, may I observe that the revenue estimate for Road Tax for 1975 is $87 million and for 1976 it is $108 million, an increase of $20.4 million. The revenue estimate for Additional Registration Fees for 1975 is $41 million and for 1976 it is $50 million. The revenue estimate for Area Licence Fees for 1975 is $5.4 million and for 1976 it is $6.5 million. The purpose of the revenue is a question mark. If the money raised is used to provide a better bus service and to construct the MRT system, I make a guess that Singaporeans, being calculative people, wduld know the economy of being a bus commuter. The service we provide to the bus commuters must reach a standard comparable to western countries. With the will, it will be possible to attain this objective in a couple of years' time. At this moment, the SBS is still not in a position to cope satisfactorily with the demand for its service. In view of this, it does appear that the imposition of severe measures against the use of private transport was a little too premature. I am of the opinion that the Area Licensing Scheme's restricted hours commencing at 7.30 am.”
“Sir, I would like to discuss a little about the Government's road transport policy. A matter which concerned me most was the sorry state of affairs of the Singapore bus service. However, over the past year, it has shown some improvements. The most perceptible area of improvement I have been told, and which I myself observe, is in the conduct of the drivers and conductors. Improvements have also been made in terms of service, routine, scheduling, road-worthiness and cleanliness of the buses. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you would recall, in 1974 I proposed in essence in the first of a dozen principal Questions for Oral Answer, for the Government's involvement in this field of public transport. It was my belief that there were amongst the ranks of cur civil servants, officers who could take care of our bus service. The 40-odd officers who have been sent to look after the affairs of the Singapore Bus Service Ltd proved the point I made that-where there is a will there is a way of putting our bus service on its feet again. I also did propose, and I would still press on, that the Government should have a financial stake in the Singapore Bus Se'rvice Ltd. even if it has to be reorganized, so that further improvement can be made in this public service. The participation of the SBS employees should be considered, so that it would not be in their vested interest to see the SBS go down the drain. The management and the workers should weed out from their ranks all those who cannot make an honest living or who do not do an honest day's work. I wish to say that the bus is the main form of transportation for the great majority of the people now and by the next decade or two the Mass Rapid Transit system concurrently serving the public.”
“Sir, the Bill before the House is more modern and progressive than the existing law. However, I have some reservations in respect of certain clauses of the Bill professing to serve the interests of workers. But since it has been indicated that the Bill will go to Select Committee, I reserve my comments on the Bill. If I do say my piece here, my views will not be melodious or in harmony with the Member for Leng Kee who is an acoustics expert in his own right. I support the Bill that is going to a Select Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are examples of harmful styles for our young generation to imitate. This is the society we create. How much can we blame the present generation. First, we must demotivate ourselves. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conjunction with this view, I could do no better than to quote the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress, Mr Devan Nair: `Those who live and lead in the opening years of the 21st century are already in our charge today, in our schools, our classrooms, and our playing fields. If we truly love them, and desire a better world for them, we must motivate them for a new and better world. Which means that we must de-motivate them from the aberrations and the insensate hostilities and the antagonisms of our times.' "How do we do this?" he asked. "We would, in brief, have to de-motivate ourselves, before we can re-motivate our children for the future". In conclusion, Sir, I support the Motion of the Member for Kim Keat. 3.50 p.m.”
“It does prove my point that there are people with the right calibre in the public service who could manage the public transportation system. I say without reservation that it is not in the public interest for the bus service to be in the hands of private entrepreneurs. The bus service must be operated as a public service. It is proposed by the Government that the Singapore Bus Service be converted into a public limited company with Government having a shareholding when it is firmly established. I would be happy if the House could he informed what percentage of the shares will be held by the Government. Will the new SBS be run to make the highest possible profit? What is the maximum dividend to be paid to the shareholders? I had proposed in the last session of this Parliament that there should be established a statutory corporation to run the bus service on a co-operative basis with the Government and other suitable parties as shareholders. Since it is operated on a co-operative principle, profit-taking could be limited. I should be happy if the new SBS is run with the objective to serve the public interest and that the highest possible re-investment is made to give the best service to the bus-travelling public. I agree in principle that the Government should discourage the use of private cars for ordinary travel. The need for any family to have more than one car is questioned. In the same vein, the practice of tendering for car registration numbers of a low order by people in high society should not be encouraged any more by the Registry of Vehicles. Social snobbery amongst car owners is not in keeping with the art of graceful living. If it can be described at all, it is conspicuous consumption and obscene-living in style. Why accentuate social tension?”
“The problem of controlling the volume of traffic entering the centre of administration and business area would have to be controlled sooner or later. Public transport, in particular the bus system, is still inefficient in terms of routes, frequency, reliability and service. As and when the bus system improves, more and more measures could be introduced to encourage people to use public transport. The present services provided by the Singapore Bus Service is far from being able to take any further demand on them. The addition of the shuttle service from the fringes of the Central Business District into the central administration and business area will be far from solving mass transportation. For the time being, the use of private cars for travelling will have to be maintained, though on a lower scale. Congestion in the CBD does not appear till after 8 o'clock in the morning. In view of this, it may not be necessary to introduce the licensing scheme till 8 o'clock. The suggestion is 7.30 a.m. This should allow parents, who are presently sending their children to school, to avoid having to bear an additional expenditure during these hard times. The bus service is far from adequate to meet the needs of the ordinary people. There has been only a slight improvement, however. The improvement is not significant enough for any party involved in running the system to be given outright compliment. The conduct of drivers and conductors no doubt has shown marked improvement. The secondment of more than 100 Government and Singapore Armed Forces personnel since August last year is unprecedented though most necessary. Never has so many Government servants been seconded to serve a private company.”
“Drafting young men into the Police Force is not the most logical solution to solving the police manpower problem. I have my doubts that the reserve police service will enlarge the law enforcing capacity. I should like to be enlightened at an appropriate time if these Police national servicemen will strictly do patrol work, traffic control work, some boring static work or some work which would not be of practical use in their future employment. One significant admission in the Presidential Address is the need to keep the family all under one roof, and if I may quote from the text of the speech: `My Government will take measures to make it more attractive for young couples, to have their parents live with them. If nothing else, the grandparents help in bringing up the children whilst father and mother are at work.' This is a good idea and in keeping with the real Asian tradition. Urbanisation and the construction of small flats have been one of the main causes of the proliferation of the extended family. Nothing can substitute the care and attention of parents. The next best are the grandparents. From the social point of view the encouragement of interdependence of the various generations is good. The Government has not revealed what incentives would be offered to those whose parents live with them. I would suggest for consideration the following: (1) A higher taxation allowance than what is allowed now be given to those who truly and adequately maintain their parents. (2) Priority in the allocation of bigger Housing and Development Board flats on condition that nobody in the family should request for an additional flat within a fixed period of time. One of the several problems modern Singapore faces is urban transportation.”
“' The main object of primary and secondary education, as I see it, is to give practical training for suitable employment in the future for both primary and secondary school-leavers. The education that primary and secondary pupils receive, however, should not make them robots merely suited to carry out work in a narrow field. In the event a worker becomes technologically redundant, the Industrial Training Board should organise the retraining programme at the employer's expense if it is not possible for the employer to retrain the worker on the job. In regard to the training of our young men for defence of our Republic, the beneficial aspect which is recognised by both parents and employers is character-building. The proposal to post National Servicemen to do work related to their future employment after leaving the Army will be welcomed by those concerned. It may be worthwhile to consider allowing these National Servicemen in appropriate engineering vocations to be given the task of designing and carrying out civil engineering works like bridges, wharves and piers. Of course, this should be done on a limited scale. After all a soldier must train and carry out military duties first. The proposal to introduce full-time National Service for the Police Force would suit some young men, who would, if it were not for this scheme, be drafted into the armed forces much against their liking. The need for this new approach is apparently due to manpower shortage in the Police Force. I think it is imperative to enquire why the Police Force is not attracting suitable young men. Why is it that, of the hundreds of school police cadets, so few have chosen a career in the Force?”
“There are also managements who are inept and inefficient, the Singapore Bus Service is one of the many. The matter of productivity is within the province of management. I could not do better than to quote what the Minister for Finance said in an article in an NTUC publication commemorating the 50th birthday of our Honourable Prime Minister: `Fairly productive labour with bad management, antiquated machinery or the wrong choice of goods to produce will lead to low labour productivity. An increase in labour productivity can result not only from better training, more responsibility and better health of workmen, but also from an improvement in management, modern machinery or a different production and marketing programme. Therefore, the major aspects of labour productivity are in the hands of entrepreneurs.' The Ministry of Labour has yet to fully convince employers on the question. The National Productivity Board is to convene a conference to consider the question of productivity and wages. This is a good move to look forward to. However, the attitude of the National Productivity Board as stated in the Addendum to the Presidential Address that the "National Productivity Board will assist those who are prepared to set up productivity committees" amply describes the feeble attempts of the National Productivity Board in this direction. The Government's education policy promises among other things: (a) `Every pupil who completes primary education will proceed to post-primary education and training of a type best suited to his aptitude and ability.' (b) `The secondary curriculum will be diversified to include a variety of vocational training and apprenticeship schemes.”
“Rapid urbanisation and living in high-rise flats also became very necessary because of limited land resources. Our population density is 3,664 persons per square kilometre, about the highest in the world. There are 529,200 women in the fertile age group 15 to 44, and if every one of them is to have only two children, our population will be four million in 50 years' time. There is no doubt that we have to achieve zero population growth as early as possible. Land for housing, recreation, reservoirs and other uses are not abundant and limitless, it is already generally agreed, even by those who have more than two children, that Singapore is getting over-crowded. Therefore, over-sized families should be discouraged by suitable disincentives and penalties. Industrialisation based on the concept of availability of a large reservoir of low-skilled labour should have its cut-off point. It is proposed to extend pioneer industry tax exemption from five to ten years for the most deserving industries. It is appropriate, therefore, to grant this tax exemption on a selective basis to industries with the possibility of proceeding to a higher technological phase in production. The intention of the Government to offer attractive terms for new types of industries, such as machine tools, precision instruments and petro-chemicals, is well thought and timely. This has to be done if for no other reason than the hope for a better standard of living through higher productivity. It is abundantly clear that higher wages and standard of living are not possible without higher productivity at all levels. However, all too often when the question of productivity is examined, low productivity is always blamed on labour.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the President for the concise manner he directed our attention to our present problems and also the measures the Government proposes to take in order to overcome them. The President did not sound despondent nor was he in a state of euphoria when he assured us that we would fare better towards the later part of 1975. What probably had made things look worse than they really were was because we had allowed ourselves to live with the idea that doomsday was around the corner, so much so, that unscrupulous businessmen manipulated stocks and prices, and indulged in profiteering. The President's speech, although low-keyed, is a refreshing change from what we were used to hear in the recent past. Inflation causes concern to each and everyone. We have learned to live with it by prudent spending and reducing wastage. However, I believe we should give priority in tackling economic recession and the loss of job opportunities. Whatever available resources there are should be utilised to develop our physical assets and infrastructure. The world is ever more confident that economic recovery will take place before 1976. It is imperative we make use of whatever spare resources we have now to build up our physical assets and to equip our manpower to spring back to activity at a higher technological level. There is all the justification now to draw upon our foreign exchange reserves for these purposes. Mr Speaker, Sir, no less important to Singapore is the question of controlling the growth of population. Industrialisation had its origin because entrepot trade could not give job opportunities to the growing numbers entering the employment market.”
“Sir, the Minister has been discussing the best performance of SBS. I have harassed the Minister for Communications regarding this. I am not sorry. It was my duty, and it was his duty to reply to the questions. Anyway, the dialogue has been very valuable, and since the Minister for Communications has given a pledge that he will solve the transport problem, I believe we should all be patient and wait for the outcome of the measures to be taken. My question is this: is it envisaged that private vehicles will be restricted or barred from entering the business centre? If so, when is it expected to be enforced? Anyway, we all have debated very thoroughly the transport situation right now, and therefore I believe we should have a moratorium. If the situation does not improve, we will continue discussing it next year during Budget time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister for Finance not think that it is the duty of the Income Tax Department to look into these matters whether or not there is information?”
“Sir, I was saying that repair and maintenance bills are given tax allowance. My question is this. Is it possible for excessive repair and maintenance bills to cause leakages in the SBS finances, when it comes to taxation? Badly maintained vehicles require frequent repairs, and if SBS send their buses to disreputable firms for repairs, they are prone to over-charging. Would that cause less tax to be collected?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, repair and maintenance bills are given tax allowance. As repair bills can be $1 and upwards, like any other professional bill, is it possible that excessive repair and maintenance bills cause leakages in the SBS finances?”
“Any damage is repaired as and when necessary by the Roads Branch of the PWD or the HDB. Oil drippings from buses are inevitable unless a very high standard of maintenance of the buses is exercised by the bus owners. The PWD and HDB do take action against any misuse of the bus termini. At one time action was taken against unauthorised hawkers who were related to bus drivers and were brought in to hawk at the bus termini.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very satisfied with the answer, and I would like to thank the Minister for Communications. BUS TERMINI (Particulars) 3. Encik Abdul Aziz Karim asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) how many bus termini have been constructed; and what is the area, cost and rental of each terminus; (b) if he is aware that oil drippings from badly maintained bus engines are causing damage to the termini; and who undertakes and bears the cost of repairing the damage; and (c) if he will take action to stop the misuse of valuable public property, utilities and services. The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, eight bus termini have been constructed by the Public Works Department at a total cost of $241,650 and are let out for a total rent of $6,600 per month. Details are as follows: Location Area Capital Rental Sq. Yds. Cost per month Serangoon Garden Way 1,920 $38,000 $960 Crawford Street 860 17,200 800 Upper Thomson Road 320 5,760 300 Changi Point 1,070 16,050 500 Yio Chu Kang Road 860 17,200 400 Kampung Bahru Road 270 5,400 200 Balestier Road 430 8,600 240 Prince Edward Road 11,120 133,440 3,200 ------ -------- ------ Total 16,850 $241,650 $6,600 ====== ======== ====== In addition to the above, the Housing and Development Board has constructed two bus termini at a total cost of $1,408,000 and let out for a total rent of $18,600 per month: Locality Area Cost Rental Sq. Yds per month Toa Payoh Town-Centre 51,000 $1,008,000 $12,600 Upper Changi (Chai Chee) 13,300 400,000 6,000 ------ ---------- ------- Total 64,300 $1,408,000 $18,600 ====== ========== ======= Most of the bus parking areas are constructed with concrete which is not so badly affected by oil drippings as compared to areas constructed of bitumen.”
“Sir, I would like to make a statement. In fact, I would go along with the Member for Telok Blangah and I disagree with the Government that it has no expertise at all to operate the bus service. I will also go along with the Member for Katong on this. What we like to know is: is the Government going to nationalise the SBS now or later? If we cannot do it now for some good obvious reasons, I will be more patient. That is the point we like to know. But if the Government says never, I will always disagree.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I do not see how the management of the SBS has got to do with the policy of the Ministry of Communications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to be more direct. If the NTUC Co-operative were to build houses meant for the middle income group, would Government liberalise the rules and regulations of the CPF, so that people in this income group may purchase the co-operative houses? The Minister of State supports co-operatives, does he not?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must congratulate the Hon. Minister for Law and National Development. That is the best answer I have received so far. If it is just for the SBS -objection. Otherwise he is free to build as many bus shelters as he wants to for the convenience of the public.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not common practice for a profit-making enterprise to provide, at its own expense, the necessary infrastructure for its business operations?”
“Mr Speaker, in due course of time, I shall move a motion. I am now only gathering information on how the SBS is run and how it is supervised by the ROV. Mr Speaker, let me inform this House that I am an ordinary worker, and there is no question of my buying the SBS, or even one-quarter of it. The Prime Minister knows me, and also my financial status. LICENSING OF GOODS VEHICLES (Reasons for delay) 4. Mr Hwang Soo Jin asked the Minister for Communications the reasons that account for the long delay in the licensing of goods-carrying vehicles for road use, and whether he will direct the Registrar of Vehicles to speed up the processing of such applications in order to avoid shortage of such vehicles.”
“Sir, one last supplementary question, as public safety is of great importance. Is there a list of authorised private motor workshops or repairers which the SBS can patronise for mechanical inspections of its buses, in lieu of inspection by the ROV? And is this the most satisfactory arrangement?”
“Mr Speaker, if I am to rely on statistics, there will be hardly any supplementary questions. Anyway, what is the explanation for the frequency of buses falling apart and condemned to the yard? Will the Minister for Communications bear the consequences of allowing unroadworthy vehicles on public roads, or will it be the ROV?”
“But who could believe that the campaign is still on?”
“Sir, my question is on policy, and policy is normally the same over a period of time. Therefore, I wish to take the Minister back to memory lane, a little way back in time. With your permission, Sir, may I just quote a little from the Government White Paper (Cmd. 21 of 1970) to assist the Minister in his reply to my question. `On 31st March, 1970, the Prime Minister launched an all-out Anti-pollution Campaign, which inter alia, aimed at eradication of the smoky exhausts of motor vehicles. As this drive will have many significant repercussions, including the jacking-up not only of standards of performance and maintenance of vehicles but a general overhaul of the public transport services now existing, this Anti-pollution drive can be regarded as being the starting point for the first ever comprehensive reorganisation of the motor transport service of Singapore.' So I would like to know what has gone foul. The air has gone foul, I know. Bus service has also gone foul. When will the second campaign begin in earnest?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if it is too early to talk about profits, then I would like to talk about losses. Will the Hon. Minister for Communications authorise bus fare increases each time the bus owners put their hands up in horror and say that they have made losses? And since the bus owners know that the Government is most unwilling to operate the bus service lest it has to subsidise the operations, will the Hon. Minister assure us that he will not be taken for a ride? How do we know that he has not been taken for a ride by the SBS? This is a test question, as further questions have yet to come. Can the Hon. Minister inform us whether the SBS is the only business concern, most unfortunately a private monopoly controlling a public service under its wing, which is privileged by Government intervention to wipe off operating losses and to raise capital at the public's expense? Profits, virtually, guaranteed quite a risk-free business, is this not fortunate?”
“I have heard it. But let this House know, and let the public know, of what the Minister thinks.”
“Sir, can the scheme to permit goods vehicles to transport human cargo be considered a measure that will improve the public transport service? Is it appropriate to state that the bus services have deteriorated to a point commonly experienced in a protracted state of war and chaos?”
“Is it a bus service run by a State-owned company or by a private monopoly?”
“Sir, more people travel by bus than by taxis. Taxis are beyond the means of the majority of workers. Will the Hon. Minister not agree that the introduction of measures to discourage private car ownership will cause difficulty to some people? And to deprive car owners of the use of their cars will cause them even greater inconvenience? And to discourage people from owning cars is already a cause for some people to raise the question: why should they upkeep a private monopoly? And therefore imposing such other measures would certainly cause adverse emotional reaction.”
“In view of the fact that car owners are restrained from using their cars, and that car ownership is also being discouraged, the people will have to travel by bus. Therefore, are not all these measures only a means to encourage them to travel by buses operated by the SBS? That is the connection.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect to you, if I were not asked to dish out all my questions, I would not have done so. But the suggestion had come from the Minister for Communications yesterday. As for now, I have several supplementary questions to raise but I shall ask only a few at a time unless the Minister wishes to dodge the questions. Yesterday he was dodging the questions I put to him, and therefore I would appreciate it if he would give me the courtesy by answering them wherever possible, in the public interest. Are all these measures meant to encourage more people to travel in a transport service run by the profit-making private monopoly, the SBS? Are all these measures meant to benefit the privileged SBS? Is everything being tailored to favour the SBS?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, must we carry the SBS as a passenger?”
“Why should the operating losses of its predecessor-companies be of any material importance to the public? My next supplementary question is this. If the running of public transport service is rather bad business and therefore in order to make good profit the travelling public can only expect poor service, as is the case with the SBS where both service and the supposed losses are bad, will the Minister for Communications be able to say whether the operating losses are true and correct? Before the Minister answers the question, it may interest him to refer to the Government's White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore, (Paper Cmd. 21 of 1970) paragraph 3.7, wherein it is stated: `The management of some bus companies have noted with delight [the next few words are not so important] that after replacing their old buses (some as old as over. 20 years) with new buses their profits went up appreciably. What is the name of the game, when we are now told that they are operating at a loss? The next question is, why is the Minister so concerned with the existence of a private monopoly by nursing the SBS? Why is he most prepared to allow the present state of affairs to continue and to tilt the balance so that the register shows profits? Why prop up an inefficient organisation?”
“All right. My next supplementary question. We are always reminded that the SBS was formed only on 1st November, 1973. The bus services had been bad before SBS was formed. They are now worse. If something is to be done to improve it, it will at the best fall into a bad state again. How long will it take to improve the services to the satisfaction of the public, I do not know.”
“I think the Minister for Communications has referred to them. If I am permitted, I will now ask supplementary questions on these Questions which I have already given notice.”
“I agree I have given notice of Questions 3 and 4. And I have other supplementary questions on those two Questions.”
“My next question is, if the Government is not willing to take over the rights and interests of the SBS, may I know whether the Government is willing to establish a corporation, wholly or partly owned by the Government, to compete with the SBS? What is the logical explanation for the Government's decision to spend millions of dollars on the cable car system, which is not a daily necessity, or on the construction of golf courses which are beyond the means of the ordinary working people, when it is not prepared to finance an essential service like the bus service, although it is able to do so? This is beyond reason. We have a lot of reserves. Does the Minister believe that the bus service will be ruined to a point where it would be wiser for the Government to leave the management of the bus company to the owners? Does the Minister want us to believe that the Government has no financial resources? Where are our reserves? Since the Government was prepared to go to the extent of lending its assistance in getting local as well as international banks and finance companies, and also the Development Bank of Singapore, to bolster the SBS, why does the Government not consider doing so for a statutory corporation? Does the Minister for Communications consider that the SBS, without even a Board of Directors and ruled by personal and clan relationship, has far greater expertise than the Government can command? I have one last question on the MRT. If MRT is feasible, will it be in the hands of a private monopoly?”
“I will then proceed with all my questions. Is profitability of an undertaking a crucial point in determining the Government's attitude? Or is public interest of no concern? Before the Minister answers my next set of questions, may I refer him to the statement of the Minister for Finance on 4th March, 1974, in Parliament, and I quote [col. 76]: `There have been suggestions that the Government nationalise the bus companies and subsidise the commuter.' I have only proposed the nationalisation of the Singapore Bus Service Limited. I quote further from the same speech: `But what happens when the Government nationalises a company which has not yet got institutionalised management, and corruption on a scale rampant in the former Singapore Traction Company inevitably results? Let us first get management and services improved through tighter supervision from the Ministry of Communications.' Now comes my set of questions. Can it be implied that it is not against the philosophy of the Government to nationalise the SBS? Can it be implied also that there is a nagging fear that the present SBS management is corrupt, and will it be more corrupt if the Government were to take over, lock, stock and barrel? Will it bring ruination to the bus service? If the Port workers were to behave in this way, it would be treason. Therefore, will the Government take such behaviour on the part of the management of SBS as treason? Much productivity and leisure hours of the bus travelling public is wasted. Will the Minister for Communications stop nursing and molly-coddling the SBS? Does he think it imperative that the views of the bus travelling public be sought if an efficient and cheap bus service is to be operated by the State?”
“Will the Minister say whether the Government will consider taking over the rights and interests of the Singapore Bus Service Limited when the services become worse, or when the services become better? Is the Government stalling for time? And, if so, will a target date be fixed? Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Sir, it seems that the hon. Member has other questions too. Maybe I should hear them before I give him the answers.”
“I have about 10 supplementary questions. There are still other courses left open for the Government to take: first, to maintain the interest of private monopoly and, second, to take over control of the operation of the bus services. Will the Minister for Communications now confirm if any assurance or guarantee had been given to the Singapore Bus Service Limited that it would not be taken over under any circumstances?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first I would like to clarify that the reference to "other public transportation systems" in my Question includes only MRT, and excludes goods vehicles, taxis and school buses. I have got several supplementary questions, and I hope I will be given a good deal of time to do them justice, just as much time as the hon. Minister for Communications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as hon. Members know, about 400 to 500 physically broken-down buses have been sent to the grave. What I would like to know and very firmly ask is whether the bus service is going to improve in three months' time, or never at all? Or is the Hon. Minister for Communications still thinking of doctoring the SBS and "transplanting" engines and whatnots, rather than performing the last rites of the SBS and the funeral service?”