Mah Bow Tan
Singapore
“The previous generation of Singaporeans overcame huge odds together to create this improbable nation which we call home. Let this generation work as one to define our country for the next lap of our journey. Sir, on this note, I fully support the amended Motion. Page: 143”
“Like all upgrading programmes, there is a certain budget, and a certain pace at which we will build. We have completed the LUP and now we are going on towards the HIP. The Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) is ongoing.”
“For those who cannot afford home ownership, we will provide rental flats. For the rest where there is hardship involved, that is where the safety net comes in. I do not think we should make the safety net so wide as to bring in everybody.”
“Building a studio apartment is no different from building any other HDB flat. If a person applies now and the building works start now, he can get it in two-and-a-half years to three years. We have stepped up the building of studio apartments over the last couple of years.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people have signed an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) and how many have revoked them since; and (b) whether there is a need to review the current rules on AMDs which do not require a person who has revoked the AMD to inform the Registrar, thus causing uncertainty for hospitals t…”
“Parents who wish to exert more control over the maximum mobile service charges incurred by their children may consider service options such as mobile pre-paid cards. IDA is aware of the public's concerns on mobile subscriptions, and will continually review policies and look into measures to further protect the interest of consumers.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,030 lines we hold for Mah Bow Tan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 43 of 61.
“Sir, at this juncture, I would like to make an announcement on the COE quota for the quota year May 1998 to April 1999. The new tax structure that was introduced together with ERP implementation as well as the road tax package will not only allow us to control traffic congestion more effectively but, as I have repeated, it will also give us this opportunity to increase the number of COEs if traffic congestion is controlled. I have announced previously that we will issue about 15,000 to 20,000 more COEs over the next three to four years depending on the progress and effectiveness of ERP. If you may recall, we released about 5,500 additional COEs for this quota year ending this month, when we extended the Road Pricing Scheme to the two Expressways, and that was last year. In conjunction with the widening of the Road Pricing Scheme, we released the additional COEs. For the coming quota year, which is from May 1998 to April 1999, we will monitor the traffic patterns after the ERP has been implemented in the CBD - when we have extended it to the CBD and other RPS points on 1st September - before we decide on the appropriate number of extra COEs to be injected. Based on the current formula for computing COE quota, the total number of COEs for the next quota year is 47,885 which is higher than the current quota of 44,813 which included the extra 5,500 COEs. The LTA will release details of the quota of the individual COE categories shortly. Sir, I now turn to the taxi industry. I would like to thank Mr Seng Han Thong and Mr Goh Chee Wee for their support of the new vehicle tax structure. Mr Seng's concern was how the new structure can be translated to benefit taxi companies, taxi drivers as well as passengers.”
“So there is really no problem about small motorcycle owners getting their bikes registered or COEs registered. In fact, they are the ones who are really determining the price of the COEs, if anything. So I do not see any need at this juncture to do the separation. But, in principle, I must say that there is a case to be made for just one category for all vehicles. That is from the transport point of view. We just look at it from that point of view, we do not need to have Categories 1 to 4 for cars. But land transport tax structure, COEs, is not a straightforward matter. When we implemented the COE system, we divided it into four categories because we realised that, at that time, if buyers of small cars competed with buyers of large cars, there would be a general sense of unfairness. For that reason, we have had the COE system of today where there are four categories and where the price of each category is determined by how many COEs are there and how much demand there is for each one. Each category of COE price reflects the price that the motorist in that category is prepared to pay. It is not the Government that decides what price it is. It is the buyer. But there is a point that both Dr Wang and Mr Chng Hee Kok have made which I think is valid. We have had the COE system since 1990. It is timely for us to do a review from time to time. I agree that we should do a comprehensive review of the Vehicle Quota System this time round. In so far as timing is concerned, I think the appropriate time would be when the new vehicle tax changes are implemented and when the system settles down a little bit. Then I think we should do this comprehensive review and when we do that, I would welcome any and all suggestions on how we should rationalise the COE system.”
“The AA's statistics on breakdowns on the roads show that. There will always be exceptions. Many people can keep their old cars very, very well. But the exceptions do not prove the rule. The rule is that generally old cars tend to break down more often. So I would hesitate to tinker with this policy because I think it has served us well. Similarly, extension of COEs. First of all, we want to keep the population young. But I just want to highlight that if you extend your COE by two years, chances are that you are just going to bump up the COE prices, because the life of the COE has gone up by 20%, people are going to factor that in when they next bid. 4.15 pm Mr Gerard Ee suggested that we should lower the ARF further. The reason why the Ministry decided not to do this was because of the very significant knock-on effects of such a move. As he realises, when we made the change in 1991, we reduced ARF from 175% to 150% at that time. Very quickly the COE prices rose in tandem. So it is also going to happen this time. Of course, people may ask what is wrong with that. When COE prices go up, the prevailing quota premium (PQP) also goes up and that has an impact on all those who want to renew their COE after it has expired. So we have decided to err on the side of caution as far as this is concerned. We will reduce, if any, on a gradual basis. For this time, we have decided that a moderate 10% reduction is sufficient. Mr Gerard Ee also made a point about COEs for motorcycles. COE prices for motorcycles have fallen in recent months. In the past six months, about 90% of the quota of motorcycle COEs are actually used to register small bikes, those engine capacities of less than 500 cc. 90% of motor bike COEs are actually used for small bikes.”
“But, again, considering the complexity of the system as it is today, I would like to take it step-by-step and see whether the system works first. And then later on, once motorists are more familiar with the system and are more assured of the reliability, safety and effectiveness of the system, then we can consider further refinements, such as those suggested by Mr Sinnakaruppan. Mr Goh Choon Kang suggested that the statutory lifespan of cars be extended to 12 years and the PARF benefits correspondingly. Sir, just let me point out that private cars do not have a statutory lifespan. In other words, you can keep your private car for as long as you want, so long as you pay the requisite taxes and so long as you pay the COE when it expires. So you can keep your car indefinitely, unlike taxis where you have to scrap the taxi after seven years, unlike buses where you have to scrap it after 15 years now, unlike rental cars, tuition cars, and so on. Private cars have no statutory lifespan. So the question of extending the statutory lifespan does not apply here. Yes, you can introduce an extended PARF scheme. But here I would be cautious because what we have tried to do with our vehicle population is to try and keep it young. We have an aging population problem with cars too, because the age of the car population is actually getting older and older every year. And today, about 25% of our cars on the road, one in four cars on the road, is more than 10 years old. So if we were to relax on this policy, I think we will see a much greater proliferation of old cars. And no matter how you look at it, no matter how well you keep your car, there is no doubt that, generally speaking, older cars are more likely to break down. Our statistics at the LTA inspection centres show that.”
“Secondly, by charging per pass, the moment you pass through a point and hear a beep, and you realise that your cash card balance has gone down by X dollars, you become more conscious of the cost of motoring. You become more conscious of the fact that you are actually passing through an ERP control point. Thirdly, by using smart cards, we can also help to move towards a cashless society. Smart cards are an important way of commercial transactions. They can become more important if we can encourage more people to use it. I believe that the ERP will provide one of these "killer" applications, as they call it, for smart cards in Singapore. And finally, last but not least, there is a question of privacy that I alluded to you earlier. Privacy is an issue for some motorists. In fact, I believe Mr Sinnakaruppan may have understated the concerns of motorists about privacy. It is a concern. If you recall, when Hong Kong was looking at the electronic road pricing system some years back, one of the reasons why they dropped it was because of this concern of privacy. And at that time the only system available was the centralised billing system. So I would not rule out this concern about privacy. But that is not the major reason why we chose the Cashcard system. As I said, there were many other reasons. Nevertheless, his suggestion is a valid one because if we can do it, it does help to make the system more convenient. It is a direct debit system. It is almost a Giro system. It is like the transit link card system where you do not have to top up your transit link card. Every time it falls below a certain balance, as it goes through the MRT turnstiles, it automatically tops up for you. So it is possible to be done. It is convenient. And we will look into that.”
“But the suppliers assure us that it is safe. They have consulted, as far as they can, with motor manufacturers on where it should be located. The installers have also been trained to install it in such a way that the unit would not be dislodged. All in all, I think we have to take the results of the tests as reliable and we will implement it come 1st April, with the assurances that it will be safe and it will be reliable. But I will take Dr Toh's suggestion to put some of these details in the LTA Webpage, the Internet Website, eg, the FAQs, as he called it, on the IU and the ERP systems. If he is interested, the website address is "www.lta.gov.sg". If you cannot access that one, you can also go through the AA website which is "www.aas.com.sg", and this is hyperlinked to the LTA website. There were other concerns raised by Mr Sinnakaruppan. He is suggesting that we use other forms of payment for ERP, like NETS, cash, and credit card. When we first drew up the specifications, we had to decide whether we wanted to use a passive system, in other words, a centralised billing system whereby we will send you a bill every month, and Mr Sinnakaruppan would go and check his bill and see where he has been for the last month, and he would decide whether the bill is correct or not. That was one option. The other option was an active system, a smart card based system where you get deduction every time you pass through. No record is kept, no bills are sent to your house. We have decided to go for the smart card system for several reasons. First of all, in this way we do not need a centralised accounting and billing system, which is a very costly and very massive exercise.”
“Such systems are well accepted in Europe and Japan. If you travel on highways in Japan, for example, you will see these numbers on the expressways which give you times. Those are the times which tell you how much congestion there is on that stretch of highway. So 50 minutes mean that you expect to reach the next junction in 50 minutes; please, if you can, avoid that junction. That is basically what those signs mean. But, as I said, it is something new, give it a try, and you will be pleasantly surprised at how useful it can be. Dr Toh See Kiat expressed concern about safety and reliability of the IU. I understand his concern because I think this is a matter which concerns every motorist, and for motorists to see a foreign object staring at him in the face in the car can be rather unnerving. But I have the assurance from the consortium which has tendered and is supplying the IU. It is an international consortium (Philips, Mitsubishi, Mitsui Electronics, CEI Systems in Singapore) and they have been awarded the contract. We have drawn up very rigid specifications for them to carry out very rigorous tests. In fact, the testing in the laboratory and the testing in the field took something like 18 months, longer than most new products which go to market. We had to be more than careful. We could have done the acceptance tests in a much shorter time. But we were dealing with 680,000 vehicles throughout Singapore and we wanted this system to last, we wanted the reliability of the system to be as high as possible, and we could not take chances. This is the reason why the testing took longer than usual. It is another reason why it cannot be miniaturised. The answer is that testing started off 18 months ago and during that time, many things had happened.”
“But let us try the simple structure first and, if it works, we will extend it to other congestion points, and we will also look at varying the pricing to suit the traffic pattern more accurately, as suggested by Mr Chng. Mr Chng has some comments on gantries. Very quickly, I just wish to clarify that there are two gantries. Separate gantries for CBD and ERP are only a temporary problem. Come 1st September, there will only be one gantry. Location of gantries - Dr Michael Lim suggested that we review the locations of gantries so that motorists are not charged unnecessarily. Yes, I agree. With the present system, we already have some problems like that. So, with ERP, we will take the opportunity to review. But at the end of the day, I would advise all motorists to continue to plan their journeys well in advance. Mr Iswaran had a few queries about flexibility. We will be flexible, in terms of implementation and enforcement. But we hope that motorists will take the time and effort to get to understand the system, to use it and to be familiar with it, so that there are very little user-related problems, come 1st April. He asked about EMAS, what is EMAS. Basically, it is an early warning system, to put it very clearly. I am not familiar with the MINDEF jargon, but I can assure him that it is an early warning system, just like MINDEF has early warning systems, and equally useful for motorists once they get used to it. There has been a rather protracted period of testing which has confused some people and attracted some rather snide comments. But I would like to suggest that we give it a try when it starts and, if it works as well as planners feel, I think it will be a great boon to motorists. Incidentally, this is not something new.”
“It is fairer and it is more effective in encouraging road users to cut down on their usage. So on this basis, it is not possible to accede to Dr Michael Lim's suggestion that we levy a lower fee on those who, for one reason or another, need to use the roads more often. This is not fair to those who do not use the roads more often or who have managed to change their pattern in such a way that they do not use the roads more often. If we did that, it would defeat the purpose of the ERP. However, as Members would be well aware, we have recognised that this is a sudden change in the system. To the heavy users, it will come as a very sudden shock. To accommodate that, we have decided that we will phase in the changes over three or four years for taxis and commercial vehicles. And this is the reason why Mr Chay observed that motorcycles will be paying lower ERP charges than taxis, because we are phasing in taxi charges over three years. Of course, this only applies in the first few years. However, when the phasing-in period is over, ERP rates for taxis will be exactly the same as for private cars, by which time his concern is no longer valid. 4.00 pm Mr Chng Hee Kok made some suggestions on road pricing. Yes, we decided to introduce the concept of shoulder pricing because of this phenomenon of "peak within the peak" where everybody tries to jam into that particular stretch of road at that particular time. So we have decided that we will try and spread out that peak load by levying lower charges in the shoulder periods. However, "shoulder" pricing is a new concept, and I think we should start off with a more simple structure. Therefore, we have decided to have a peak price, a shoulder price and an off-peak price. It is a little bit discreet, I agree.”
“I expect that there will be changes and, in fact, this is what we hope will be achieved when we introduce the ERP, that we hope to change people's driving habits. And if motorists' driving habits are changed in such a way that they do not have to pay so much for ERP, so be it. That is the purpose of the ERP system. If they decide that they are going to drive irrespective of ERP charges, then we will collect the revenue, because the motorist willingly has decided that he is going to pay. How will the revenue situation be like five years from now? I do not know. All I know is that we have a mechanism in place which puts the responsibility firmly in the hands of the motoring public. And that, I think, is a fairer way of doing things. It is more rational and, I believe, it is more effective. Sir, I turn now to some of the specific concerns of Members. Mr Chay expressed some concern that motorcyclists are paying high ERP charges than taxis, and he felt that it was not fair. Dr Michael Lim also suggested that we should consider low ERP charges for those who use the roads more frequently. Sir, the principle of shifting upfront cost to the usage cost is really one of the fundamental principles of the ERP policy or strategy to manage demand for road space. Why? Because a vehicle owner who has paid a lot of money for his car or motorbike and pays very little or nothing for its use would have very little incentive to cut down on usage. So this is why in the new tax structure, we have reduced upfront taxes. We have cut registration fee. We have cut ARF and we have shifted more of the cost to usage, mainly through the ERP charges. The ERP is a pay per pass system. The more you use, the more you pay.”
“But if we also have in tandem a mechanism which regulates the usage of roads, which encourages people to use the roads more judiciously and if we put the two together, then we have two very powerful levers to allow us to manage road congestion but, at the same time, to allow for a regular increase in the number of vehicles on the roads, which is part and parcel of managing aspirations, managing people's desire to own cars. No, we cannot have ERP alone, we cannot scrap COEs, but neither can we have COEs alone without the ERP. Is it a revenue collecting mechanism? I say, yes. But we do it in a way that gives the motorists the choice whether they want to pay that fee for using the roads or not. The upfront taxes have already been reduced, slashed in some cases. The ERP revenue is an estimate. If the system is successful, there is really no reason why we should be collecting more revenue than what we are collecting today. On that basis, we have decided to make those tax changes on a revenue neutral basis today by giving rebates, by reducing taxes. The tax reductions alone, including the estimate of increased ERP revenue over the next five years, is going to cost the Government something like $1.2 billion, over five years. What happens after five years, Mr Low asked. The rebates will run out. By that time, people would have had time to adjust to the new ERP infrastructure. And in five years' time, if people continue to drive as they do today, if businesses continue to operate as they do today, in spite of the fact that now they will be charged for the use of the roads, that now they are going to be charged per pass, I would be very surprised.”
“Most Singaporeans do not drive to work. They take the bus and the MRT. They will not be affected by the ERP. And, indeed, if we can make the roads clearer for the buses, then surely that must be welcomed by bus commuters if they can actually get to work on time and get to work faster. So, rather than saying that the ERP is actually discriminating against the poor, he has forgotten that actually there is a very large group of people in Singapore who will be benefiting, directly through faster travel, and indirectly through the revenues that we collect from ERP. Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong made the comment that ERP is a revenue collecting mechanism. I have addressed that point earlier. Mr Chiam further asked whether COEs will be scrapped as a result of the ERP. Mr Low has already given him the reply, right answer but wrong working. I think he gets half mark for that. The right answer is that we cannot scrap COEs. We have to keep COEs, at the same time that we have to introduce ERP, because the two must go hand in hand. If we just carry on with COEs, we end up in a situation where it is very inflexible. We cannot continue to keep adding COEs. We are now talking about a 3% increase every year. Our land does not expand by 3% every year ad infinitum. At which point in time do we have to start to scale back on COEs? 20 years' time, 30 years' time, if we were to depend on just this mechanism alone?”
“And among these competing uses, we have to build roads. Today, we already have 12% of our land devoted to roads. How much more land should we give up in order to build roads? We cannot be building more roads. So we manage the use of existing road space. We encourage people not to use their cars if they do not really need to. But how do we define need? Who are we to say that your need is greater than the next person's need? We do not wish to define that. We let the motorist decide. How do we make better use of the land set aside for roads? We give priority to buses. Why? Because buses make the most effective use of road space. And Mr Rai is absolutely correct and I am glad that, although he is in the minority, he has spoken up for the bus commuters, because this is also the reason why we are introducing ERP. We introduce ERP to encourage people to use our roads wisely. We say that pricing is the most efficient mechanism to allocate this scarce resource. At the end of the day, we collect revenue from people using this scarce resource. Mr Low Thia Khiang says that this is a revenue collecting mechanism. Yes, it is a revenue collecting mechanism, and I am not ashamed to say that it is a revenue collecting mechanism. But what do we do with this money? When we collect the revenues from people who voluntarily decide to use the roads, we take the money, which is the property of all Singaporeans, and we put it to good use, whether it is for public transport infrastructure, education or housing. It goes into consolidated revenue which is then used for the public good. And what is wrong with that? Mr Jeyaretnam then suggests that ERP is unfair because it only affects the poor, while the rich will not be affected because they can afford to pay. Has he not forgotten something?”
“Is it not better for us to reduce the upfront cost of owning a vehicle, as we have done with the road tax rationalisation, to give back to the motorist a certain sum of money, not an inconsiderable sum of money, and then to let the motorist decide for himself whether he wants to give this money back to the LTA? 3.45 pm Many cities are coming around to this harsh reality that, first of all, road space is a scarce resource and, secondly, that the best way of allocating this scarce resource is to charge a certain price for using it, like any other scarce resource, whether it is water, land, oil, etc. In Singapore, we faced up to this harsh reality many years ago when we introduced road pricing in 1975, when we introduced the Area Licensing Scheme. At that time, the CBD was becoming congested. There were only so many roads you could build in the CBD and yet there were more jobs in the city. There were more people wanting to drive into the CBD. There were more offices, more meetings being held, more people wanting to drive their vehicles in. What do we do? We charge $3 if you want to drive in. If you have no business to be in there, do not pay the $3. That is one car less. And the motorist who pays the $3 suddenly realises, "Hey, I've got a little bit more space to move. My car moves a little bit faster. I get to that meeting a little bit earlier. I save time." And surely to a businessman, time means money. So at the end of the day, the $3 that he spends is more than recovered by the amount of time he has saved, by the amount of hassle he has forgone. We have only so much land. There are so many competing uses for our land. We have to make optimal use of our land for housing, for catchment areas, for factories, for playgrounds, for schools, etc.”
“Sir, the reality today is that people are now coming around to the idea that road space is a scarce resource, as scarce a resource like water, oil, or any other commodity which is in short supply. So when Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam said that he does not oppose the idea of unclogging our roads, that it is a good idea, I was very happy to hear that because I think it is the first time that he has accepted that roads are a scarce resource. So now we are getting somewhere in the debate. But he does not favour the idea of charging. He says that if we charge for this road usage, this scarce resource, we are being unfair. He prefers to ration. He prefers to allocate this scarce resource by fiat. He decides, or the Government decides, or the civil servant decides who gets to use the road and who does not - black labels, red labels, no label, I guess, that would be the third category. So who gets the black label? Who gets the red label? It reminds me of some brand of whisky. But who are we to decide who is more deserving of using the road? The housewife who is driving a child to school, the businessman who needs a car to attend an important meeting, the salesman who has to take the car around to drive for appointments? Mr Jeyaretnam says salesmen, black label; doctors, black label; housewife with kids, red label; those who go to work, no label, because you have no right to be driving to work. I must say I sympathise with that point of view. But who are we to decide or to tell people that you cannot drive to work and that if you use your car just to drive to work, you get no label? Is it not better for us to give the choice back to the motorist to let him decide what he wants to do through a system of charging a fair price for the use of the roads?”
“I would also like to thank Members for their support of the new vehicle tax structure and the ERP implementation plan. There have been a few dissenting voices on the ERP which I would like to deal with before I address the specific concerns that were raised by Members. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, in particular, questioned the principle of charging for road usage. He asked whether it is fair to charge for the use of the roads. For many years, most countries, if not all countries, operated on the principle that all motorists just need to pay a lump sum for the use of the roads and thereafter, the use of roads would be virtually free. So irrespective of how many times they drove or how much congestion or how much pollution they cause, there would be no incremental cost involved in using the roads. This was well and good, until more and more people wanted to also enjoy this free usage, and as more and more people wanted to use these same roads at the same time, the roads became more and more congested. The classic solution for many countries then was to build more roads, ie, not enough roads, roads are being congested, just build some more. If there is not enough land, you just build over, double-decker and triple-decker roads. But many cities are finding out today that their citizens are no longer prepared to have the road builders come along and rip up their country side or to see their cityscape destroyed by all these ugly concrete flyovers all over the place, and having all these cars polluting the country side or the city that they are living in. Why suffer all this in order to allow motorists to come and drive on the roads and pollute the environment?”
“Sir, in the Committee of Supply in July last year, I announced that my Ministry would undertake a comprehensive review of the vehicle tax structure in conjunction with the implementation of ERP. We had two objectives in mind. One, was to achieve a better ownership between ownership and usage in managing our traffic, in better controlling traffic congestion; and, two, was to have a fairer, a more rational and a more consistent basis for taxing vehicles on the road. The new vehicle tax structure announced last week on 4th March should not be seen in isolation. It has to be taken as a total package, in other words, taken together with the ERP implementation plan as well as the package of road tax rebates. Just to give a very quick summary and the bottom line of the new tax package, a majority or 70% of vehicle owners, especially companies and businesses, will benefit from savings in road tax. The remaining 30% will see an increase in their road tax mainly because they have been paying a disproportionately low road tax relative to other vehicles when you consider the amount of road space they use or the amount of wear and tear they cause on our roads. However, to help them adjust, the Government has phased in the road tax increase over three years. We should take it as a total package, ie, the new tax structure, the phasing in and also the road tax rebates which all vehicle owners will enjoy. Many of these vehicle owners, especially motorcyclists, will end up paying lower or no road tax in the next few years. Reactions to the new tax structure have been generally positive and I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all those who have given their comments and feedback in the consultation exercise that my Ministry conducted last year.”
“I am not aware of what the Member has said just now that they are not interested in coming into the market. PENALTY FOR USING GIANT JOSS STICKS (Grace period) 4. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked the Minister for the Environment whether his Ministry will consider giving a grace period of, say, 6 months to a year before levying the proposed penalty of $2,000 in violation of the recent ruling governing the use of giant joss sticks.”
“It is going to be neutral if we can, and I certainly hope we can, issue more COEs. Because one of the benefits of this scheme is that we are able to, if we can spread the load and get motorists to use the roads less, actually increase the allowable COEs over and above the 3%. If that happens, then the additional revenues and the additional taxes as a result of that will help to offset this package. But it is not a target. The ERP charges will be levied based on traffic conditions. It will not be based on revenue consideration.”
“When we formulated the new tax structure, we had to have some idea of what revenue impact this would have because we are talking about changes in not only annual road taxes but also upfront taxes. In establishing the new regime, we took into account the basic principles, which is what I explained in Parliament earlier where we are shifting taxes from ownership to usage, where we are taxing cars, buses and motorcycles relative to road usage, where we are talking about giving concessions to public transport vehicles and so on and so forth. But the most important principle for us was the last principle of revenue neutrality. Because without that principle we are not able to arrive at numbers. We can only talk about principles, but we have to arrive at new numbers, new taxes, for different classes of vehicles. It is not a target. It is an indication of what our intention is for this exercise, ie, it is not an exercise to raise revenue, but it is an exercise in changing the way we use and charge for the use of our roads with the intention that this new regime will keep our roads free-flowing. On that basis, we have made the shift. We have reduced upfront taxes. We have put it into ERP and usage charges. But how much to charge? We have to get the calculations done. That calculation was done on that basis of revenue neutrality over a period of five to eight years. Why five to eight years? It is because the current estimate is that with this new package, we will be revenue negative for the next five years, which the Finance Minister has said, to the tune of slightly over $1 billion. So $200 million negative every year, even taking into account the increased ERP revenues. How is it going to be neutral?”
“But we have recognised that motorcyclists belong to several different categories. The bulk of the motorcyclists in Singapore are 200 cc and below. For them, we are actually charging them a tax which is less than what they should actually be paying. So we have also shifted that downwards. For 1000 cc bikes and above, we have made no adjustments. No special consideration for them. They are paying the correct taxes for motorcycles relative to cars. So with these adjustments, with the phasing in, and with an appropriate choice of the PCU unit, we believe that we have adopted a fair, consistent and rational basis for taxes for motorcycles as well as for all other vehicles. This is the total package that we are implementing together with the ERP.”
“How do we go from where we are today to what each vehicle should rightly pay based on traffic and social considerations? For all those who are going to pay less, there is no problem. It is a question of charging the new rate for them and they will enjoy the savings. Good luck to them. But those who are paying more, we have taken the decision that we will phase in these increases where there is an increase, and the motorcyclists belong to this category that they will have to pay higher road tax. That is a fact based on their contribution to road usage and other considerations like social equity and so on. So a 1600 cc bike or a 1200 cc bike will pay $620 a year instead of $300 a year for those big luxury bikes. A 400 cc bike will pay $180 a year instead of $80 a year, an increase of $100 a year. The smallest bike, say, the Honda 125 cc , instead of paying $30 a year, will have to pay $100 eventually. So motorcyclists should be paying $100, $180 and $620 relative to other vehicles on the road. That is how we derive the new tax structure. To minimise the pain and to phase in the increases, we have done it over three years. On top of that, we are giving the ERP rebates. You put all these things together, as I said, the net result is that motorcyclists and many other vehicle owners will over the next couple of years actually be paying less road tax than what they are paying today. Of course, yes, this will be phased in. Motorcyclists will have to adjust to these increases over three years in paying the new taxes. But that is because, as I said, under the new tax regime, this is what they should rightly be paying. We have not adjusted the tax rates for many, many years. This is the overall review that we are undertaking and this is the net result of that review.”
“Sir, basically, when we did this exercise, we started off with a blank sheet of paper. I said in Parliament, and I said to the Motor Traders Association and various interest groups, that this is an opportunity for us to start off from basics, to see how different types of vehicles, different sizes, different cc, different seating capacity, how much each vehicle should pay for using our roads and for causing wear and tear of our roads. We started off with a blank piece of paper. We did not look at the existing tax structure. How much should a big car pay as opposed to a small car? How much should a bus pay relative to a motorcycle and so on and so forth? There is a whole range of vehicles registered on our roads today, 680,000 of them, ranging from very small 100 cc bikes, all the way to very heavy goods vehicles, the semi-trailers and so on. We are starting off, as I said, with a blank sheet of paper. We are looking at the right tax that each vehicle should pay based on (1) traffic considerations; and (2) based on what I would call social equity considerations, meaning if you drive a bigger car, you should actually be paying a higher tax than a smaller car. If you ride a bigger motorcycle, you should be paying more than a smaller motorcycle. We put all these things together and we came up with a basis for charging different vehicles. In the process, we realised that for some vehicles, they should be paying lower tax, eg, goods vehicles. For other vehicles, they should be paying higher tax. For example, motor-cycles. Motorcycles' tax has not been changed for decades. Some of them pay $20 a year in tax, which also has not been changed for decades. But that is where we are today.”
“Sir, the school bus operators will also not incur higher taxes. They will also incur lower taxes; again, as part of the total package. So there is really no reason for them to increase any of the bus fees, for at least this year and the next few years.”
“Sir, as I have already indicated, the majority of motorcyclists, in fact, over 80% do not pay. 10% pay once, which they are already paying today. So the Member is talking about the 5% of motorcyclists who use it regularly. As I explained to his colleague, Mr Low Thia Khiang, it is up to the motorcyclist himself to start to readjust his way of operation. If you are a motorcyclist who use the congested roads in the CBD five times, 10 times or 20 times, why should the rest of the motorcyclists who do not use the roads have to pay? Why do they not get the benefits?”
“If that were the case, we might as well not have implemented it, because this scheme is meant for people to change their driving habits. But in the formulation of the scheme, we have taken pains to make sure that the pain for motorcyclists is minimised, and we have done so in several ways. We have looked at the PCU ratings. We have looked at how motorcyclists should be taxed in relation to cars. We have taken the smallest number to compute their road tax. We have looked at small motorcycles as opposed to big motorcycles. We have looked at the motorcyclist who owns a 200 cc motorcycle and below and taxed him differently from somebody, say, who owns a Harley Davidson, and we phase in the increases, if any, over three years. All this, taken together with the road tax rebate and phase-in, means that effectively 99% of motorcyclists actually do not pay any more taxes. In fact, if you look at the calculations which we have done, motorcyclists owning vehicles below 350 cc actually will pay zero road tax over the new few years. Five years later, they would have adjusted. But, as I said, this scheme is not meant to be a standstill for motorcycle taxes. That I must admit.”
“The Ministry has looked at the position of motorcyclists very carefully because we realise very well that people who own motorcycles are people who generally belong to the lower income group and who need to use their motorcycles for business. The fact is that more than 80% of motorcyclists today do not pass through any ALS or RPS point. This finding is based on surveys as well as on the sale of ALS and RPS coupons. In other words, 86% of motorcyclists do not pass through any of these points. What that means is that any rebates and any tax savings that will arise as a result of this package will be beneficial to them. It will go straight to their pockets because they do not have to pay anything upfront. Secondly, another 10% of motorcyclists pass through the ALS or RPS points once. So, if we implement ERP and if the rates are more or less the same as what they are today, again, there is really no difference from what the situation is today. And any rebates that they get will also go straight to their pockets. So it is the very small group of people, about 5% or so, who use the RPS and ALS very often, yes, they will have to incur higher cost. But as I said, this is the purpose of the road pricing scheme. This is the purpose of electronic road pricing which encourages people to save and penalises people who use our roads during congested hours more heavily. It is precisely for that reason that we are implementing ERP. It is not to make the scheme revenue neutral for each and every motorist or motorcyclist. Therefore, it is incumbent on companies and motorcyclists to now relook at the way they are doing business. That is the whole idea of the scheme. It is not meant to be a painless scheme for everybody.”
“Sir, the package of tax reductions and the introduction of ERP was done as a total package. In other words, the implementation of ERP is actually going to be effective in a very small way on 1st April, a very small way, but in a more widespread way from 1st September. Therefore, the LTA formulated this package of measures to also be effective from 1st September. As regards motorists holding back their purchases, as far as those who already have COEs in hand are concerned, what I would term old COEs, there is really no reason for them to hold back their purchases because those with old COEs will not be allowed to register their vehicles under the new tax regime. That would be unfair to those who have already registered using the old COEs. Old COEs already available have to be used to register vehicles using the old tax regime. So there is still business to be done. As regards people holding back purchases of new vehicles, the Motor Traders Association and other parties have made representations to the LTA. The LTA is now studying these representations and it will consider these views and an announcement will be made one way or another very soon.”
“May I ask the Member what confusion he is talking about?”
“Sir, the Member obviously has not read the newspapers or the LTA webpages, in the same way that he has not read the NTUC News. I would recommend that he does so before he asks this question, because if he had, then he would realise that in fact 90% of the motorcyclists, with the phasing in of road taxes and with the ERP rebates that will be given to them in the first few years, will actually either be paying lower road taxes or no road tax.”
“Mr Speaker, as I said, if everything remains the same, if transport companies continue to run their business in the same way without making any adjustment, then the answer is yes, there would be additional cost to them. But this is precisely the reason why we are implementing a new system which is charging for usage rather than charging for ownership. Because there is now a rebalancing of the structure and there is now a shift of charges from ownership to usage, there will be, at the very beginning, upfront savings for these companies that the Member talks about. It is now a question of how those companies adjust their business in order to try and keep as much as possible of those savings that have been given to them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for companies that are involved in transport and logistics like freight forwarding, there will be a substantial reduction in their upfront cost as well as in their road tax. But on the other hand, the ERP will add cost to the usage of the roads. How much additional costs they will incur as a result of ERP is difficult for us to say because it depends very much on their usage. But ultimately, ERP is a tool for us to help businesses to readjust the way of doing business and to encourage them to use the roads more judiciously, as I said. In the long run, if they succeed in doing so, it will even be more beneficial to them. Indeed, companies like the bus companies and the taxi companies have already started to make use of technology, to make use of new ways of operating their business in order to adjust to the ERP. In so doing, they will reap not only the full benefits of the upfront tax reductions but they will also help to reduce their ERP bill.”
“The annual road tax of most commercial vehicles will also be reduced substantially, by as much as $2,000. Where taxes have been increased, we will phase in the increase over three years. To help businesses adjust to the ERP system, we will phase-in the ERP charges for all commercial vehicles over the next three to four years. In effect, many vehicle owners will pay lower road pricing charges than what they pay today. Commercial vehicle owners and fleet operators will benefit even more if they exercise their ingenuity and discretion. They can reduce their ERP bill by planning their routes and scheduling their delivery times carefully, and pooling transport resources where possible.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, road pricing is a major pillar in our long-term strategy to keep our roads free-flowing. Our roads are our economic arteries. If they get clogged, transport costs will go up, businesses will lose time and money, and the productivity of our workers will suffer. Road pricing has been implemented in Singapore since 1975 with the Area Licensing Scheme, and recently with the Road Pricing Scheme on our expressways. It has been successful in managing the traffic on our roads. But more needs to be done because on one hand our vehicle population is growing, yet on the other hand our land area remains constant. The Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) will replace both the ALS and the RPS schemes. It is more flexible, more efficient and in the long run, more cost effective. It marks a shift in emphasis, from charging for vehicle ownership to charging for usage. It will encourage more judicious usage and keep our roads congestion free. There is no reason to delay the start of ERP on 1st April because of the current economic situation. In fact, the current slow-down should spur us to implement policies to strengthen our advantages, like our transport system, in order to maintain our economic competitiveness. The ERP and the new vehicle tax structure revealed on 4th March serve this objective. The new tax structure and the package of ERP rebates benefit most motorists in general and businesses in particular. For example, Additional Registration Fee (ARF) for tourist buses will be reduced from 55% of Open Market Value (OMV) to 5% of OMV, Registration Fee (RF) for goods vehicles will be reduced by as much as $13,000, and ARF for engineering plant vehicles will be waived.”
“Sir, as I said in my reply just now, the experts will be reconvening in Jakarta some time next week. After they have formulated the next phase of their investigation, I will request them to hold a press briefing to explain the status of the investigation so far, from the experts' point of view, and also to brief the public on what it intends to do in the next phase. DIVESTMENT OF GOVERNMENT-LINKED COMPANIES 7. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan asked the Minister for Finance, in light of the fundamental dilemma of public accountability versus entrepreneurial risk-taking which Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) face, as well as the Government's long-term intention of full divestment of those companies with commercial activities, whether the Government will consider accelerating the full divestment of some GLCs or some of the businesses of GLCs by schemes such as Management Buy-Outs.”
“Sir, investigations on the crash by a team of Indonesian, Singaporean and American experts are in progress, both in the United States and Indonesia. The task is made more difficult by the lack of useful data from the two black boxes, despite extensive efforts by investigators from the United States National Transportation and Safety Bureau (NTSB) and other expert agencies. The investigation team is headed by Indonesia and includes representatives from Singapore, the US and Australia. It will meet in Jakarta soon to review the status of the investigation and to work out a plan for the subsequent investigation task. These tasks include laboratory examination of wreckage pieces, reconstruction of parts of the aircraft, flight simulations using computers of flight simulators, study of the human performance aspects, review of flight and maintenance documents and further analysis of data from the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder. We hope that this phase of the investigation will provide us some clues to the cause of this tragic incident. On the question of foul play, so far, the team has not uncovered any evidence and there is no suspicion of foul play. On the matter of compensation, I am informed by SilkAir that their lawyer is currently liaising with the legal next-of-kin of the deceased. Compensation will be paid in accordance with the contract of carriage under international aviation regulations.”
“Also, the introduction of the Secondary Normal (Technical) course four years ago has temporarily constrained the number of trainees entering the Scheme. We expect the yearly number of trainees joining the Apprenticeship Scheme to increase to 1,700 (from 1,000 in 1997) when the first batch of Normal (Technical) school-leavers enters the job market this year. The Government will continue to promote apprenticeship as an attractive and cost-effective mode of training to both employers and school-leavers. IMPACT OF REGIONAL CRISIS ON OLDER WORKERS 36. Mr Ong Ah Heng asked the Minister for Labour what the Government will do to prevent employers from using the regional currency crisis as an excuse to get rid of Singaporean workers, especially the older ones who can work until they are 62 years old, before the retirement age is extended from 60 to 62 on 1st January 1999 and how the Government can help cushion the impact of the regional economic crisis on workers worried about losing their jobs.”
“Mr Lee Yock Suan: The Apprenticeship Training Scheme complements the full-time training system. Apprenticeship comprises On-the-Job Training (OJT) and Off-the-Job Training (Off-JT). OJT is provided by the company which employs the apprentice. Off-JT, which consists of classroom instruction and workshop practice, is conducted in an ITE institute or an approved industry training centre. The Skills Development Fund (SDF) provides financial assistance, in the form of grants, to companies for apprenticeship training. A company will be given up to $11,000/trainee for training an unskilled apprentice to NTC-2 skill level. These grants cover about half of a company's total training cost. To date, SDF has approved about $40 million to support some 6,620 apprentices, of whom more than 5,000 have completed their apprenticeship. The Institute for Technical Education (ITE) acts as the organisation for certifying the training as well as disbursing SDF incentive grants. Many small employers have benefited from ITE disbursing grants at year-end rather than at the end of each trade course, which may take up to three years. The Apprenticeship Scheme has received good response from employers. Driven by industry demand, the number of apprenticeship courses has expanded from 70 in 1996 to 75 in 1998, covering 21 trade clusters. Over the last five years, employers have been offering an average of 2,500 apprentice places a year. However, these places have not been fully taken up because the majority of technical students still prefer to pursue full-time training in the ITE. Typically, only 18% of this group chooses to enter the Apprenticeship Scheme.”
“The LTA and TP are working with the other utility service agencies such as NParks and the Ministry of the Environment to use the device when their water tankers and sweepers are working on the expressways. To forewarn motorists of broken-down/accident vehicles or any other obstructions, the Expressways Monitoring and Advisory System, or EMAS for short, when implemented will provide advance warning signs to inform drivers of any incident and obstruction, so that they can negotiate the area safely. EMAS will be implemented along the Central Expressway in March 1998 and subsequently extended to other expressways. Finally, motorists must also play their part to make the expressways safer by observing traffic rules and safe driving practices. They should be alert to changing traffic conditions and look out for warning signs. According to TP, speeding is the major cause of the 85 fatal and serious injury accidents along our expressways last year. In conjunction with the Automobile Association of Singapore and other organisations, TP also holds regular road safety campaigns every year to educate road users on the need to adopt good driving habits. Some of these campaigns include "Ride Safely, Stay Alive", the Anti-drink Drive and Speed Management Campaigns. TP is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the Road Traffic Act and Rules to enhance road safety. TP will also install more speed detection cameras on the expressways to curb speeding. APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING 31. Mr Ong Ah Heng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what incentives have been given for apprenticeship training; how successful has the concept been here; and whether more places will be created in future.”
“To forewarn motorists of stationary maintenance works, contractors have to abide by the Temporary Signing Manual issued by LTA which spells out the guidelines on the placing of signs, barriers and traffic cones. This manual follows international practice, and gives motorists sufficient warning of road maintenance works and obstructions which can pose safety hazards to motorists. All contractors undertaking works for LTA and the various utility service agencies such as PowerGrid, Power Gas, PUB and Singapore Telecom have to comply with the provisions of this manual. LTA also conducts refresher courses regularly to remind contractors and service agencies of the importance of safe practices when carrying out their works along the road. LTA's contractors and service agents who do not adhere to the guidelines are liable to be fined and suspended. Slow moving trucks undertaking maintenance works on the expressways, such as water tankers and road sweepers, are required to be fitted with bright warning hazard lights and large lighted moving arrows at their rear to forewarn motorists. LTA and the Traffic Police (TP) will work closely together to ensure that all service vehicles carrying out works along the expressways are properly equipped with adequate signage. In addition, LTA has required the use of a shock absorber called the Truck Mounted Attenuator mandatory for its contractors carrying out works on the expressways. The shock absorber, to be located in advance of the stationary works, will absorb the impact of a vehicle that strays into the work area, without injuring the occupants.”
“I think it would be worthwhile perhaps for Mr Jeyaretnam to hold his fire on this one until I announce the details of the road tax restructuring, the vehicle tax restructuring and the road tax rebates. Then we can debate this in the Committee of Supply. It can then be a more meaningful debate because at the moment he does not have information available. If he raises this matter again after the details are announced, we can have another discussion on that. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed. TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“But as more and more charging schemes are implemented and as the benefits of less congested unpolluted roads are felt, attitudes will change. In 20 years' time when paying for road space will be regarded as the norm, people will look back and wonder why they were ever prepared to put up with the pollution, noise and paralysis of today's cities.' I believe he asked another question about the identity of cars passing through the ERP. The system that we have adopted, which is the Cashcard system, bills cars only as they are going through. So the identity of the vehicle is only captured if there is a violation. In other words, if you pass through a gantry with your Cashcard inserted and fully loaded, the charge is deducted, there will be no problems and there will be no identification. But, of course, if there is some violation, whether it is insufficient balance in the Cashcard or you do not have a Cashcard, or whether IU is faulty, yes, there will be an identification. That identification will be captured by a camera for purposes of sending you the notice of composition. That particular information will only be kept for so long as it is required to send you the summons. Thereafter, it will not be in the system. In other words, there is no possibility of violating the privacy of any particular motorist.”
“It was because we needed to do the studies and convince the Government that this was a project worth spending $5 billion of taxpayers' money. Looking at it on a macro basis, expenditure on public transport infrastructure is a commitment that has been made. This commitment was made in this House when this House approved the White Paper on land transport. I do not believe that the Member actually made any comments in that particular debate. But a major debate did take place in this House. Many Members spoke and one of the key recommendations of that White Paper was a major change in the way we fund public transport infrastructure, especially heavy rail transport infrastructure. So I do not think there is any need for me now to make any particular commitment on expenditure of public transport. The developments this year and the next few years will amply demonstrate the amount of effort that is being made in this area. This is one of the key pillars of our total transportation policy. The difficult part is to convince Singaporeans that transport management measures and road usage management measures like ERP and the Vehicle Quota System are beneficial in the long run. That is the difficult part. But we know that this is something that is worth doing and we know that we can do it because, at the same time, we are using the money that has been collected for public transport expenditure. Ultimately, as the Economist article puts it, when people see the benefits of road pricing and the benefits of all these measures, it will become more acceptable. Let me quote to the Member another part of the article. It said: `Governments around the world are still nervous about the impact of road pricing.”
“Sir, there is really no need for this Government to commit to expenditure on public transport. We had a debate in this House on the White Paper on land transport. In that paper, we committed to the development of a world class public transport system. In order to develop that, the amount of money that has to be spent on public transport, ie, the amount of money that has to be spent on building MRT lines and LRT lines, is well in excess of the amount of money that is being collected in terms of tax at any point in time. If it were that simple that we just link the collection of ERP revenues with public transport, I think that is one of the simplest decisions we could take. But that does not address the question about what kind of public transport we want, what kind of transport management measure we want, what kind of roads we want, and what kind of infrastructure development we want. Let me clarify. What I am saying is that we need to justify every expenditure, every project, on public transport. If we can justify that expenditure, we will be able to proceed to build. The North-east line is a classic example. We are going to spend $5 billion on the North-east line. We started ground breaking early this year. Even as my Ministry is working on the budget for the North-east line, we have gone to the Ministry of Finance for funds and the Ministry of Finance has given us the approval to proceed in spite of a possible reduction in Government revenues, as a result of the economic slowdown. This is because it is an economically justifiable and worthwhile project. It is not something that we created out of political expediency. Neither was it because of Mr Low Thia Khiang nor Mr Chiam See Tong that we took so long to build that line.”
“So I say that, rather than looking upon the ERP as an enemy, it is actually an ally of the businessmen, including the small businessmen.”
“Heavy fixed costs, including vehicle duties, insurance and depreciation, merely encourage drivers to use their cars more because the perceived marginal costs of motoring are so small. The way forward must be to make cars more expensive to use.' Another part of the article goes as follows: `Those who argue that road pricing is unfair because it discriminates against the poor [I think this is what Mr Low Thia Khiang has said] ignore the fact that the people too poor to own a vehicle suffer the ill-effects of congestion without the benefits of personal mobility. And if the revenues were used to improve public transport, the poor would benefit disproportionately.' So really the purpose of electronic road pricing is fundamentally as follows: It is to restructure our tax system and restructure the way we manage our traffic to manage our roads. The objective of this is to make our transport system more efficient, to keep our roads which are our economic arteries free-flowing. Why? So that Singapore can remain as a good place to do business. Surely, ultimately, that must be of benefit to everybody the poor, the rich, the businessmen and the consumers. Rather than saying that this is going to add to the burden of businesses, I argue that in fact a good transport system free of congestion actually helps to lower business cost in the long run rather than to add to their cost. As the Economist article says, you do not say that the ERP penalises the poor and helps the rich because the people who drive cars cannot be considered poor by any means. If they can afford a car, surely they are not that poor. It is the people who are in the buses who are the ones who are ultimately going to be one of the main beneficiaries of free-flowing roads.”
“No, nothing wrong at all. But I will seek to explain to the other Members of the House who are not so blindfolded in their thinking as to why those concerns are not valid. This year alone, I had occasion to monitor very closely what are the developments in this area, road pricing, in particular. For this year, the question of traffic congestion and road pricing has been discussed in many, many journals and magazines. Asiaweek wrote about the traffic jams in Kuala Lumpur. Asia Magazine wrote about the traffic jams in other Asian cities. Newsweek wrote about traffic jams in Europe. The Economist wrote an article called "Road Pricing". In fact, it was entitled, on the front cover "Jam today, Road pricing tomorrow". Let me take this opportunity to quote part of that Economist article: `If roads continue to be operated as one of the last relics of a Soviet-style command economy, then the consequences will be worsening traffic jams and eventual Bangkok-style gridlock. If, on the other hand, roads were priced like any other scarce commodity, then better use would be made of existing space and the revenues raised could be used to improve public transport. The mere fact of making motorists pay their way would free capacity to such an extent that bus travel would become easier and faster, and subsidies can be reduced. Politicians have long shied away from this approach because it is difficult to persuade voters to pay for something that has long been free. But some governments are starting to accept that there may be no alternative. Charging for ownership rather than use, as most tax systems do, make little sense.”
“I think even Mr Jeyaretnam does not believe when he said that. However, the fact is that he has given me an opportunity to explain again why we have to change the charges. Yes, the charges have to be varied but it is only varied for the ultimate purpose of making sure that the traffic is free flowing. And there have been occasions where charges have actually come down, as there have been occasions where it has gone up. Ultimately, the traffic engineers will recommend what is the optimal charge. We do not want the roads to be under utilised but we certainly do not want them to be clogged up either. It is very simple. Surveys are carried out. Recommendations are made by the Land Transport Authority and they are then discussed and decisions are made. It is certainly not at the whims and fancies of the Minister. Finally, I turn to Mr Low Thia Khiang's concerns about the ERP system. They are not new concerns. They are concerns which have been voiced many times in this House by him. That, of course, does not mean that those concerns are valid. It just simply means that it is politically expedient for him to make those points. Why do I say that?”
“If we were to come back to Parliament every time we need to change those charges, I think Parliament is going to be utterly bogged down by all these various changes. When we implemented the ALS in 1975, we changed those charges after one month. We implemented a certain rate. We found that it was too high because roads were too free, underutilised. We changed it one month later. Over time, we have had occasions to vary those charges depending on how the traffic pattern built up, depending on how the traffic pattern moved. It is quite within the purview of the Ministry. In fact, it is the responsibility of the Ministry to keep track of these things to make sure that the ultimate objective of this scheme, which is to remove traffic congestion, is achieved. And you cannot achieve that by having to come to Parliament every time just to change the levy from $1 to $2 or from $2 to $1.50. I do not think Members of Parliament are going to take very kindly to that kind of amendment. So it is a very straightforward matter. It is something which is completely within the purview and the responsibility of the Ministry or the Minister concerned, and this is the reason why we have sections 34B and 34D. Within these two particular provisions, it is not just a question of what are the charges. It is also the time of the charges, the location of the charges. Do we have to come back to Parliament every time we want to add a new gantry or remove one? Or every time we want to move the time from 7.00 am to 7.30 am, or from 9.00 am to 9.15 am? I think it is totally unnecessary. It is really quite an administrative matter which should rightly be left to the Ministry concerned. It is not a matter of whether the Minister is in a generous mood or not that the charges are levied up or down.”
“The control measures pertain to, first of all, signatures which can only be used by authorised officers. The control measures are contained within the internal housekeeping rules and regulations pertaining to the use of such important signatures. These are in-house regulations which are regularly audited to make sure that there is no abuse. As I said, this is quite a common practice for other Government departments as well. I now turn to the points made by Mr J B Jeyaretnam. I think the main thesis of Mr Jeyaretnam's point was that there is too much concentration of power. I do not know how that linkage is made from what he has quoted, ie, there is too much concentration of power, and new sections 34B, 34D and even 34E. I think the nexus is a very tenuous one. I guess this is just another opportunity for him to make his favourite speech. However, having made it, I think I owe him an answer in that respect. Sections 34B and 34D are simply provisions which are actually in compliance with what is in the Constitution, that there be no tax or no levy that can be imposed except upon the authority of the law. And this is the reason why I come to Parliament to seek approval for such a charge to be imposed. The question may be: why do we not specify the charge in this particular Bill? The answer is very simple. The charges may change. The levies may change from time to time. It is not uncommon for the levies to change fairly quickly or fairly frequently in response to changes in the traffic pattern. And this is precisely the reason why the ERP system is being implemented in the first place. It is being implemented in order to respond to traffic patterns.”