Cedric Foo Chee Keng
Singapore
“Chairman, indeed digital technology will be a key enabler for a brighter future for Singapore. Listening to Senior Minister of State, Ms Sim Ann, Senior Minister of State, Dr Janil and Minister Iswaran, I am sure my colleagues share my view that we are in good hands.”
“Chairman, some months ago, we had a healthy discussion between Mr Pritam Singh and myself about POFMA; whether the Judiciary is best party to act, or whether the Executive branch is better placed to act on the issuance of Correction Notices. I think the recent COVID-19 outbreak is a good example of when to use POFMA.”
“Mr Chairman, my cut is to ask about the tangible benefits to citizens and local businesses arising from our Smart Nation initiatives. Digitalisation has opened up new possibilities for businesses and for our society.”
“I am also particularly concerned with school children from lower income families who may not be able to afford a computer or broadband access at home. In today’s learning environment, a computer and broadband access are like "paper and pen" of the past and, therefore, no child should be denied that.”
“Chairman, this question is for Minister Chan. Historically, many Government agencies and Ministries design systems and processes from their points of view. I think the public will be well served if Government agencies can think "the other way around" and try to design processes from the citizens' or businesses' points of view.”
“Yes, probably the last engagement to give others a chance to speak. POHA is for private matters, and if somebody felt that they had been harassed, as a private individual, they will go to the Courts.”
The complete record
Every one of 423 lines we hold for Cedric Foo Chee Keng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“Mdm Chair, on behalf of my parliamentary colleagues, I would like to thank the Minister and his team for engaging us. Also, the Minister's "full assurance" is reassuring. We are not yet there in terms of public transport efficiency but we hope that, in time, we will get there. Mdm Chair, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Page: 116 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $792,920,700 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $10,495,765,500 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)] Page: 117”
“Madam, my question is for Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo. I would like to ask whether the Carbon Emission Vehicle scheme, that has been implemented so far, has been revenue-neutral, in deficit or surplus?”
“Mdm Chair, my next cut is on Changi Airport and its expansion plans, including Terminal 5 (T5). In 2014, Changi Airport posted a new record of 54 million passenger movements – seems to be a good achievement – but the growth rate has actually slowed to less than 1% year-on-year, and this is lower than the 5% Changi Airport registered in 2013, compared to 2012. And when compared to other competing air hubs, Changi's lower growth rate is of concern. In 2014, both Dubai and Hong Kong saw growth of 6%, while Kuala Lumpur registered 7%. This is compared to Changi's 1%. To boost Singapore's competitiveness as an air hub, the Government recently announced the construction of T5 and a third runway. In preparation for that, S$3 billion was set aside. In sharp contrast, Dubai, the Al Maktoum Airport plans, has announced US$32 billion to construct a second very large airport. Of course, a large budget alone is not a guarantee of success. That is why I am asking the Minister to share with us the strategic plans for Changi Airport over the next 10 years and how the new T5 and runway that are being planned would help Singapore and Changi compete effectively. Would hardware alone – a glittering new terminal – suffice? Do we need to do more of the softer aspects, like service differentiation, where Changi still has the lead, and also in expanding our air services agreements and open skies policy?”
“Mdm Chair, next is on cycling, specifically on making pedestrian paths safer for both pedestrians and cyclists. Last year, I spoke about congested footpaths with the increase in bicycle usage and the need to provide clarity to both cyclists and pedestrians on the rules governing the use of such paths but, more importantly, also the enforcement of such rules. Unfortunately, over the past year, this clear set of rules and norms has yet to be well communicated and the issues on the ground have continued to persist. This requires, in my opinion, urgent attention. Today, I would like to reiterate my views to make pedestrian paths safer for all users. The situation is getting worse as we see increased use of bicycles, conventional ones, electric bicycles, Segways, electric skate scooters and so forth. Despite laws being in place against such vehicles on pedestrian footpaths, we continue to see errant cyclists who endanger pedestrian safety. I would like to call upon the Government to provide a clear set of cycling rules and enforcement of these rules. Perhaps, pedestrian pathways could also be broadened so as to be able to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians safely. Safe Cycling”
“Mdm Chair, the fare review formula is based on four components: core CPI, the average wage increase, energy index and productivity index. These four components of the fare formula are reasonable, in my view. However, my concern is with the significant time lag between the data that were used and the actual fare adjustment date. For instance, in computing the 2014 fare adjustment, the energy index was based on 2013 data, whereas the actual fare adjustment will only be effective from April this year. So, as Members can see, this long lag of 15 months is in contrast to the quarterly economic indicators and statistics that are available from MTI. I would like to request the Ministry to consider applying more current data for fare review so that the actual fare adjustment is reflective of prevailing market conditions. Commuters can then better relate fare revisions with prevailing realities. 2.00 pm”
“Also, it would be interesting to learn from the Minister whether there are lessons learnt from this particular bidding package for Bulim and how this will inform future packages. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Transport Policy Matters”
“"More connections" is one, which is expanding networks – making walking and cycling to transport hubs more attractive; better service, that is, improving frequencies, shortening waiting times, reduce crowding and tightening taxi availability standards. And lastly, the third point, "liveable and inclusive community", for public transport to be more user-friendly to a diverse commuter base, including the elderly, persons with disabilities and also the impact on common living spaces. I would like the Minister to provide Page: 46 us an update on progress of these objectives, whether or not we are tracking them well and, if so, are we sufficiently confident to realise these goals even earlier. Government Contracting Model for Bus Services Madam, the Government bus contracting model seeks to introduce competition, as opposed to concessions, which is the state of play today in order to discover what is the "market clearing price" for a specified set of bus services. This objective can only be realised if there are sufficient competing bids. The Bulim package has been introduced recently. I understand that bids have been received and I would like the Minister to update this House on the number of bids that are received and whether or not these bidders include foreign operators and whether our local operators have also participated in the bids and when will the bidding bid be announced. Also, whether or not the procurement costs from the Government's standpoint for the Bulim Package would be reduced as a result of the bidding and how this will impact bus fares and services when the winning bidder commence operations.”
“As I said earlier, public transport's share, as a commuting mode, has been increasing from 59% in 2008 to 63% in 2012 and 66% in 2014, so almost improving one percentage point each year. The target is to achieve 75% by 2030. Since we have achieved 66% last year, logically, if we make a projection, we should be able to achieve 75% probably in the next nine years and that would be in the mid-20s. But the objective, as stated in LTMP, is to reach this level of public transport share only in 2030. So, my question is whether the Minister sees it fit and is confident enough to bring forward the target date to achieve this 75% mode share. The other area that is particularly important in land-scarce Singapore is vehicle growth. We have seen this problem emerging in some cities. And when urban planners fail to anticipate and control car population, all sorts of issues arise. For example, I know of a certain city in Asia which only allows even number plate cars on even days of the week, like Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday; and odd number plate cars on odd number days of the week, like Monday, Wednesday, Friday. So, you may own a car but you can only use it on alternate days. And I am told that some car owners buy two cars: one with an odd number plate, one with an even number plate. And there are even others desperate enough to buy ambulances because they have the right of way, and sometimes police cars. These examples highlight the wisdom of anticipating future problems. Though Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) are unpopular and vehicle growth is something that commuters would like to see more of, the problems are real and the issues are very stark, as we can see in many cities around us. The LTMP highlighted several areas of focus.”
“However, crowdedness on trains during peak hours remains a key gripe of commuters. Would the Minister provide an update on the delivery of new trains for the network and also the re-signalling initiatives which would go a long way to increase headways and how these measures would improve rail capacity as well as rail service? Would the Minister also provide an update on BSEP and whether or not there are plans beyond the 1,000 buses that were announced previously? My third point is on commuter needs. Beyond the basics of reliability and capacity, the commuter experience also depends on other related infrastructure, such as covered linkways to train stations and bus stops and accessibility for commuters with special needs. Can the Minister update this House on the progress of improving the first- and last- mile commuter experience between homes and transport hubs and vice versa? How is the progress in the construction of covered linkways to achieve that first- and last- mile experience? LTA's announcement of free wi-fi access for a total of 32 stations by the end of this year is a positive step in understanding commuter needs and trying to meet them. Beyond wi-fi access in train stations, would the Government also consider introducing wi-fi access in train cars themselves to meet commuter needs for uninterrupted wireless connectivity? Page: 45 Public Transport Mode Share Mdm Chair, on the public transport mode share, specifically, an update on the progress vs the objectives that were spelt out in the Land Transport Master Plan, or LTMP, in 2013. Even as we try to solve the reliability and capacity issues today, MOT's focus on the long-term plans for the transport network is a very important undertaking.”
“I know that the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) recognise this and have been working hard to bring this about. That is why the recent spate of train disruptions must be very disappointing for all stakeholders – commuters, regulators and operators alike. Over the last few years the Government has introduced various measures, including tightening regulatory standards, and the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) have made additional investments in repair and maintenance. LTA and the PTOs have also moved from Page: 44 a "find and fix" approach to a "predict and prevent" approach in terms of maintenance. This approach seeks to predict problems even before they occur and to take pre-emptive measures to avoid failures. Why then do the recent disruptions still occur and with such regularity? I would like the Minister to help us understand this issue better. Firstly, by providing progress updates on the implementation of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) recommendations which were issued as far back as 2012, following the disruption in December 2011. Secondly, his assessment on the effectiveness of this new maintenance approach, "predict and prevent". Thirdly, whether or not the existing penalty system imposed on PTOs is effective as a deterrent. Ultimately, it would be good for the commuting public to hear from the Minister when he sees a return of stability to our train network in terms of reliability. Secondly, on capacity. Bus capacity is generally recognised to have improved through the BSEP. I think the public is better for it. Train capacity, though has seen some improvements, with waiting times declining and crowdedness somewhat better than in previous years as new trains are being delivered.”
“Thank you, Mdm Chair. I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Estimates be reduced by $100." Madam, my first cut is on commuter experience with public transport. I would like to address this topic in three areas, namely, (a) reliability; (b) capacity; and (c) commuter needs. Firstly, reliability. For public transport to be a choice mode for commuters, a basic requirement is reliability. Punctuality of our bus services have improved with various measures, like bus priority lanes and more and newer buses under the Bus Services Enhancement Plan, or BSEP. The same cannot be said for trains, unfortunately. The recent numerous train disruptions – five of them over a span of eight days between 23 February and 3 March – had greatly inconvenienced many commuters. And then, to make matters worse, we had the Bukit Panjang Light Rapid Transit (LRT) shutdown just this Monday. The public transport mode share has been increasing from 59% of trips during the morning and evening peak hours in 2008 to 66% in 2014. This is good news since extensive use of public transport is the only sustainable way forward for a small city state like Singapore. We want to achieve this high mode share because public transport is cost-effective, reliable and comfortable. We want a road transport network befitting the efficiency hallmark often associated with Singapore. It would be very disconcerting if the mode share increased only because commuters have no other choice but to take to a below-par public transport. A world-class land transport network is not just about commuter comfort; it brings with it many positive externalities. It makes Singapore attractive to foreign investments and increases productivity all round.”
“Some clarifications for the Minister. I think GNSS generally is good. But can I ask the Minister how it would impact different motorists, for example, taxi drivers who dwell and travel more distances within the congested roads as well as commercial and delivery vehicles which have to also dwell longer in congested areas? The second question is whether or not there will be an enlargement of the ERP catchment area. There is always a concern that when you leave your house, there is an ERP.”
“We have debated this issue of an ageing population robustly. The Government has put up a plan under Deputy Prime Minister Teo. I have been trying to explain also to my residents why we need to do this. On the economic front, if we allow the society to age, our tax base will narrow and there is no guarantee high taxpayers, talented people, will remain in Singapore. We hope they do and we will work hard to make sure that they do but there is no guarantee of that. On the security front, our battalions will have to be smaller. On the political front, people will vote for ageing issues. I mean the old in our society when they start to outnumber the young, would ask for even more healthcare, and where does this leave future Singaporeans? We discussed about constructive politics, how Members from different parties should come together and enlighten the population, the populace, the voters about the trade-offs. But so far, we have not heard the Workers' Party, hand-in-hand, if they believe in this policy; to reach out to the people, to support immigration. And listening to Mr Chen, I am still not very clear whether the Party and himself support bringing in immigrants. You cannot do this overnight because you need time for them to assimilate. You cannot wait until the labour participation fails and then decide to bring in a deluge of immigrants to flood Singapore. We need to do this gradually. We need to plan ahead. We need to do it in Page: 19 a consistent, "assimilable" way.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his reply but I was really asking about immigrant inflow into Singapore, to really reverse the pyramid that has now been inverting. Because by 2030, as this House has heard, there will be 900,000 Singaporeans above the age of 65. And because families are getting smaller, Mdm Speaker, we do need immigrants. And I would like Mr Chen's comment on whether he welcomes immigrants and whether he would rally the support of Singaporeans to bring about these immigrants so that they are on our side, they help us compete, they help us stabilise our society.”
“I would like to seek some clarification from the hon Member Mr Chen Show Mao. He speaks about ageing issues, the ageing society, and I want to thank him for supporting the effort to engage Singaporeans in a dialogue to see how we may address this. But, really, underpinning the ageing population is the need to bring in immigrants and I would like to seek his views if he sees it necessary for Singapore's long-term future to bring in immigrants.”
“Yes, through the PGP, but the best gift yet is to "pay it forward" – to bequeath to our children a better Singapore than the one we inherited. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. 1.40 pm”
“There is no reason why Singapore's current success will be guaranteed or everlasting. No one can underwrite our success – except ourselves. We need to work at it all the time. So, why does an entity fail over time? It is inward-looking. It ignores the competition. It is overly protected. It fails to anticipate and plan ahead. It is slow to adapt. It becomes a victim of its past success. It is complacent. It loses its "grit, drive and determination". Madam, if these terms sound familiar, it is because when an entity is at the top of its craft, like where Singapore is now, our guards are down. We hear noises, asking for lower growth. But it is the leaders' duty to look beyond today so as to secure Singapore's future. Madam, Singapore also needs a new "Vision of the Future" which is beginning to take shape through Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) series. Such a vision is needed to rally us and to define us as a nation and as a people. Page: 11 The President was right to say that "the best years for Singapore is ahead of us" but this is provided that we make the right choices and take the right path forward. We need to rally the people to take a longer-term view and a more collective view. Our people will do that if they can see the Government addressing their short-term needs. This, we must do and the Government's Addenda for each Ministry spell out how this will be done. Mdm Speaker, on the eve of Singapore's 50th year of Independence, I join my colleagues in honouring our pioneers who have built this city, literally with their bare hands. They made the sacrifices so that we can enjoy the Singapore that we have come to know. We honour them.”
“It is more elegant, it is simple, it gives peace of mind. But if we do that, then, are we really helping the members of Page: 10 the Pioneer Generation? Because you would increase the tendency for patients to seek a second opinion, maybe a third or a second MRI and so forth. Wasteful consumption and surge in demand may not achieve the ends that we seek. Fourth, do not supplant family as a first line of defence. Needy Singaporeans require holistic support; money alone is not sufficient. Family members, VWOs, neighbours and volunteers have very important roles to play. Hence, the Government has various initiatives, tax reliefs for supporting parents, higher Housing and Development Board (HDB) Housing Grants for living within 2 km of parents' flat and so forth. The Government can and should augment the efforts of the family but should not supplant it. Fifth, building social capital. Mdm Speaker, sociologist Francis Fukuyama defines social capital as "a set of informal values and norms shared among members of a group that permits cooperation among them". I spoke of this topic back in 2001. We need social capital to build cohesion amongst Singaporeans. There was a time when Singapore had very high social capital. It is called the "Kampong Spirit", when neighbours look out for one another and when self-abnegation rather than envy ruled the day. Can we rekindle this spirit of a closely-knit society even as we grow our economy and plug into the global economy? Mdm Speaker, how we make this shift and the choices we make now will determine Singapore's future. Success is transient. History is replete with examples. Empires rise and fall. Companies thrive and fail. Products gain market share and become obsolete. Even species become extinct.”
“Singapore will do well to avoid these pitfalls and stick to certain principles and I will highlight four of them. First, do not erode our work ethos. Our success as a nation so far has been the work ethos of our people. The world is changing. But I do not see a scenario where good old-fashioned work ethos becomes unnecessary for success. Workfare, introduced in 2008, reflects the Government's philosophy that Employment is the best form of social assistance. Workfare reinforces the values of hard work and self-reliance. In contrast, many of the advanced economies with social welfare policies have, over the years, seen large numbers of citizens on unemployment benefits with greater reliance on the Government. Secondly, do not burden future generations. One of the defining features of the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) is that the Government is setting aside the entire funding required for the Package, including expected cash outflows in future years, in the current year's Budget. We need to maintain prudent fiscal policies and financial discipline to avoid the pitfalls of a populist Government, seeking to win voters today by promising subsidies that future generations have to bear. Thirdly, do not fuel over-consumption. The principle of co-payment especially for healthcare reduces the propensity for over-consumption. If services are fully subsidised, over-consumption will inevitably set in. In such a scenario, "tax dollars" will go to wasteful consumption rather than effectively defraying a patient's medical costs. There would also be knock-on effects, including a strain on infrastructure as consumption increases. When I was engaging residents in a dialogue on the PGP, there was a suggestion that we should make healthcare totally free for the members of the PGP.”
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for the chance to join in this debate. President Tony Tan said in his speech that "the best years for Singapore are ahead of us". Indeed, Singapore has a strong foundation from which to build on. But whether or not the next generation will inherit a better Singapore depends on the choices that, we, as a Government and as a people make in the next few years. Minister Mentor Lee once said "the future is what we make of it". If we take stock of the last 50 years. Singapore has done well on the security and economics spheres. Our achievements, as a country on these fronts have been nothing short of stellar. Our key challenges now remain: (a) an ageing population; and (b) a widening income/wealth gap. Clearly in the next few years, the Government needs to address these issues through social programmes and redistribution policies. In doing so, it could take two different paths. Path One: it yields to populist demands and takes a short-term view. Singapore will lose its competitive advantage over time. Path Two: even as it introduces new social programmes and enhances existing ones; it keeps an eye on emerging trends and uncertainties, and Page: 9 maintains Singapore's long-term competitiveness, then I believe the future of this nation will remain bright. The second path, Mdm Speaker, is obviously harder to execute. It requires careful calibration and making the right trade-offs between the short term and the long term. The Government would need the support of its people to first understand the trade-offs and then to make certain sacrifices now so as to secure a brighter future. There are various pitfalls that other countries have faced in bringing about social programmes despite their good intent.”
“Mdm Chair, I thank the Minister, Senior Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary for their very thoughtful responses. We have yet to achieve the public transport efficiency that commuters and, indeed, Members have come to expect. There is obviously room for improvement. But what we have heard today gives us confidence. The Minister and his team have shown great resolve. The Government has committed great resources to improving the public transport system and, in time, we will get there. So, Mdm Chair, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $638,851,500 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $6,143,856,100 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Chair, I thank the Minister for his replies, especially on the point of new train introduction for the next three years. But that is only part of the equation. The other part of the equation is ridership growth. If ridership growth is faster than train introduction in the next three years, then crowdedness will become worse and waiting time can be affected as well. Can the Minister comment on crowdedness and waiting time as a result of the interaction between the train introduction and ridership growth?”
“Mdm Chair, my next cut is on enhancing Changi Airport as an air hub. On a monthly basis, Changi Airport handled about 4.5 million passengers and 29,000 flights last year. That is a 5% – 6% improvement from 2012. Page: 96 So, on first impression, this looks like a credible performance, not until you compare them to the competing hubs that continue to grow at a faster clip. Dubai, for example, grew at 16% for the nine-month period between January and September last year. Bangkok's growth was 18% prior to the start of the political unrests that it has experienced in end 2013, and Kuala Lumpur's international passenger growth was at 18% as well. All much stronger than Changi's growth rate at 6%. With new aircraft technologies, Singapore is losing its competitive edge to Dubai as a regional hub as aircraft can fly from Europe to Dubai, and then with long haul aircrafts no longer have to re-fuel in Singapore, but are able to fly directly between Dubai and Australia, what the airline people call the "Kangaroo route". Bangkok and KL are also quickly transforming into Asian hubs for low-cost carriers. I would like to ask the Minister to share Changi's plans for Terminals 4 and 5, and the three-runway system, and also if more air services agreements are envisaged and planned for, and further strategies to attract low-cost carriers to Changi. Would the Minister also elaborate on the new strategic thrusts that will enhance Changi's competitive edge? In all, can we all look forward to a rate of growth for Changi Airport that is ahead if not at least comparable to those enjoyed today by Dubai, Bangkok or KL?”
“Is it the Town Council? Is it HDB? It would be good if we can set a clear policy on this issue because the current status quo is not clear, it is not working and the problem is growing.”
“This cut is also on cycling, specifically the de-conflicting of cyclists and pedestrians on pedestrian footpaths. Cycling has not only become a popular recreational sport, it is also becoming a popular form of transport. It replaces walking or taking feeder buses. Many have now taken on bicycles as a means to reach transport hubs. Also, the availability of some supporting infrastructure like park connectors, bicycle racks, supports this as a mode of transport. With the increase in bicycle usage, some of the residents have highlighted that footpaths are increasingly congested, especially in morning peak hours, and with some errant cyclists exhibiting dangerous cycling behaviours: ringing the bell as they go and shooing the pedestrians off the footpaths. This endangers the safety of pedestrians, especially children and the elderly, on footpaths. Cycling on footpaths – the last time I checked – is illegal. Cyclists have to dismount and push the bicycles. But there is currently no enforcement against such errant cyclists. Bicycles are not registered and enforcements are difficult. There is also a general view that our roads are narrow and crowded during peak periods and, therefore, a reluctance for the authorities to push the cyclists to using the roads. We also do not require cyclists to don helmets. If we really want them to ride safely, as Dr Janil Puthucheary had pointed out, we should require them to wear helmets. Should we enforce the current rules and ban all cyclists on pedestrian footpaths? Should we accommodate cyclists on footpaths? And if so, Page: 84 these footpaths are currently too narrow and are not designed to fit both pedestrians and cyclists. It is not clear who in Government owns the issue. Is it National Parks? Is it the Traffic Police? Is it LTA?”
“I share the Member Mr Ang Wei Neng's views about ERP2 and the question about privacy. I also share his views about the many benefits that the satellite-based ERP system can provide but there are clearly concerns about privacy issues and, like Mr Ang Wei Neng, I would like the Minister to address the issue. ERP on Nicoll Highway”
“Under the BSEP, an additional 250 buses remain to be delivered. Would the Minister also inform this House when these buses are expected to be on the roads and how the commuters would benefit when these buses are eventually delivered? Finally, beyond the existing BSEP, which is slated to be completed soon, since the Government has moved ahead of their original plan, are there additional plans to increase bus capacity? Would there be a BSEP II, for example? As part of its plans for better bus services, the Government has also worked on improving feeder services by introducing private bus operators for Peak Period on Short Services. I would like the Minister to explain the extensiveness of this programme. Where would these buses ply and when would the programme be implemented?”
“Mdm Chair, my cut is on the progress of installing MRT noise abatement barriers. Noise pollution is an increasing problem for high density communities. Following a 2012 year-long noise pollution study of homes near elevated MRT tracks, the Government has announced plans to install 20 km of noise abatement barriers across the island by 2020, as one of the initiatives of the Land Transport Master Plan 2013. These noise abatement barriers were said to cut noise levels by five to 10 decibels, bringing noise levels in these areas to NEA's acceptable limit of 67 decibels. Page: 45 I would like to ask the Minister to provide a progress update on the installation of these noise abatement barriers, what sort of barrier designs were chosen and if tests have successfully shown that the noise levels at these hot spots can be adequately reduced to NEA's acceptable levels. Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) Mdm Chair, my next cut is on the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP). The BSEP started in third quarter 2012. Through a partnership between LTA and the Bus PTOs, about 40 new services were set to be introduced and 800 buses will be added. Out of this, the Government is to fund 550 buses by end-2014, instead of the original plan of 2016. To date, the Government has funded more than 300 buses. The progress of the BSEP on the Government's part has been good and ahead of schedule. I would like to ask the Minister about the progress, on the part of the two bus PTOs. How many buses have they introduced to date? And also, how has BSEP benefited commuters? Whether a survey has been done to determine the improvements that commuters have come to enjoy, such as service reliability, frequency of service or crowdedness on buses after these new buses were added.”
“Perhaps, fare credits for future trips, depending on the duration and severity of the disruption experienced by the commuter and level of inconveniences experienced by the commuter would be more just. These fare credits will effectively offset some of the fare increases and also recompense this group of commuters who are actually affected by the breakdowns. Train Service Reliability”
“As our rail network expands, ages and with increased frequency of train trips, incidences of service disruptions are inevitable and it will be unrealistic to expect 100% service levels at all times. The Government should provide appropriate benchmarks against rail network providers in other major cities and then to set and manage commuters' expectations accordingly. Mdm Chair, my last point is on service recovery plans. Importantly, given that service disruptions are inevitable – no system can achieve 100% – I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on the measures that are being taken to manage such incidences after they happen and to reduce the duration and impact of such service disruptions. Some commuters are making a nexus between fare increases and service reliability. They said that if reliability remains poor, then there should be no fare increase at all. The Fare Review Mechanism Committee (FRMC's) position is that the two issues are separate. This position, I feel, is largely correct because, as the Minister has cited, the majority of commuters are not affected by disruptions as reliability is close to 99.95%. Thus, a blanket freeze in fare increase will adversely impact the PTO's ability to allocate resources to Page: 39 preventive maintenance and upkeep. However, commuters who are impacted by disruptions are credited only for the fare for the failed journey and also provided alternative bus transport to their destinations. This, in my view, does not fully make good the inconveniences borne by these commuters – those who are actually affected by the breakdown.”
“MOT has increased the allowable penalties for breaches, by pegging the maximum penalty to 10% of annual fare revenue of affected rail system. Although this is a good deterrent measure, the penalty itself does not directly prevent the occurrences of breakdowns and does little to appease commuters Page: 38 who are affected by these breakdowns. Commuters have recently seen a spate of train disruptions, with seven incidents in January and February this year on the Compass and Circle Lines. Some of these incidences were very disruptive to commuters, impacting their peak-hour morning commute while some others are less serious but nevertheless inconveniencing commuters. Although nowhere as severe as the two major disruptions that occurred on the North-South Line in December 2011, the increased frequency of train disruptions has further diminished commuters' confidence in the public transport system. The Committee of Inquiry (COI) which was appointed to undertake a study into the causes of the December 2011 disruptions released an in-depth report in July 2012. This report provided a comprehensive set of recommendations. I believe that a rigorous approach to track and report progress by LTA and the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) would put into sharp focus the efforts and investments that were put to improving train reliability. Thus far, we have not heard very much about how both the PTOs and LTA are tracking the recommendations of the report. Hence, I would like the Minister to provide us an update and also to ask the Minister to share with us preventive measures that were taken outside of the COI's report by both the PTOs and LTA.”
“Mdm Chair, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Mdm Chair, my first cut is on rail capacity and reliability. I would like to address this topic in four areas, namely, (a) rail network and capacity; (b) train reliability; (c) commuter expectations; and (d) service recovery plans. Madam, the Land Transport Master Plan 2013 aims for 75% of trips, during both the morning and evening peak hours, to be made on public transport by 2030. But with transport infrastructure supply lagging demand, we have received incessant feedback about the crowdedness, especially during peak hours. The Government plans to spend $60 billion in the next decade to improve our public transport system, with the doubling of our rail network to about 360 km by 2030, as one of the key means of increasing public transport mode-share and reducing crowdedness. This long-term plan is commendable. However, I would like to ask the Minister to provide an update on the near-term rail capacity introduction. Improvements during the next three-year period are crucial so that commuters can experience a better network and a better travel experience earlier rather than to wait till the end of MOT's planning horizon in 2030. Would the Minister also share with this House our rail network expansion plans and how this will translate to rail density improvements over the longer term? How would these plans compare with those of major city states like Hong Kong, Tokyo and New York when they are realised? Madam, as we know, to make public transport attractive, beyond increasing rail network and capacity, the focus has also to be on improving train reliability.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he will consider another metric of measuring delays? He did talk about the number of delays of more than five minutes. Would it not be better to look at the number of commuters affected multiplied by the number of minutes delayed because a delay that is 45 minutes in duration involving two major East-West station is much more significant in terms of commuter impact than one in an off-peak period for six minutes?”
“Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. The first is the thinking behind the cost of certain schemes being borne by the Government and certain others being cross-subsidised by the full-fare commuters. And because some of the concession schemes are subsidised by the full-fare commuters, the rate with which these schemes are undertaken will affect the affordability of full-fare commuters. Can the Minister assure us that any future increases would bear this particular point in mind?”
“A supplementary question for Dr Ng. I note that national resilience and psychological defence are, indeed, very important, not just for haze, but also if there is another round of SARS or a MERS virus crisis. I also note that the Minister said that 80% had expressed confidence in the way the Government is dealing with the haze. I think that is creditable. Is there anything about the 20% who had expressed a lack of confidence, is there anything we can learn from them? Secondly, in terms of preparing for crises, had the haze been prolonged, it would be a very different crisis. Can the Minister speak on how we will respond to a prolonged crisis?”
“Madam, although Members have not had all their wishes granted, I think we have made good progress. The Minister's posture has evolved in the course of the COS. He started by saying, "I am sympathetic", then "I am considering", and, more recently, we are hearing "I will do more". So, we all wait with bated breath; it is a good trend. I thank the Minister, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary for engaging us so patiently, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $562,232,500 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $6,354,672,000 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Madam, when I suggested to allocate more COEs to smaller cars, the Minister explained that by fixing the ARF tax for bigger cars, that is a consideration to make sure that the larger car owners pay more. There are three components in a total value of a car – the COE, the ARF and the OMV of the car. Would it not be shifting from one bucket to another? Does the Minister see the COE falling therefore, the progressivity of that larger car tax Page: 76 not happening?”
“Thank you, Madam. My first question is on contestability in the public transport sector. I spoke about this yesterday. In the long run, we would like to see parcels of bus and rail services being bidded upon by various prospective transport operators in a way that introduces competition and, therefore, a self-regulatory mechanism, instead of the Public Transport Council (PTC) and committees looking over what they will do. Can I have the Minister's comments on whether or not this is a long-term goal?”
“Madam, do we have time for clarifications?”
“Like Mr Charles Chong, I am interested to know about the recommendations and findings of the Changi 2036 Steering Committee on airports. As the Minister knows, the Kangaroo route is very important to many airlines in Singapore, and this is the route between Europe, Singapore and Australia. With the introduction of long-range aircraft, some carriers, especially from the Middle East, are now implementing Europe, Middle East to Australia flights and thereby bypassing Singapore altogether. Would the Minister share with us strategies to see how we can remain relevant for such routes? Also, Seletar Airport, as Mr Charles Chong explained, could potentially be an airport for private jets. I see two benefits in that. One, there could be a higher level of CIP services for such private jet owners than available at Changi Airport; and second, it frees up the runway at Changi. 1.00 pm Safeguarding International Maritime Centre Status”
“Does the Minister see any merit in stabilising the volatility of COE prices in each of the bids? And if so, what mechanisms can be used to achieve this? COEs and Car Ownership”
“Madam, the Vehicle Quota System of COE has been implemented since 1990, the purpose of which is to limit the growth of vehicles each year. As Members know, there are currently five COE categories – Category A for cars with engine capacity of 1,600 cc; Category B for cars above 1,600 cc; Category C for goods vehicles and buses; Category D for motorcycles; and the Open Category, Category E, for all vehicles. 11.15 am The value of each COE is a function of the COE supply and demand for each category. In recent years, various German car makers have introduced more expensive vehicles with lower engine capacity, below 1,600 cc. This increases the demand for Cat A COEs whilst the supply of Cat A COEs remains unchanged. This could have the effect of pushing up Cat A COE prices, to the detriment of buyers of smaller vehicles. I would like to ask the Minister about how LTA distributes the number of available COEs for each category, A, B and E especially? Also, when was this distribution last reviewed and whether the assumptions then are still valid today? I would also like to suggest that a comprehensive review be carried out so as to determine the most appropriate way to categorise cars and also the allocation of COEs accordingly. A possible method is to categorise cars by carbon emissions or fuel efficiency instead of engine capacity. With higher COE allocation for more efficient vehicles, this would likely assist buyers of smaller vehicles and also encourage more environmentally friendly vehicles on Singapore roads. My last question is about the volatility of COE prices. The prices have been very volatile. Sometimes, bidders are subject to the luck of the draw. COE prices can swing quite wildly from time to time.”
“I would like, Mdm Chair, for the Minister to comment on whether or not he will bring forward the implementation of the Land Transport Master Plan. Page: 158 Public Transport Fares”
“Unfortunately, our two public transport operators (PTOs) are not subject to competition, the way we know it, except for the taxi sector. If the two PTOs were subject to competition, they would not be able to raise fares or lower customer service because they risk losing market share. They would also do their utmost to reduce costs and improve productivity. We see this in many industries – the telecom industry, the airlines − whenever they are subject to competition, they become more efficient. Unfortunately, our two PTOs are two monopolies. To the Government's credit, recognising that there is no competition to SMRT and SBS Transit, it formed the Public Transport Council (PTC) to regulate fare revisions. And the fact speaks for itself. Indeed, over the last eight years, from 2006 to 2012, the net cumulative fare increase, not annual, but the total increase has totalled only 0.3%. Singapore transport fares are also competitive against other major cities. Let me move on to discuss the commuter's perspective. The average commuter is prepared to pay his fair share for transport, but he feels that price and service must go hand-in-hand. He also has sympathy for many others in the needy groups and he would look to the Government to help. To answer the question of the right fare, I think the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) published in 2008 contains an answer, which is to cause the transport operators to "compete for the market". Since Singapore is too small to have two parallel MRT lines, competing for the market would result in competition. So, every five years, the PTOs will compete, and the one with the lowest fare will win the bid. I think, this way, commuters will come to understand that the fare is fair and transparent.”
“Madam, what is the right fare to charge commuters? This is a question that continues to be asked. Let me make an attempt to frame it. There are three principal stakeholders in this equation − the Government, public transport operators and the commuters. Let us take the perspective of each of these stakeholders in turn. The Government recognises that it needs to subsidise public transport infrastructure, especially the MRT network, as all governments do for the reason that it is a very long payback investment and the private sector will not take it up. In fact, the Singapore Government does subsidise the public transport network, which some in the public are still unaware of. It builds tracks, tunnels, trains, train stations at its own cost. The reason why it does so is because these investments bring with it positive externalities for the economy and enhances the well-being of its citizenry. However, good governments, especially our Government, loathe the idea of "unfunded liability", a term Deputy Prime Minister Tharman used in his Budget speech. It would be irresponsible for the present Government to commit future generations of Singaporeans to fund current expenses in public transport more than it is necessary. So, it requires commuters to pay a fare when using public transport. The Government funds Page: 157 the infrastructure and the commuters pay a fare. The Government also does not want to run the public transport network itself because it believes that this is best left to the private sector since having a "profit objective" drives efficiency. But when applied to Singapore's current public transport landscape, this is where the argument fails. The "profit objective" alone does not drive efficiency. It is "competition" that drives efficiency.”
“This, I believe, should be priority number one for the LTA and the PTOs. Lastly, given that train reliability and service levels had not been restored, I join my parliamentary colleague, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, and others in this House to call for another gap year where fares will not be increased. This is especially so because the Fare Review Mechanism Committee which has been formed by the Transport Minister has yet to complete its findings and recommendations. Connectivity Madam, my last cut is on connectivity. This relates to Land Transport Authority's plans to build sheltered linkways within a 400-metre radius from all existing MRT stations and a 200-metre radius of all bus interchanges, LRT stations and high-usage bus shelters. I am, indeed, glad and pleased that the Government is heeding calls from commuters to provide a more pleasant walking experience between their homes and train/bus stations. This could prompt more Singaporeans to rely on the public transport network and could also reduce the need for feeder buses in Page: 143 some cases and would help in a small way to alleviate traffic congestion. I would like to ask the Minister to share with us on the timeframe for LTA to construct these sheltered linkways and how would LTA determine which constituencies will receive priority. When can commuters expect this programme to be completed island-wide? Madam, my last point is on private transport. Motorists are increasingly facing congestion on our roads. MOT has announced various plans to construct new roads. It would be good to hear from the Minister about the progress on the construction of new roads and highways, especially the Marina Bay Expressway. Transport Policy Matters”
“30 pm The "Ride-for-Free" would work better if companies, especially those in the CBD, are prepared to implement ‘flexi-hour' workdays. In this regard, would the Civil Service take the lead and introduce flexi-hour workdays especially where their departments are within the CBD. I would also ask the Minister to update the House on the progress of LTA's "Travel Smart" and "INSINC" programmes. Train Reliability Madam, my next cut is on reliability. The last few years were punctuated with unprecedented disruptions to our train services. Notably, the breakdowns on the North-South Line (NSL) in December 2011 and the North-East Line (NEL) Page: 142 in March 2012, August 2012 and January 2013 have impacted many commuters. These breakdowns have eroded commuter's confidence in the reliability of our public transport system. An unreliable transport system has ripple effects across the economy. It affects productivity and Singapore's reputation as an efficient place for business. Also, as the Government seeks to reduce demand for cars, it must provide a reliable public transport network as a viable alternative to cars. The Committee of Inquiry which investigated into the train breakdowns on the NSL had released a full report in July 2012. This report contains a comprehensive set of recommendations. As for the NEL, a joint team formed by LTA and SBS Transit has identified the corrosion of cables as the cause of the NEL disruptions and has also drawn up many remedial plans. I would like to ask the Minister to provide a progress update on the implementation of the recommendations by the Committee of Inquiry as well as the joint LTA-SBS Transit team. Only by ensuring the reliability of the train service can we restore public confidence.”
“Or does the situation call for more express bus Page: 141 services over and above the 800 new buses under BSEP? We also need to think about how to tackle the challenges the PTOs face in hiring more bus drivers. Would we consider raising bus driver wages even higher to attract Singaporeans to take up the job, and, if that fails, could we tap foreign workers from new sources rather than Malaysia and China? Now, Madam, if the transport capacity is going to grow more slowly than ridership capacity in the next three years and even if we do enhance the BSEP or add more express buses, if all these fails, then I believe we should resort to more aggressive demand management tools. This would help alleviate overcrowding, especially during the peak periods. Dr Janil Puthucheary and other Members of this House had advocated "Ride-for-Free" for early commuters. I support their appeal. The current SMRT early travel discount of 50 cents for commuters arriving at the city centre before 7.45 am had very limited effect. And although it remains to be seen if "Ride-for-Free" can shift commuting patterns sufficiently, it is definitely worth a try. There should be, in my opinion, an "economic clearing price" to incentivise a sufficient number of commuters to wake up early and to travel during the pre-morning peaks. However, I have several caveats for those supporting the scheme. It should be done, in my view, only for selected routes and there must also be an end date specified upfront to coincide with the easing of peak period congestion as new transport capacity is introduced, otherwise this will become a very entrenched scheme and the Government of the future may find it difficult to withdraw. 5.”
“Madam, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Madam, my first cut is on public transport capacity. The 2030 Transport Plan aims to double the length of the rail network to about 360 kilometres. This should relieve congestion, reduce travel time, and improve connectivity and frequency of service in the long term. However, commuters are facing daily problems with crowded trains and buses, long waiting times and sometimes circuitous routes. They want to know how the Government and PTOs can improve their daily commute in the short term. More specifically, they would like to ask whether there is sufficient new transport capacity to serve the projected increase in ridership. Would the current congestion get worse before it gets better? I think these are very important questions that the Government and PTOs need to address immediately and I would like to ask the Minister to share with us the Ministry's projections on the capacity growth compared to ridership growth in each of the next three years, which is, this year, 2014 and 2015. As we know, various factors can contribute to ridership growth. These include the reduction of COE supply, the latest MAS announcement to tighten car financing, increased tourist arrivals and improved connectivity and coverage of our transport network. Ridership growth on public transport in the short term can become a very serious problem if our transport capacity cannot grow in tandem with it. If, indeed, the congestion problem is going to get worse in the near term, would the Minister consider accelerating the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP)? In other words, can he bring forward the schedule for implementing the BSEP?”
“Mdm Chair, may I take the three cuts together?”