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 47 of 61.
“Specifically, before the line is built, we may need to acquire land either for construction of the station or for comprehensive redevelopment around the station. Mr Chiam See Tong asked why we are acquiring land for comprehensive redevelopment around the station. Why do we not allow individuals to redevelop themselves and to make the money from this redevelopment? I would like to remind Mr Chiam that the Government is going to spend $5 billion of taxpayers' money for the North-East line. Because this money is going to be spent to build the North-East line, the transportation infrastructure along the North-East corridor is going to be dramatically improved. Land values are going to shoot up. Should this huge increase in land values go to the individual land owners, as a result of the Government spending $5 billion of taxpayers' money? Or should this redevelopment windfall go to Government, in other words, to all the taxpayers? Mr Chiam would have us agree that we should allow the individual owners to redevelop and to cream off the profit. In fact, he has gone one step further to suggest that when we compensate, we should be compensating on the basis of the enhanced land values. Sir, I think the Government has fairly and rightly decided that because we are spending so much of the taxpayers' money which belongs to all Singaporeans to build a line in the North-East that we should take the opportunity to cream off the enhanced profits as a result of this expenditure and to put it into the Consolidated Fund, which can be used for other transport infrastructure and other worthy causes, eg, for education, health, housing, etc. That is the reason why the Government needs to acquire the land for comprehensive redevelopment.”
“Transport facilities will be fully integrated as far as possible with building developments around the MRT stations. In this way, it will give commuters maximum accessibility to housing, commercial and recreational facilities. For the North-East line, the LTA will develop the two interchange stations, ie, the one at Dhoby Ghaut which interchanges with the North-South and Outram Park which interchanges with the East-West line. The reason why the LTA is getting involved is to demonstrate the feasibility and the benefits of such an approach. The Dhoby Ghaut Station will be designed also to allow for the possibility of connection to an LRT in the future. The LTA will also be reviewing the feasibility of building rail infrastructure in other areas. In this regard, I would like to assure Dr Arthur Beng that the older estates will not be neglected. Where it makes transport and economic sense, we will consider the LRT as a faster and a more reliable feeder service for new as well as for some of the more mature HDB estates. The LTA studies will also include the proposed MRT extension to Changi Airport. I thought I should mention this even though Mr Teo Chong Tee is not in the House today. I am sure that if he were here, he would have raised it. I believe he is unable to be here for personal reasons. 4.15 pm Sir, the Government is committed to expanding our rail network. It is a worthwhile investment. I think we all agree. It raises our productivity and it enhances our quality of life and also it allows our economy to operate at maximum efficiency without being impeded by congestion and gridlock. But we all also realise that having good transport infrastructure sometimes involves sacrifices as well.”
“I have therefore taken note of the comments made by Members that we must set out some intermediate markers en route to this final goal. Let me take this opportunity to report on some of the developments since we debated the White Paper. First of all, rail projects. The White Paper spelt out clearly that rail transport will be the backbone of our public transport system. Like London, Paris, New York and Tokyo, we too will depend on a comprehensive rail network for our transportation needs of the future. It is fast. It is reliable. It is efficient. It is the best option for a densely populated city like ours. But like all good things, it does not come cheap and it takes time. The Woodlands MRT line took five years to build and it cost $1.3 billion. It started operations on 10th February this year. It now provides residents in the north with superior public transport services. The LTA has started work on the North-East line and the Bukit Panjang LRT. It will soon invite contractors to be pre-qualified for the design and construction of the North-East line. Tenders for these contracts will be called, starting from the second half of this year, and it will be awarded by the end of next year. The North-East line is targeted to open for service by the end of the year 2002. Construction will take something like five to six years. LTA will also be awarding the contract for the construction of the Bukit Panjang LRT. Work on the LRT is expected to start before the end of this year and it is expected to be open for service by early 1999. The construction period is something like 3 to 3 1/2 years. The White Paper has spelt out LTA's aim to integrate urban development with transport planning.”
“Sir, let me first address the many issues on land transport that have been raised by Members. I think we can still remember, it was barely two months ago in January this year, that this House debated the Government's White Paper on land transport. We had two days of very thorough debate. More than 20 Members spoke during that debate. After these two days of debate, this House overwhelmingly endorsed the vision of a World Class Land Transport System as well as the strategy to realise this vision as set out in the White Paper. We now have our blue-print for action for the next 10 to 15 years. After the debate I met the LTA staff and I half-jokingly said to them that the easy part was over, and the hard part is about to begin. What I meant was that having conceptualised the vision and having gained consensus and had it accepted, we now have to turn vision into reality. Sir, we set ourselves a time frame of 10 to 15 years to put in place not just the hardware, but also the software that will significantly transform the way Singaporeans move about. This is a realistic time frame, although I dare say it is a little bit ambitious. But I do agree with some of the sentiments that were expressed in this House during that debate that 10 to 15 years is a long time. I know that we are an impatient people and we want results fast. But, Sir, it is not possible to achieve our vision of a World Class Transport System overnight. However, we can make incremental but tangible improvements along the way so that Singaporeans can see that we are serious and we are on the right track. This will also help to convince the cynics and the sceptics that a World Class Land Transport System for Singapore is not an election gimmick or an election ploy, but an achievable long term goal.”
“Sir, the owner submitted the development proposal some time in 1993. As is the normal procedure, the authorities would then make several investigations, including investigation into the traffic conditions. At that time an evaluation was carried out on the traffic conditions and it showed that motorists that were using the private road through that piece of land would not be unduly inconvenienced by its closure because there are other access roads nearby. Harvey Avenue which leads to Upper Changi Road is only 100 metres away. Access can only be taken through Jalan Angin Laut to Upper Changi Road and Simei Avenue. So there was no traffic justification to require the land owner to give up his land to build a public road. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1996 TO 31ST MARCH, 1997 (Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head W (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [13th March, 1996], "That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Dr Ow Chin Hock]. Question again proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the section of road which the Member refers to is not a public road. It is a private road on land belonging to a private owner, in this case the Zion Presbyterian Church. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has not maintained nor safeguarded it as a future public road. Residents in the neighbourhood had, in the past, been using this private road as a short-cut to their destinations. However, the owner has confirmed that there was no right-of-way granted to other parties for use of the road. When the owner submitted a development proposal involving the closure of this section of road, the LTA evaluated the traffic conditions and supported the proposed development. LTA was unaware that the developer had used inappropriate information signs, as these were not authorised by LTA. LTA has warned the developer and contractor against using misleading signs in the future.”
“Sir, the grace period expired in September 1995. As and when these vehicles come in for inspection, they will be required to be fitted with these bumpers. 1.30 pm”
“Sir, since September 1993, all motor vehicles, including lorries and trucks, with a maximum laden weight of 8 tonnes or more, and trailers are required to be fitted with rear under-run bumpers before they can be registered. Existing vehicles were given two years up to September 1995 to retrofit their under-run bumpers. Since 1st September 1994, this requirement also applied to newly registered vehicles with a maximum laden weight of more than 3.5 tonnes. The under-run bumpers fitted to the rear of heavy vehicles can help to cushion the impact of collisions by smaller vehicles and thus minimise injuries and fatalities for the occupants of the smaller vehicles.”
“Sir, in so far as the specific accidents are concerned, the Traffic Police is the authority that is investigating the accidents. When the final report of the investigation is published, the Member will have another chance to ask any question that he may wish. But on that point alone, let me go further and tell this House what SBS drivers undergo as far as training is concerned. For new drivers, there is training for 12 days for class 4A licence. There is a 23-day familiarisation course after this. There is a 33-day induction course after this. For refresher courses, drivers after three years of service are sent for a 3-day training course where their driving habits are picked up and where other corrective measures are taken. Then, in so far as the current training courses are concerned, these measures, including situation training, anti-stress training, training using simulators, are also being looked at and these will be done by a team of training experts from overseas. They will be invited to look into SBS' training programmes and see how improvements can be made. PAYMENT OF HDB MONTHLY LOAN INSTALMENTS WITH CPF (Topping up Ordinary Accounts with savings in Special Accounts) 3. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Labour, in view of the increasing prices of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, whether he will allow HDB flat purchasers to top up their Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings in the Ordinary Accounts with their savings in the Special Accounts when the need arises, so that they can pay the HDB monthly loan instalments with their CPF.”
“Finally, a series of activities to promote safety consciousness amongst bus passengers is also being planned. So I think the Member will appreciate that from this list of measures that are being taken, the authorities have asked the SBS to leave no stone unturned to make sure that the recent series of accidents that have caused public concern are minimised, if not eliminated.”
“Sir, let me cite a list of the measures that are being taken by the bus company as a result of the recent spate of accidents. First of all, there will be another safety inspection of interchanges and terminals where all interchanges and terminals will undergo a comprehensive check to make sure that all the necessary safety features are in place and adequate. All new buses supplied since 1988 are fitted with speed limiters. In view of this spate of accidents, SBS will retrofit all the other buses with speed limiters. As I indicated earlier, a special exercise is now going on to check all schedules to ensure that there is adequate running and lay overtime. This is on top of the on-going periodic reviews of the schedules which are based on actual operations and which are done in consultation with the union. There will be a review of the drivers' salary scale. The terms and conditions of service for drivers will be reviewed to bring them more in line with the market rate. There will be a new accident-free incentive allowance to recognise and reward good and safe drivers. I think we must not forget that the majority of the drivers on the road are good drivers; they are safe drivers. Enforcement action against speeding and careless reversing has been stepped up. Traffic staff at interchanges have been reminding drivers on a daily basis to drive safely. An intensive campaign is under-way to enforce safe driving. Specifically, drivers are asked to drive at a safe speed, keep a safe distance from the front vehicle, whenever in doubt, apply brakes to slow down, to stop the bus, etc. Drivers' safety drills at junctions and pedestrian crossings have been introduced. Preparation is also being finalised for a safety dialogue between depot management and drivers in smaller groups.”
“Sir, there is a limit at the moment to the number of foreign workers that can be employed by SBS as bus drivers, in the same way as there are limits or quotas to the number of work permit holders in other industries. I think this is something that we would have to proceed very cautiously if we were to lift the limit or remove the cap. Public transport or bus services is an essential industry. It is something that we want to make sure continues to have as many Singaporeans as possible. Recognising that it is not possible to have a 100% Singaporean workforce, the Labour Ministry has allowed SBS to employ foreign workers. It is sufficient at the moment because I believe the quota for foreign workers, as far as SBS is concerned, has not been reached yet. So I do not think there is a necessity to lift the quota. I do not think the question arises at this stage. But the important thing is to make sure that the terms and conditions of service are sufficiently attractive for as many bus drivers as possible as are needed in order to provide the kind of service that Singaporeans expect of them.”
“Sir, this is something for the SBS management and unions to consider together with all the other necessary measures that would have to be taken in order to minimise the rate of accidents.”
“Therefore, there is always room for improvement.”
“Let me correct the Member for Potong Pasir. First of all, we have not achieved our objective of having a world-class transport system. This is an objective that we have set ourselves. This is an objective that we will have to take many, many years to achieve. At the moment, there are things in our public transport system that are not satisfactory and I have said this many times. But to say that and to link it with the current spate of accidents, I think, is stretching his licence as an Opposition Member a little bit too far. Yes, I agree that the accident rate can be further reduced. Every accident that takes place must be a source of anguish and pain for everybody concerned, not just for the victims but it must be so for the drivers, the management and for all of us who are directly or indirectly involved in public transportation. This is not something to be taken lightly. But the point I want to make is that SBS has taken measures. It has viewed these accidents with concern. The authorities have expressed their concern in no uncertain terms. We have asked them to take steps to further improve the situation. Can the accident rate be reduced further? I believe it can, in the same way that the public transport operators in Singapore have reduced their accident rates over the years. Surely, they can reduce it further and I strongly believe, if they take the steps that they are taking, that it will be reduced further. So it is incumbent upon all of us who are involved to reduce the accident rate to as low as is humanly possible. I cited those figures to show that in comparison with other urban public transport operators, our public transport operators are not doing too badly. They are not the worst; they are not the best either.”
“Sir, the starting point is that we must determine whether there is a direct positive correlation between the number of hours worked, the fact that they are Malaysian drivers, the fact that their rosters are as long as they are today, and the current nine accidents, before we can make those conclusions. Having said that, it is a fact that there are a lot of drivers who are on work permit at the moment. This is a result of the inability of SBS to recruit more Singaporeans to drive buses. It is not an easy job. The pay and the working conditions must be commensurate and must be attractive enough to draw Singaporeans to work in this kind of job. But, as the Member may be aware, in Singapore today there is a very tight labour market. There are many alternative jobs. There are many alternative jobs even in the transportation sector, whether it is driving taxis or container trucks. Therefore, it is important for SBS to recognise this and to do something about this. But there will always be this need for foreign workers on work permits for quite a long time to come in this particular sector. I am not aware of the exact number but it is close to 20-30%. I do not think it is as high as 33%. But if SBS wants to recruit more drivers, it would have to do so by making a fundamental review of its terms and conditions of service.”
“Sir, driver fatigue has been suggested as one of the factors contributing to these accidents. I cannot rule out this possibility and, in fact, because of the tight labour market, SBS has been facing tremendous difficulty in recruiting good bus drivers. Currently, there is a shortage of 300-400 drivers. Because the company has a responsibility to meet basic bus service standards and to improve its level of service, including extending its road network to cover new areas, SBS bus drivers have been asked to take on greater responsibilities and work longer hours, as suggested by the Member. As I said, the specific causes of these various accidents have been investigated and the Traffic Police has made its conclusions and will be releasing its results. Whether it is due specifically to driver fatigue is not known. The point is, according to SBS, some of the accidents had happened at the beginning of shifts rather than at the end of shifts, and some of the accidents had happened after a rest day rather than at the end of a long period of rostered work. Therefore, in the case of the nine accidents, there is no correlation between driver fatigue and the accidents. But it is a cause for concern that some of the drivers are working long hours and this is something that the SBS management must look into and I believe it is looking into.”
“Sir, in the first two months of this year, there were nine major traffic accidents involving SBS buses that attracted widespread public attention and concern. The Traffic Police has completed its investigations of these accidents. The investigations revealed that the accidents were due to human error and not to mechanical defects. Although the nine accidents received considerable media publicity, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police records indicate that they do not represent a worsening trend. The accident rate for SBS buses for the first two months of this year is 0.96 accidents per 100,000 km. This is about the same as the accident rate for last year. In comparison with other large urban public transport operators world-wide, for example, Hong Kong (1.8 accidents per 100,000 km), Paris (9.7 accidents per 100,000 km) and UK (0.34 accidents per 100,000 km), SBS' safety record is relatively good. Nevertheless, in view of the recent spate of serious accidents, SBS has instituted further measures to enhance its safety record. The new safety programmes that SBS has implemented recently should help to increase safety awareness amongst bus drivers. The LTA will continue to monitor the situation and will ensure that all the necessary corrective and preventive measures are taken to reduce the number of serious accidents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to take the first two Questions together as they are related?”
“Sir, I am not in a position at this stage to answer that question. I think this is all part and parcel of the study that is going on in relation to the North-East line. It is better for me to hold my answer on this question until such time as the agencies have finalised the details of the North-East line. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“We have used this same acid test for the existing lines as well as for the new lines, the North-east line as well as future lines. If what the Member proposes is to change this formula, then I think we can reopen the debate that we had when we debated the White Paper on a World-Class Land Transport System. But we cannot be taking part of what Hong Kong is doing and bring it to Singapore and say, "Look, this is what Hong Kong is doing." I think that is looking at it from a very narrow point of view. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“Sir, if we adopt the Hong Kong model, let me say that the fares for the MRT system will not be lower than what they are today. In fact, I dare say that they will be higher because there will be additional cost involved and also there will be borrowings that would be required of the company. We have structured the financing of the MRT line by having two components - capital cost and running cost. Government undertakes to bear the capital cost. We will build but, at the same time, the Government will keep the proceeds from redevelopment of land. Commuters and the company running it will undertake to pay for the operating cost. This is the way that we have structured the financing. The Member says no, we should now take some of the money from the development of land and use it to subsidise the operating cost. As I have explained, this is not how Hong Kong does it. What Hong Kong does is to put the two together into one, ie, undertake to build as well as to run the system. If we want to follow the Hong Kong model, we can. What the Member is proposing is to take part of the Hong Kong model and part of the Singapore model, but the answer is that it is not a prudent way to do things because it opens up all the problems that we have highlighted earlier. In other words, by not covering the operating cost, we actually do not know whether we are building a line that is needed or not. You do not know because you are subsidising the running cost of the line and there is going to be no end to such lines. Therefore, the acid test of whether a line is viable or not is really whether the line is able to meet its operating cost. We have gone through this debate many times.”
“Sir, the Member has taken part of the Hong Kong example and tried to extrapolate to Singapore. Let me explain what happens in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, the MTR, the company which runs the mass rapid transit rail system, also develops land and revenues accrue to the company. But that company also pays for the capital cost of building the system. It does not have sufficient revenues from the redevelopment proceeds. So what it does is that it goes out and borrows money to build the system. This is an alternative model. We have decided not to follow the Hong Kong model because it has got other implications. But you cannot take part of the Hong Kong model and apply it to Singapore. In Singapore, what we have done is for the Government to undertake to build the whole system. If we want to follow the Hong Kong model and we allow the company to redevelop land around the MRT stations and to keep the proceeds, then we must also require that the company pay for the total cost of building the system. In other words, pay $5 billion. If you do not have enough, go out and borrow, which is what Hong Kong has done. Is this a better model? We do not think so. But we cannot be taking part of the Hong Kong model and apply it to the Singapore model and say, "Government pays for the total cost of building the system but, at the same time, you allow the company that is running it to redevelop land and keep the proceeds." You cannot have the cake and eat it!”
“In fact, the running cost for the North-South-East-West line, the Woodlands line and the North-East line in future is sufficient only to cover the direct operating cost as well as the cost of replacement of trains. It does not cover the capital cost of building the system. It does not cover the amortisation of building the MRT line. If, for example, we were to ask a private operator to build the system and it has to recover the direct operating cost as well as the capital cost of building, then it is an entirely different matter. But as it stands at the moment, Government policy is to pay for the total cost of the system, $5 billion in the case of the North-East line. If we were to amortise $5 billion and include it in the cost of the fares, I think the whole project would be a non-starter, because the fares would be so high. The Government has not done that and this is the reason why fares are kept at the affordable levels that they are today. The reason why the North-East line fares will be slightly higher is, as I have explained many times, because the operating cost as well as the projected ridership does not make the line viable at the current fares. That is all. But if we consider the additional fares that are required of the commuters of the North-East line in future, it is insignificant compared to the overall cost of building the line. So the Member is quite wrong in assuming that if any part of the redevelopment funds goes to the LTA it will be able to lower the fares. The fares are already low under the financing regime that we have adopted. Therefore, the proposal that the Member has raised is not workable.”
“Sir, let me take the second question first. The comprehensive redevelopment around the current Toa Payoh MRT station is undertaken, as I said, by the HDB in conjunction with other relevant agencies. Whether such redevelopments can take place around other MRT stations is a question for the Ministry of National Development to address. It will have to take into consideration many other issues including, I suspect, the overall redevelopment plans for Singapore. In so far as the lowering of MRT fares by ploughing back revenues from redevelopment is concerned, I think the two are quite separate matters. We have, in the course of our discussions on the MRT lines, made it very clear that the users of the MRT are not going to pay for the capital cost. In fact, all the capital cost will be borne by Government. But the commuters will have to pay for the replacement cost of the trains as well as the running cost of the line including manpower cost, electricity cost and so on. So the question of ploughing back revenues from redevelopment around MRT stations does not arise. In other words, we have not factored in the cost of building the MRT. We have not factored in the depreciation of the viaducts, etc, into the running cost. What we have done is only to include the direct operating cost as well as the capital cost of the first set of trains. What the Government is doing is to only assess the overall viability of the project, whether it is worthwhile, whether it brings benefits to the people in the region that the MRT serves, as well as whether the people are prepared to pay fares that will cover the running cost.”
“Apart from that, we should leave the redevelopment of land to the people who are better placed, in other words, planning agencies like URA, development agencies like HDB and, as I said earlier, the private sector.”
“Sir the financing of the MRT lines is something that we debated in Parliament earlier. I think it was made very clear at that time that the Government is prepared to pay for the MRT lines, including the North-East line. The financing of these MRT lines would then have to come from the Consolidated Fund. In the course of the development of MRT lines, it is prudent for the Government, where possible, to intensify development around MRT stations. When I say "where possible", what I mean is that it is not possible for us to immediately overnight redevelop every single piece of land around MRT stations. There has got to be some phasing. There has got to be some planning involved in it. And these decisions are taken by agencies other than the LTA. What the LTA is charged to do is to study and look into the feasibility of possible MRT extensions, and now LRT extensions as well, to make a recommendation to Government whether or not this is a feasible or viable project. It is not in the business of developing or redeveloping land around MRT stations. But having said that, we do recognise that, in some instances, there may be a role for the LTA to play. These instances are primarily where there are technical or engineering difficulties involved in building around the station. Because LTA is the builder of the MRT lines, it is prudent for us, in some cases, to actually involve the LTA in the redevelopment around some of these stations which require a little bit more inputs from the original builder of the stations. This is where the LTA's expertise comes in and this is where we would involve the LTA in the redevelopment.”
“Sir, it is not necessary for the LTA to develop every single piece of land around every MRT station. Neither is it wise to do so, because obviously the expertise that is vested in the LTA is not primarily concerned with land development. There are many other agencies in Singapore which are probably better placed, including the private sector. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to specifically require the LTA under the Act to develop land around the stations. Nevertheless, we recognise that the LTA has a useful role to play in this regard. And this is why the Act has been worded in such a way that it does not exclude the LTA from performing this function if we feel that it is advantageous for the LTA to do so, rather than making the Act narrow. By making it more flexible, we are able to make use of LTA's expertise as and when it is necessary.”
“Sir, the redevelopment of land around bus interchanges at the moment is undertaken as part of a comprehensive redevelopment scheme carried out primarily by the HDB in conjunction with other relevant agencies.”
“Sir, section 6 of the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act spells out the functions and duties of the Land Transport Authority. In addition, it provides for the Authority to undertake such other functions as the Minister may assign to it. The Government can decide whether to allow the Authority to develop land above or near MRT stations under this section of the LTA Act.”
“Sir, the details will be released as soon as they are finalised. As I said in my answer just now, I expect them to be finalised within the next few weeks.”
“In planning for a new rail line, there are many land use planning issues that have to be settled. There are many land acquisition issues that have to be settled. These are issues which will have to involve many different Government agencies and as a result of this it is not wise for us to rush the relevant agencies when they finally make their recommendations. In so far as the second question is concerned, I am not aware of what the Member has said.”
“Sir, on 19th January 1996, I informed Parliament that Cabinet has decided to proceed to build the North-East MRT line immediately. I had then said that further details will be announced in due course. Presently, the Land Transport Authority is still finalising these details in conjunction with other relevant agencies. This is a major project, there are many planning and technical issues to resolve. An announcement will be made as soon as these issues have been settled, which is expected to be within the next few weeks.”
“I do not know what the Member is driving at. As I said earlier, the SMRT, as a company, publishes an annual report. Copies of the annual report are available to Members of Parliament, all Government statutory boards and, in fact, to any member of the public who wishes to get a copy of it. It is publicly available. There is nothing that the SMRT wishes to hide and those reports are available to the Member himself if he so wishes. There is no question of the SMRT making extra efforts to publish its report. All the requirements of a company are complied with by the SMRT and copies of the report are available. NORTH-EAST MRT LINE (Announcement of stations and details) 4. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Communications why the announcement of the stations and details of the North-East MRT Line has been delayed.”
“As the SMRT publishes an annual report and the annual report contains financial statements, the answer is that if the RCB requires such reports, then the SMRT will comply.”
“It should be reflected in the report of Temasek Holdings in the same way that Temasek's other investments in other companies, such as SIA, etc. are reflected.”
“As I said earlier, the shareholder of SMRT is Temasek Holdings.”
“SMRT is a company. MRTC was actually a statutory board. So there is really no reason why the SMRT accounts should be contained in MRTC's report.”
“The Member has got the wrong information. MRTC was a statutory board until recently when it was ---”
“Sir, I am not quite familiar with what the Member is driving at but MRTC, if I hear the Member correctly, was actually a statutory board. SMRT, on the other hand, is a company that has been set up to run the mass rapid transit system. The two entities are quite separate and distinct. SMRT, which is the subject of the Member's question in this case, is a public company but not listed at the moment and therefore it has to comply with all the rules and regulations pertaining thereto. It publishes an annual report and all the financial statements that are required under the law are contained in that report.”
“The shareholders of SMRT at the moment are 100% Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Pte Ltd (SMRT) is not a publicly listed company, it is not required to publish its annual report and financial statements for public information. However, it is the practice of SMRT to release its financial results to the press after the end of each financial year, covering the period from April to March the following year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed land bridge is part of Thailand's Southern Seaboard Development (SSB) plan. It is not the only land bridge project being proposed in the region. Malaysia has also proposed a Penang-Songkhla land bridge within the Indonesian-Malaysian-Thailand Growth Triangle economic cooperation framework. The two projects will involve substantial investments in roads, pipelines and port infrastructure. The viability of the projects will depend on how competitive the costs of unloading, transportation and reloading of cargo are, in relation to the existing alternatives. As the preliminary feasibility study into the project has not been completed yet, it is premature to assess the projects' full impact on Singapore. The two land bridge projects are being proposed at a time when the Asia-Pacific is growing rapidly and trade is expanding. The port of Singapore will grow with the region as long as we continue to provide the shipping community with good service at competitive rates. In particular, the Port of Singapore Authority must strive to maintain its competitiveness through skills upgrading, sound management and investment in infrastructure and technology. This way, Singapore can meet the keener competition posed by emerging regional ports and other infrastructure projects like the proposed land bridges. SINGAPORE POWER (Efficiency and productivity) 2. Mr Stephen Lee Ching Yen asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied that Singapore Power has done enough (i) to improve efficiency and productivity and (ii) to control costs internally, as means to improve company profitability rather than through tariff increases.”
“As the White Paper says, if we are true to the philosophy and approach of this White Paper, we should have a world class transport system that Singaporeans deserve. I have every confidence that the LTA will be able to fulfill its mission and deliver an outstanding and affordable transport system for the benefit of all Singaporeans. [Applause]. Question put, "That this House endorses the Paper Cmd 1 of 1996 on `A World Class Land Transport System' as the basis for developing an outstanding and affordable transport system for Singaporeans."”
“The Government will need to acquire land along the route of the North-East line, especially around the sites of the stations. It must do this to be able to redevelop comprehensively the areas around the MRT stations, to build the North-East line facilities, and also to ensure that windfall capital gains resulting from construction of the North-East line accrue to the State rather than to individual property owners. But these sacrifices are inevitable if we take a long-term perspective and do what is best for the nation. And over time, a good public transport system will bring considerable benefits to all Singaporeans. The North-East line is just the beginning. The LTA is finalising the evaluation of several LRT projects. We should be able to announce the results of the evaluation soon. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members who have spoken during this debate and also all those who have contributed to the debate on the White Paper over the last two weeks. All the suggestions and feedback received will be considered and implemented wherever they make sense. The White Paper does not promise a revolutionary change in the way we tackle transport-related issues, rather it builds upon what we already have but in a more integrated, holistic manner. Because of the complexities of transport, we cannot hope to solve the problem once and for all. We will have to refine our approach and we will have to make adjustments and manage the challenges as we go along. One Straits Times commentator said "the road to achieving a world class transport system will be a long and perhaps arduous one". It will not be easy. It will take time. But I believe the results will be well worth our collective efforts.”
“[Applause]. Cabinet has agreed. And the LTA will announce further details on the North-East line in due course. The North-East line will bring many benefits to the residents of the North-East. We have gone through the benefits. I am sure Members here are fully aware of them. But let me stress that there will be sacrifices involved. While the LTA will try its best to minimise congestion and noise and air pollution during the construction process, residents will have to bear with this disruption for a considerably long period, because it takes a long time to build. An hon. Member: How long?”
“So I asked the residents, "Are you prepared to pay slightly higher fares in order to bring the line forward, because of all these benefits that will accrue to you? Do you really value this enough to help us to bring this line forward?" I said that this will enable the North-East line to cover its operating cost sooner and signal the value that they place. The immediate reaction was not unexpected. Some people thought that it was very unfair. Others felt that they were victimised and many of my MP colleagues were wondering what was going on. However, after more explanation and clarification, I believe the rationale and benefits of such a proposal have become better understood. I have been very encouraged by public feedback and by the various dialogue sessions that we have had with the MPs in the area. More residents now have indicated that they are prepared and willing to pay slightly higher fares to cover the higher operating cost of the North-East MRT line, in order to bring forward the construction of this line. The LTA has revised the financial projections for the North-East line, taking into account these slightly higher fares and the revised definition of operating cost, as it has spelt out in the White Paper. It has concluded that with these changes, the North-East line can break even operationally from the year 2003, instead of only from the year 2006 onwards, as was originally forecast. We are not yet certain how much the fare premium for the North-East line needs to be. But with the new financing formula, I am confident that it can be less than the 20 cents figure I estimated when I visited Hougang and Cheng San constituencies. I have reported this to Cabinet and have recommended that the LTA should proceed to build the North-East MRT line immediately.”
“So Mr Chin should realise that it is not that unusual for different people to go to a restaurant and pay different bills if they order different meals. I think in his speech he mentioned that it would be untenable for different people to do so, based on service. I am suggesting that it is not just service alone, but what each person orders that determines what the size of the bill will be. Recently the PRC government raised subway fares in Beijing by 400%. And we are told that in the PRC system, the application to raise fares requires the approval of the Premier and two Vice-Premiers, as well as the top officials of the city government. Even then the company officials said that, because the new fares cannot cover costs, a new rail line promised this year will not be ready till at least after the year 2000. I think this is a good example and lesson for us to learn. Services must cover operating cost. If we want to minimise wastage and keep the whole network affordable, then let us preserve this nexus between the cost of using a particular line and the cost of operating that line. This was the message I brought to residents living in the North-East sector when I visited them at the invitation of a few MPs. Residents are understandably keen to have the North-East line built early. So I explained that while the Government was committed to building the North-East line as the next MRT extension, the question of when to start work depended on whether the line could recover its operating cost. I further went on to explain that, based on the projections, this criterion could not be met if we were to factor in the existing fares.”
“We will only invest in a rail project if it meets the following two conditions: (a) the benefits of the project outweigh the costs, from an overall national perspective; and (b) commuters that use the line are willing to pay fares that cover operating cost. If the operating cost of a system is high for whatever reason, commuters must be prepared to pay higher fares. This is their share of responsibility under this partnership arrangement. It is also a clear indication that they value the service that is provided by the new lines. If they do not value the service, if they are not prepared to cover the operating cost, then it would be a sheer waste of public funds and we should not build. The existing MRT lines were built on this basis. Future MRT and LRT lines will also be built on this basis. We cannot adopt the alternative approach, as I have explained earlier, where we build any line, so long as they can be cross-subsidised by the rest of the network and so long as the overall bottomline remains healthy. If we were to proceed on this basis, we will be building lines all over the place, including lines that do not make economic sense, and we will continue to do so until the MRT system goes into the red. Let me quote an observation of a transport economist who was formerly with the World Bank. He related this story that if a group of friends go to a restaurant and decide beforehand that they will share the bill evenly, they will tend to over-order and waste food. Because they know that whatever extra each of them orders is cross-subsidised by the rest. If each person pays for his own food or order, each will only order what he needs and what he is prepared to pay for.”
“But if we start to go down that way, I think we have seen with our own eyes what happened in other countries. We have to stand firm on our principles, and I am glad that there are MPs in this House who are here to remind us that we should continue to stand firm on these principles. As Mr Heng Chiang Meng put it in an interview, the Government has been willing to subsidise public services but to the point of affordability, not in the way that encourages wastage and inefficiency. Another very popular one. Why do we not build, so long as the whole system is viable? Let us cross-subsidise profitable and non-profitable lines. This approach is rational but, again, it is short-sighted. It leads to either rising fares for the existing commuters or it leads to increasing losses by MRT operators. Every extension that is not breaking even adds to the financial burden of the company. So the argument goes that bus companies do that all the time. They operate money-making and loss-making services. But that is the reason why bus companies are so reluctant to introduce new loss-making services. Because every service that they introduce that loses money adds to the burden. And either they come back to the PTC for fare increases when their bottomline is no longer sustainable, or they have to operate in the red. So it is better for us to stick to the partnership arrangement that has been spelt out, because that is the only sustainable arrangement that can allow us to grow our network in the most judicious manner while we ensure fiscal prudence and financial discipline. I want to reiterate Government's commitment to improve public transport. We will do so by expanding the rail network. But, as I have said, we cannot do so lightly.”