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 54 of 61.
“Sir, the answer is that for those who do not wish to take up the scheme, then cash grants will be given if they are eligible.”
“Sir, let me very quickly take the other points that were raised. First of all, Dr John Chen asked about the green labelling scheme. The scheme has now gone on for about a year. It has been well received. It is supported by industries and by members of the public. We have received many applications and at the moment, there are 105 products which carry the green label. We did a survey in February of this year, which showed that six out of 25 distributors reported increase in the sales of their green label products. I believe that this scheme is working well and we should persevere with it. He also talked about CWOs. I think it is necessary for me to explain to the Member that whether a person leaves behind a piece of paper or a banana peel or drops it on the pavement deliberately, both are acts of littering. The law is very clear about this. In fact, in the Environmental Public Health Act, it says that any person who has deposited, placed, dropped, left behind or thrown away any refuse in a public place is deemed to have committed an offence under this Act. I would like to assure the Member that the CWO is served only on litterbugs who are recalcitrant or who have committed serious littering offences. Not all offenders are served with the CWO. And in 1993, only 7% of the 4,000-odd litterbugs were caught and were served with the CWO. So the perception that CWOs are casually served is not quite correct. Sir, I would ask my Senior Parliamentary Secretary to take the other two questions on food hygiene and dengue fever.”
“In fact, the food prices at private outlets are only marginally higher than those of the Government, HDB and JTC hawker centres, even though their rents are very, very much higher. Just to give Members an example. We did a recent survey and we assessed that the median monthly stall rental for private outlets was close to $2,000, something like $1,850. You compare this with the subsidised rental of $120 at Government stalls. There is a gap of something like 15 times. Despite this very large difference, the prices at private outlets, according to this survey, were not significantly higher than those in the Government hawker centres. Then, besides the hawker stalls, there are of course other private food outlets like the fast food centres, the air-conditioned food centres. The prices charged by hawker stalls cannot be higher than those of such food centres and air-conditioned centres which have better facilities. What I am saying is that there is a natural cap on hawker food prices. And in the final analysis, we cannot get away from the fact that it is the customers who can exercise the prerogative, although Mr Chin makes the point that it is not always easy to exercise that prerogative, and I grant that in some cases, this may be so. But, nevertheless, at the end of the day, there is a limit to what customers are prepared to pay for their hawker food. Sir, when the sale of hawker stalls is completed, the Government expects that there will be about 20,000 Singaporeans who will own the stalls that they operate. They will join the growing rank of citizens who are proud owners of valuable assets, like HDB flats, HDB shops, Telecom shares. They too will own a part of Singapore and they too will have a stake in our future prosperity.”
“He can then bid for it and if he is successful, he will be eligible for the same amount of discount as if he had bought it earlier. If he is unsuccessful, he will be offered a stall in the centres which are not in the sale scheme or he can then opt for a cash grant, if he is eligible. The other question from the Member for Thomson GRC was regarding Muslim stalls (halal stalls). Such stalls are now already sited away from sensitive non-halal stalls. This arrangement will continue. We will continue to have provision of stalls catering for Muslim customers. At the same time, we will make sure that the value of the Muslim stalls would not be prejudiced by this arrangement. Many Members, including Mr Chin Harn Tong, have expressed very grave concerns about the impact of this scheme on food prices. Let me reiterate that the purpose of Government's move to sell hawker stalls is to allow hawkers to own their business and, in the process, they must work at improving their service and bringing in more customers. This must bring considerable benefits not only to the stall owners, but also to their customers. This scheme will radically alter or change the way that they do business. I do not see how this will lead to hefty price increases if we maintain a large number of hawker stalls. There are some 23,000 hawker stalls in the various estates - Government, HDB and JTC hawker centres. There are another 13,000 similar stalls in the private sector. This is a very, very large number of stalls. There is intense competition among them. This intense competition has kept food prices stable and I believe it will continue to be so.”
“The Chief Valuer will assess the value of the stalls, taking into account several factors: the location of the stalls, the potential for rental of the stalls, and other factors. There will be a discount. Stalls will be sold at a discount from this valuation. But the final selling prices will be affordable. We have discussed the principles of the scheme with various financial institutions and I understand that they are willing to come up with financial packages which will help hawkers to buy over their stalls. The Member for Changi also asked whether CPF savings can be used. I will refer this matter to my colleague, the Minister for Labour, for his consideration. However, I am given to understand that the CPF Board has some rules regarding the ownership period before CPF funds can be used. However, let me reiterate what I mentioned earlier, which is that the Government, first of all, will be selling the stalls at a discount. Secondly, financial institutions will be willing to come forward to work out packages to make the final selling price affordable. I am confident that, with these measures, hawkers will be able to buy over their stalls and enjoy the full benefits of the sale scheme. With regard to the suggestion to allow stallholders to continue renting their stalls if they, for one reason or another, do not wish to become stallholders, although the hawkers will not be stall owners, I think we can see how we can vary the terms to allow them the other benefits of the sale scheme, such as freeing-up the rules on sub-letting. Encik Othman also asked whether we will have a second opinion on the valuation. If any hawker believes that the valuation is excessive, he can request that his stall be put up for tender.”
“The hawkers can then sublet, they can sell, they can pass the stalls on to their children, if they so wish. With this freeing up, the net result would be that the stalls can be operated for longer hours. Stall-owners can also earn additional income from the subletting and the use of the stalls will be maximised as it is open for longer hours, meaning added convenience for consumers. The criteria for the sale of the stalls are that it will only be sold in centres which are not affected by redevelopment in the foreseeable future. We have received quite a number of suggestions from CASE and grassroots organisations on this possibility of withholding the sale to stallholders who profiteer, who harass customers, who flout hygiene rules and so on. These requests are now being studied by my Ministry. Then there is the question of the period of ownership which Dr John Chen and several others raised. Sir, in considering the period of ownership for the stallholders, there are two considerations. First of all, we have to take into account the need to have a reasonably long period in order to enable stallholders to plan long term, as I said just now. But on the other hand, the longer the period of ownership the higher will be the purchase price and therefore the less affordable will the stalls be. So weighing these two considerations, my Ministry has decided that the ownership period will be 20 years. The sale of the stall scheme will not be implemented overnight. It will be implemented over a period of some 10 years. But this time-frame can be changed. If the response is very positive, we will be in a position to shorten that time-frame. 2.00 pm Encik Othman asked how the value of the stalls will be fixed.”
“Sir, several Members have raised the subject of privatisation of hawker centres. I would like to respond to them first. Since the Prime Minister announced that Government would sell hawker stalls to the stallholders so that they, like other Singaporeans, can own assets and have a stake in the country, my Ministry, together with HDB and JTC, has been examining various ways to implement this policy. We have also received many suggestions from Members of Parliament, from hawkers themselves through their association and through other organisations like the Federation of Merchants Association. We are close to finalising the details and will be ready to announce the details of the scheme very soon. However, today I would like to spell out the broad principles of the scheme. First of all, let me clarify that it is not quite accurate to describe the scheme as a privatisation of hawker centres. The Government's plan is to enable the incumbent hawkers to own the stalls that they are now renting. As owners, the hawkers would be able to better take care of their centres. They will be more motivated in the running of their own stalls. They can plan long term, they can improve their stalls, they can try out new ways of doing business. This way, they will directly benefit because they can attract more customers and the value of their stalls will go up. At the same time, the customers will also benefit as the hawkers come up with more innovative ways to serve them better. At the moment, my Ministry requires stallholders to be present personally at their stalls. Subletting is not allowed. Stalls are not transferable. The reason is that rents are heavily subsidised. Government will remove these restrictions for those stalls which are sold.”
“If they are trees in general, the answer is yes, they are recyclable. They can be chopped up and reused.”
“I am not familiar with which trees the Member is talking about. Mr Chiam See Tong: Roadside trees.”
“Not project financing, but financing on a case-by-case basis.”
“But, more importantly, Singapore, as a country, has shown that we can have economic growth without sacrificing our environment. This experience can be invaluable to other countries which are confronted with the same problem. My Ministry will help local companies in their effort to export this expertise. We can do so by providing them with the contacts and help them to open the doors. We can encourage joint ventures. Recently, we encouraged the business community to set up an organisation to group their resources together to see how they can better cooperate. There is a company under my Ministry, SEMES (Singapore Environmental Management Engineering Services), which will explore possibilities of joint ventures. On the question of funding for these companies, I think this is a difficult problem on its own. The EDB, I know, operates a comprehensive set of loans, grants and incentives, etc. to companies which can have economic spin-offs in Singapore. Environmental technology (ET) companies also fall under this category, I believe. While there will be no special preference given to environmental technology companies, I think some ET companies have already benefitted from the EDB loans and pioneer status.”
“Sir, I would like to carry on where I left off yesterday on the subject of waste minimisation. Yesterday, I said that our target, which is to reduce domestic waste from 1.1 kg to 0.9 kg per capita per day, is a stiff target, but it is an achievable one. It is an achievable one if we can get the full cooperation of households in the recycling of the waste. Because currently about 40% of domestic waste is recyclable - papers, cans, glasses. These still end up in our refuse and a large part of our refuse, about 40%, is this type of waste. So if households can cooperate, if the recycling programme can succeed, and we can separate all these materials at source, then that target can be met. Dr John Chen also raised two other points - one on environmental auditing and the other on environmental technology. Environmental auditing is a process for companies to assess its own environmental performance and see in what way they can improve upon it. Obviously, in the process of so doing, they will be able to save cost and minimise resources and as a result become more competitive. At the moment, there are no international standards on environmental auditing. But the ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) recently set up a technical committee to look into this and Singapore is now, through SISIR, keeping track of developments in this area. Dr John Chen also made a point that we should help our companies which have expertise and experience in environmental technology to export this expertise. I fully agree with him. I think this is something that the Ministry is very much in favour of. Obviously, over the years, we have accumulated a considerable amount of expertise in this area.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates for the financial year 1994/1995, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“In the meantime, we will pursue programmes to encourage, eg, minimal packaging on the part of manufacturers, recycling of paper, recycling of construction waste, wood waste and so on. At an opportune time, we will announce our proposals regarding the usage of other measures such as pre-paid bags to bring down waste.”
“Sir, firstly, I want to commend Dr John Chen for his support of the Green Plan. He is correct in saying that the most urgent task now is really to turn vision into reality. We have come together. We have put up this comprehensive document, whose objective is to make Singapore a model green city in the year 2000 and beyond. Now, how do we turn all these words into action? First of all, it requires the active involvement of all the people, all the sectors of the economy, the public sector, private sector, ordinary citizens, large corporations. The action programmes that have been put forth have been documented. There will be a steering committee which will be set up to oversee the plan. This steering committee will ensure that the target dates are reviewed, that it will remain realistic as the Green Plan is progressively implemented. Yes, we need funds to implement the Plan. In fact, we have targeted a sum of about $3 billion to be spent on environmental infrastructure under the Singapore Green Plan. It includes the upgrading and the covering up of our sewerage treatment works. It includes the development of Semakau which is our new landfill site, development of our fourth incineration plant as well as improvement of our waterways to make it more aesthetic and more user-friendly. The Member also asked about waste minimisation. Yes, we intend to bring down domestic and trade wastes from 1.1 kg to 0.9 kg per capita. This is actually, I must say, quite a stiff target. We have been considering measures such as those that he has mentioned just now, the use of pre-paid bags, payment by weight and so on. However, there are many implications involved in these systems and we still have not sorted out these implications yet.”
“Finally, Dr Soin's plea for electric cars. Yes, my Ministry is monitoring the development of such vehicles in other countries. I understand that at present there are no electric vehicles that are commercially available. When they are commercially available, we will certainly look into their use in Singapore, subject, of course, to our normal rules on construction and use.”
“I am not familiar with all the numbers but I do not see the relevance of this chart to the case that he is going to make for taxi fares. The fact is that the taxi fares in the other cities may not be relevant to his case. He has also asked about deregulation of the taxi trade. Yes, I argued for deregulation in this House last year. I still believe that that is the way to go. However, I note that there were many commuters and also many taxi drivers who are rather apprehensive about the proposal to deregulate. Commuters were afraid that fares will get out of control. Operators were afraid that there will be other taxi operators coming into the market. I understand their fears but I do not think that these fears are justified in the long run. Nevertheless, I want to inform Dr Wan that Government will deregulate the taxi service, but we will do so cautiously. And we will do so only after the ERP has been in operation and we know how taxi drivers and taxi commuters react to the ERP. Because do not forget that when the ERP comes into operation, the whole operating environment for taxis is going to be very different from what it is today. So we have to wait and see. 5.45 pm Finally, a very quick response to Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay about the fuel pump nozzles. I am surprised by what he mentioned just now, because I thought that all the petrol stations have already converted to the new pumps. In fact, the oil companies assured my Ministry that they have different pumps for different grades of petrol. So I am very surprised by what he said. I will ask them to check. As far as diesel vehicles are concerned, no, we do not have different standards for local and foreign diesel trucks. Yes, we will look into the use of the smaller smoke detectors that he is recommending.”
“And we will then review the extent of the increase in vehicle population that can be allowed from year to year depending on the current traffic situation prevailing then. Sir, Mr Chew also asked about the projected number of COEs in the next five years. Apart from being unsure about what the traffic situation would be then, we have already committed, on the basis of new roads being built, to this 3% net growth in vehicles. So this will be the minimum growth in vehicles. If the situation improves, or if we are in a position to implement the congestion pricing in other areas which will result in a freer flow of traffic, then we will be in a position to issue more COEs. But the base minimum will be the 3% growth which has already taken into account the road building programme which PWD has in place over the next century. Sir, Dr Wan asked about extending the validity period of COEs for taxis. Yes, if there are good reasons for it, my Ministry will consider this favourably. However, I just want to make a point that for replacement taxis, in other words, those who already own a taxi and want to replace their taxis, they are in a position to actually pre-plan the replacement programme. So I am reluctant to extend the validity period for those taxis which are replacement taxis. He also asked about deregulation of the taxi trade and about increase in taxi fares. He has made a very strong case for the increase in taxi fares. I hope that he will make a similarly strong case to the PTC which is meeting soon, I believe, to discuss this matter. And if he is as convincing as he is today, then I think the PTC will be favourably disposed. There is only one point I want to make. He circulated a comparison of taxi fares in selected cities.”
“They will be converted to car COEs at a ratio of 10 motorcycle COEs to 7 car COEs based on traffic studies that, under free-flowing traffic conditions, 10 motorcycles occupy roughly the same road space as seven cars. So it is on a traffic engineering basis. The 5,157 motorcycle COEs will, therefore, be converted into 3,610 car COEs at a ratio of 0:7. But because there will be an additional 2,850 COEs due to the whole-day ALS in the coming quota year, the Government has decided that we will spread the release of these converted motorcycle COEs equally over the next three years. In other words, there will be an additional 1,203 COEs per year. The reason behind this is very simple. We do not want to have too many COEs coming in all at once and to avoid any sharp fluctuations in the supply of COEs from year to year. So what all this means is that there will be an additional 4,053 additional COEs to be released for the coming quota year. This is over and above the replacement COEs, ie, COEs that are due to vehicles that have been scrapped in the past year, which come to 29,622 as well as 17,000 COEs which are to cater for the 3% growth. So if you add all these numbers up, the total quota for the next 12-month period, from May 1994 to April 1995, will be 50,675. This represents a 9% increase for all the vehicle COEs, excluding motorcycle COEs, because motorcycle COEs would distort the comparison. And if you just take cars alone, just categories 1 to 4, there will be a 15% increase in COEs over last year. We will continue to monitor the traffic situation in the CBD and, when necessary, we will extend the principle of congestion pricing to other areas.”
“And what we are really attempting to do is to have more usage measures to allow us to relax the quota for motor vehicles, in other words, to introduce more COEs. In the case of the whole-day ALS, as the Member is aware, the Government has announced that if the scheme is successful, we are going to introduce more COEs. The PWD has done some preliminary surveys. The system has not fully settled yet. I think he is well aware of it. But, so far, the preliminary studies show that there has been a drop of something like 10% in the traffic and traffic flow has evened out throughout the day. The full extent of the improvement, of course, can only be ascertained after it has reached steady state which I think is going to be in a few months' time. Then we will look into making the necessary changes to the system, and consider some of the proposals that Mr Chew has mentioned earlier. However, in the meantime, the Government has decided to allow an additional half a percentage point increase, from 3% to 3 1/2% point increase, in the growth of vehicles for this coming quota year, in other words, from May 1994 to April 1995. This is a direct result of the whole-day ALS scheme. This half a percentage point increase works out to an additional 2,850 COEs for the coming quota year. I have also announced earlier this year that we are going to freeze the number of unused motorcycle COEs, convert them, and reallocate them to the other categories. So we will do this also for the coming quota year and for the next few years. There are 5,157 unused motorcycle COEs that have been frozen since early this year. We will convert them to passenger car COEs only, on the basis that motor-cycles are a form of private transport. So we will convert them to another form of private transport.”
“Yes, I would certainly like to see more people taking part in the park-and-ride scheme. Maybe there was a lack of publicity in the early stages when HDB, together with PWD, launched the scheme in 1990. Since then, however, the scheme has been revised, and the attractiveness has been improved by offering the monthly concession pass but, as he said, it may not be good enough. I also want to inform him that it is a question of economics. If it is more convenient and cheaper for a person to drive all the way from home to his office in the CBD, pay the area licence fee and pay the car parking charges, then I think he will do so. If he finds the charges prohibitive, for example, if he has to pay a very very large amount to park in the CBD, then I think the park-and-ride scheme will become more attractive. So it is a question of comparable cost. But, nevertheless, I have asked the SMRT to persevere in this, to keep on publicising the scheme and to see how the scheme can be further improved. I thank him for his concern in this area and it is an area which I share his view wholeheartedly. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked about the whole-day ALS. How long will these restrictions last? Has it been effective, if not, what are we going to do about it? The Area Licensing Scheme has been very successful. The whole-day Area Licensing Scheme is an extension of that. We think that it will work. We started off with a pricing package which we thought would be sufficient to reduce the number of people from entering the CBD. In the long run, of course, the ideal situation is to have an Electronic Road Pricing System. But until then, this is one of the few interim steps that we can take to have a road pricing in Singapore.”
“Sir, Mr Teo Chong Tee made a very impassioned plea for bus services to the Airport. I have responded to his point previously in this House and also in private correspondence. The point that I made earlier is also relevant, that is, these changes are really part and parcel of a whole island-wide integration exercise, in the process of which some areas have their services removed and other areas have new services added. In the case of the Changi Airport bus services, there was a whole package of services that was put up. Some of the applications were accepted and some were rejected. Suffice it to say that if there is any good ground for a further review on the part of PTC, I will be more than happy to bring these new facts before the PTC. But as far as I know, up to this point in time, the PTC has considered all the relevant information put up by the operators as well as Mr Teo and many other people, and they support the changes that have been made. So I cannot at this stage offer any further solace to Mr Teo. I just want to mention that the Changi Airport workers do make a useful contribution to the Airport. Unfortunately, we are not able to completely cater to their requests all the time. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the subject is closed but that there will be a constant review of the services to the Airport, including MRT services, as and when the time is ripe. Dr Toh Keng Kiat talked about the integration of public and private transport services and he made a very detailed suggestion about the possibility of using mini-buses. I will ask the ROV and the PTC to look into his proposals in the context of the Bus Plus study that they are now doing. Mr Kenneth Chen wanted us to do more about the park-and-ride scheme.”
“Sir, the two are quite unrelated. If there is a need to build more MRT lines, if the new MRT lines will serve areas which will make it viable to operate, the Government will build the MRT lines and justify it on that basis. It has spent $5 billion for the first line before COE monies came into the picture. It is now doing so for the Woodlands line, and it will continue to do so. The next line probably will be the north-east sector line and thereafter many other areas in Singapore, if the demand justifies it. There is no point saying that because we have got all these monies coming from COE, therefore we should start to build MRT lines all over the place. The two are simply just not connected.”
“Why not try? If it does not work, do we go back to the old system? What happens to the people who are affected by the current system? What about their opinions? What about the person who does not find himself comfortable with the pay-as-you-bid system, the person who is unfamiliar with the system, the person who would be disadvantaged by the system? Sir, I think at this point in time, I would just like to mention the fact that although not many people have championed the current system in this House, there have been ample studies done, including academic thesis in the local university, that at the end of the day, whether it is the pay-as-you-bid system or whether it is the current system, you cannot run away from the fact that if many people want to bid for very few licences, the COE prices are going to go up. And is this not why Mr Heng and others are championing the pay-as-you-bid system? That in some way, it is going to lower prices of COEs. Really that is what we are talking about. Sir, if we wish to, I think we can probably have another full debate on this. I do not think that at this stage your indulgence should be stretched any further.”
“Sir, I am glad to know that the Member has accepted that the vehicle quota system is an effective solution and it is here to stay. The COE system that we have implemented is part and parcel of this quota system. I do not think there is any evidence that the system that has been proposed by Mr Heng Chiang Meng or the pay-as-you-bid system that has been championed by many Members in this House is superior to the current system. An hon. Member: Why not try it?”
“Yes, we are adopting a policy of liberalisation and we will do so progressively to allow both the regulator, which is TAS, as well as the operators to adjust to operating in a competitive environment. Once the initial adjustments are made, the pace of liberalisation can pick up. Although Singapore Telecom has been granted exclusive rights to operate basic domestic and international telephone services until the year 2007 and cellular and paging services until April 1997, TAS has already introduced further competition in some selected areas like coin-operated telephones, mobile phones, rental services and so on. The liberalisation process will be accelerated this year. Later this month, TAS will be calling a tender to invite applicants to provide public mobile data and location tracking services. These are services which can be used to track delivery vehicles, courier vehicles and so on. The next step is the liberalisation of cellular mobile telephone and radio paging services when Singapore Telecom's exclusive rights in these areas expire in March 1997. TAS plans to invite prospective operators to submit proposals to provide these two services by the end of this year. The plan is to award the tenders for these licences in 1995, in order to give sufficient lead time for these operators to put up their infrastructure to set up their network, so that they will be able, come April 1997, to offer commercial services. In order to ensure that competitors can come in and compete on a level playing field with Singapore Telecom, TAS will define the principles of access by a second or third operator to ST's network. And they will also regulate the interconnect charges to be imposed by ST on competitors. The details will be announced when TAS calls for the tender later this year.”
“I think all of these categories and more, if one were to think about it, would have equal, if not greater, justification for special consideration. 4.45 pm I think it is much easier if we just stick to our current system and everybody has a fair go, tender for it rather than ballot, as Mr Robert Chua suggests. Because in the process, anybody who wants it, who can afford it, will be able to get it. If you ballot for it, the lucky ones will get it. If you tender for it, yes, the Government collects a lot of money from COEs, but this money goes into consolidated revenue and it comes out again in the form of expenditure for education, health, public housing and so on. Balloting it, the money goes into the pockets of a few people. Is that a better system? I do not think so. Finally, Sir, if I may just address very briefly Dr Wang Kai Yuen's point about liberalisation of the telecommunications market in Singapore. I agree with him that we should liberalise. And indeed, even before April 1992 when TAS hived off Singapore Telecom, we have actually started to liberalise. All the customer premises equipment like telephone sets, mobile phones, PABXs, value-added networks and so on have all been liberalised. Yes, we can do more. However, in introducing competition, I just want to sound a word of caution, ie, we need to ensure that there will always be long-term benefits to Singapore. So we must maximise the use of our scarce natural resources like land, like radio frequencies which are a limited resource. So better customer choice, on the one hand, has to be weighed against the possibility of wastage, of duplication in services.”
“So this possibility could also be examined under the Bus Plus scheme that I mentioned just now. I have a few other minor points I want to address. Mr Ling How Doong was asking whether we should regulate financing. First of all, he says that people go for hire purchase because it is easily available, but the people really cannot afford to buy a car. The people are not really affluent. I thought finance companies lend on the basis that they are going to get their money back. They do not give money away. So if they are prepared to lend 100% and if they are prepared to stretch the repayment for as long as possible, it seems to me that they have confidence in the ability of their clients to repay that loan with interest, with high interest I presume. So I do not see the logic when he says that Singaporeans cannot actually afford to buy a car and it is only financing that makes them able to buy a car. Mr Ling suggested reducing road tax and ARF to make it cheaper and more accessible to buy cars. How will this lower COE prices? I would have thought that by making it cheaper and encouraging demand, you are actually raising COE prices, not lowering it. Dr Wang Kai Yuen suggests that we should have special consideration for senior citizens. I think we should always find ways and means of rewarding senior citizens. However, I think it is difficult to find a mechanism which will allow us to reward senior citizens in this way without creating a whole host of new problems for us. Why senior citizens? What about the young graduate who has just come out from the university? What about the businessman who needs a car badly? What about the handicapped and the disabled?”
“And, in fact, the PTC, together with ROV, is presently looking into extending the scope of these special services to meet the demands of commuters who may want a better level of service, better than the current basic bus-MRT service that they are getting, and they are prepared to pay for it. So currently, as he has indicated, there appears to be a gap in the range of public transport services that are available. It is either taxis, bus or MRT. So I hope that this scheme which Mr Goh had raised and I support, and I have called it the Bus Plus in a recent interview, can effectively fill this gap and will help to supplement the basic bus-MRT service, and maybe even help to alleviate the demand for taxis. I must make it clear, however, that Bus Plus will not be part of the basic bus service. It will have no universal service obligations and it will be given maximum flexibility in route planning. It will offer better quality service at a premium, if there is a demand and if the commuters are prepared to pay. So the fares will have to reflect the full operating costs of such a service. It will not enjoy cross-subsidies from the current bus-MRT network. Sir, Mr Koo Tsai Kee asked whether my Ministry would encourage taxi operators to run a space wagon type of taxis. I do agree with him that these vehicles are a boon to large families. I myself drive one of these vehicles. So I can vouch for what he has said just now. Sir, ROV does not specify what type of taxis the company can put on the road. The carrying capacity that is currently licensed is according to what the manufacturers say. If there is a demand for such high capacity taxis, I am sure the taxi operators would take note of it and would respond accordingly. This demand, by the way, can also be met by mini buses.”
“I ask Mr Ling: was the service level of the buses better than when there were 11 companies? Many Members in this House would have been familiar with the conditions then. I can state categorically that the service conditions were no better than today. In fact, I say that they were much, much worse. So competition is not the answer, it is not the solution per se. I am not saying that competition is bad. But I am saying that, in this particular case, it is not the automatic solution to the problem. Hong Kong is well known for adopting laissez-faire economics in solving and managing its affairs. In the area of bus services, it has a regime of controlled competition, not free for all. Kuala Lumpur has many bus companies and recently they put up a proposal to put all the various companies into one holding company in order to improve the level of service. So we must improve, we must keep on trying, we must continue to improve the public transport service. But we must not trot out solutions which had been tried before and have not succeeded just for the sake of arguing. Sir, the Member for Braddell Heights, Mr Goh, mentioned just now that we should allow some private buses to operate scheduled services. Sir, I am agreeable to this. I am open to this suggestion. The PTC is also open to this suggestion because I know that they have, in the last few years, approved many of such applications. I have a list of them here. They tell me that they have approved shuttle services into private estates and condominiums. They have approved sightseeing bus services for tourists, and so on. These services will be supplementary to the basic bus services of the public transport system, the backbone, as he calls it. Yes, it is an idea worth looking into.”
“The operators accept and understand this. The bus companies, in particular, I must say, have been singularly successful in this respect. First, they introduced the feeder service concept. Then they have the OMO concept which has resulted in the fares being held constant for almost 10 years, from 1981 to 1990, and this was the period when manpower cost and other costs were shooting up. So what happened when the MRT was introduced? There was a sudden quantum jump in capacity. We suddenly had virtually a doubling of capacity. If we had done nothing, if the operators had done nothing, the bus routes were left running in parallel with the trains, what would you get? You would be getting buses running half empty and trains running half empty. If both buses and trains were to survive without increasing fares, they had no choice. Either they raise fares and keep on running, or they had to start to integrate their operations. And in the process of doing so, they had been able to save buses and drivers from one area. Yes, services were taken away. But these were redeployed to other areas to serve other commuters. In the process, productivity went up because you are now using the same number of buses in order to serve more people. So what I am saying is that the restructured bus network that has been put in place will pay off by keeping fares low, by minimising fare increases. Sir, the issue is not competition, as Mr Ling tried to point out. There was competition in the 1970s. There were 11 bus companies in the 1970s running services all over the island. Then when the 11 bus companies found that they could not make a go of it, they merged and they coalesced into four, from four they went into three, and finally into one.”
“In our present system, we use the PTC to control the fares and we use PTC as the arbitrator to make sure that the bus operators and MRT are reasonably profitable and they operate a whole package of both profitable and unprofitable routes. It is far better, I believe, to spend the COE money, which is public money, to subsidise infrastructure on the condition that the operators are prepared to run the service without subsidy. This is the best assurance that the public's money is spent in a most cost efficient manner and is not poured down a black hole, as it were. Mr Goh Choon Kang and Mr Ling also expressed unhappiness, perhaps unhappiness is an understatement, over bus route changes under the MRT-bus integration programme. I know many Members in this House are very disturbed about some of the changes and they have communicated this personally to me and to my Ministry. Let me take this opportunity to explain again why my Ministry and the PTC supported and approved these changes. The PTC has been entrusted with the responsibility of making sure that the interest of commuters are looked after. At the same time, it has to make sure that the operators remain viable. This is the cornerstone of our public transport policy. So a major responsibility of the PTC is, therefore, to keep the fares affordable and, at the same time, make sure that the operators are financially viable. The PTC has made it clear to the operators that it will not simply approve fares. It wants to make sure that the operators are operating with maximum efficiency, maximum productivity, so that wastages are eliminated from the operations. So it will simply not allow operators to pass on the increased costs to the commuters without making any attempt to offset such costs through higher productivity.”
“And I want to make this point to Mr Ling that taxis, although they form part of the public transport system, are equivalent, for all intents and purposes, to private cars and, in a certain way, they are actually better than private cars because you get chauffeured around. If taxis are like private cars, if they create the same amount of congestion on the road, then surely there is no reason for us to either exempt them from COEs, reduce taxes, or whatever. The proper solution must be to price them correctly and then make sure that they find the balancing mechanism in order to make a good living on the roads. The solution is not to reduce the taxes. The solution is certainly not to exempt them from COEs. I just want to make this point clear first. So "basic" bus and MRT services, as the word says, mean basic services. It provides affordability and accessibility to many people who do not have an alternative. And to keep bus and MRT fares affordable, Government subsidises, bears a heavy cost of the public transport infrastructure - bus stops, interchanges and, of course, the MRT network itself. 4.30 pm Mr Heng also suggested last week in the Budget debate that, perhaps, the Government should use some of its revenue from COEs to subsidise unprofitable routes. I believe Mr Goh Choon Kang, just now, also suggested that we should use some of the COE money to subsidise the MRT routes. As I indicated earlier, the Government will pay for the cost of infrastructure, but it will not subsidise unprofitable routes. The trouble with subsidising unprofitable routes is very simple. You really do not know where to stop.”
“How we package those taxes, whether it be in the form of ARF or import duties or in other forms, is really a matter that we can discuss. However, when he mentioned about the review of some of the taxes, I just thought I would mention that some of those taxes have a road transport objective to them. For example, the question of why extra tax for old cars. I think this is a point that has been brought up in this House several times. I just wish to mention that our records show that old cars do have a higher breakdown rate on the roads. They do demonstrate that they are less roadworthy even though they go for regular vehicle inspections. So there is a basis for my saying that old cars actually have the potential to create problems on the road - congestion, disruption to traffic flow and so on. And this is the reason why the Ministry has imposed this extra burden on the owners of old cars. But, as I said, there are other taxes which we are currently reviewing, including this question of double fees for "Q" cars. Sir, I must mention also that the other pillar of our road transport policy is public transport. I want to bring public transport into this debate because I think it is very obvious to all of us that we cannot continue to impose this heavy burden or to restrict the growth of cars to manage the aspiration of people to own cars without giving them a reasonable alternative. I am not saying a complete one-for-one alternative, but a reasonable alternative. So we now have a range of public transport services provided on the one hand by the taxis and on the other by buses and MRT.”
“So, first of all, we start off with town planning, we have a good network of roads, we have efficient public transport and, last but not least, we manage the growth and usage of vehicles. We do this, as Members are now well aware, through a judicious mix of both usage as well as ownership restraint measures. By having more usage measures, we are able to release more COEs for cars. Sir, there have been many suggestions from Mr Ling, Dr Wang and Mr Heng Chiang Meng who made a very innovative, although a bit complicated, suggestion about COEs. But the point of it all is that, at the end of the day, no matter what system we use, ultimately, so long as people want to buy a car, so long as people can afford to buy a car, and so long as this desire or demand outstrips overwhelmingly the supply that we are prepared to release in the form of the vehicle quota, then surely no matter what system we use, pay-as-you-bid, two-category system, or Heng Chiang Meng's system, it is the supply and demand that will determine the prices. Sir, Mr Chia Shi Teck asked for a review of the vehicle taxes. He distributed a table which shows that there is a whole series, or categories, of taxes, both for ownership as well as usage. I do agree with him that these taxes had evolved over time and that we should have a review of these taxes. My Ministry will be doing a review of such taxes, bearing in mind the fundamental principles that we want to maintain a congestion-free environment and bearing in mind that those who contribute to congestion, whether it be private car, taxi, or goods vehicle, must bear a proportionate share of that cost that they impose on the community. So the more congestion you impose, it is only fair that you bear a higher price in terms of taxes.”
“Members, this is the message: that to tackle our traffic congestion problem we must be prepared to take our medicine in order to prevent the disease, rather than later on try and cure it. Many cities have found out that once you get into that position, it is extremely difficult to cure it. Recently, I heard Mr Goh Choon Kang in Parliament talk about the need to have policies that both dam as well as dredge. I thought it was a very apt analogy. I wanted to take this opportunity to assure him that in the formulation of our land transport policy, we do not just dam, but we also dredge. As I said, Singapore is not immune to this rich man's disease. Every year, our workers, our managers enjoy higher pay, they enjoy good business, and some of them even made a killing on the stock exchange, and they all want to buy a car. Contrary to what Mr Ling How Doong said that Singaporeans do not have money, I came across this quote. It so happens that I have it here with me. It was in the Business Times. If I may, Sir, in Singlish, quote what this car dealer said: `For some people, no car is like no legs. You got no money, you can't say anything. But Singaporeans got money. So?' I thought it captured very succinctly what the whole problem is all about. So if we want economic growth, if we want our managers and our workers to continue to enjoy higher salaries and good bonuses and, at the same time, enjoy a good quality of life, then we must not only be able to meet his transportation needs but we must also be able to meet or manage his aspiration for his car or his motorbike, his own set of wheels, all the while bearing in mind that we need to keep congestion under control.”
“Congestion is a problem faced by many cities. We are not unique. It is a problem of success. It comes with rapid growth and development. Previously, the cities that faced such problems were London, Tokyo. Now, we have got Seoul, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta and, I believe, it is now a problem in Shenzhen and Shanghai. And I dare say that very soon, it will be a problem in Ho Chih Minh City and Hanoi as well. So the authorities in these cities understand and realise what needs to be done. They are aware of the tremendous cost that congestion imposes on their economy and on their citizens. I think there are many studies that have been made on this subject. I just pick one that was done recently, and this was by the Confederation of British Industry. They estimated that traffic congestion adds something like o15 billion annually to industrial cost in the United Kingdom. So I did a very rough back-of-the-envelope calculation. The UK has something like 60 million people, so for every man, woman and child in the UK, you are talking about something like S$600. Sir, the point is that congestion is very costly; it is not cost-free. And preventing congestion in Singapore does not come cheap - that I must admit. Because we are short of land, we are short of resources. It is like clogged arteries and heart disease. I think the Prime Minister made an analogy once that our roads are like the arteries, congestion is like clogging of the arteries. This comes with a rich diet. It is a rich man's disease. So what is the cure? Surely you do not stop eating. You adjust your lifestyle, you make sacrifices, you watch your diet, you change, you take your medicine like the doctor advises you to. But as the doctor will also tell you - prevention is better than cure. And hon.”
“Sir, I would, first of all, like to respond to the concerns expressed by both Mr Robert Chua and Mr Chia Shi Teck about the impact of our land transport policy on business. I think the point was made that in some way the land transport policy has raised cost which, in turn, has made it more difficult to do business in Singapore. Statements like these coming from two very prominent businessmen, I think, should not go unchallenged. Sir, what is the objective of our land transport policy? Is it to raise business cost, as alleged by the hon. Members? Surely not. Our objective is to keep our roads free-flowing so that goods and people can move about with minimum hassle and minimum cost. And roads that are free from congestion, they are very much a part and parcel of the infrastructure that we want to provide. It is as important as a world-class airport, a world-class port, good telecommunications. So the point I want to make is that our land transport policy serves to enhance, not stifle, our economic competitiveness. It serves to minimise, not raise, the cost of doing business in Singapore. I think all businessmen realise that you do not get paid until your goods actually reach the customers. The longer the goods take, the slower you get paid for delivery, and sometimes you do not get paid at all. I came across an article in Asiaweek recently. It quoted a story of an Indian garment maker who had to deliver 10,000 blouses to Zurich in two weeks. So he had his workers, 300 of them, working round the clock. They finished everything in time, in 10 days. But, unfortunately, a traffic jam outside Bombay meant that a three-day journey became five days, and the next available flight out was in two days' time. So the Swiss factory cancelled the order.”
“My Ministry, which currently chairs the ASEAN Working Group on Transboundary Pollution, has initiated through this Working Group the development of similar procedures for ASEAN countries to assist each other in monitoring and controlling the movement of such wastes. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ALLOWANCES 3. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Acting Minister for Community Development how the monthly allowance of $150 for people on public assistance was arrived at; and whether this is an adequate sum for subsistence.”
“Large volumes of normal goods pass legitimately through Singapore every day as Singapore is a major goods distribution hub for the region. Unfortunately, toxic wastes are moved through the same channels of transportation as normal goods. These wastes are sometimes disguised or falsely declared as normal goods. This is not easy to detect or prevent. Singapore does not condone the illegal movement of wastes of any kind and we have taken several measures and initiatives to deter this. There are adequate disposal facilities for wastes generated by our local industries. The generation, movement and disposal of wastes are closely monitored by my Ministry. There is no need to export unless it is to legitimate recycling centres approved by the importing country. Any action taken by Singapore alone, however, will not be enough to prevent or even deter the movement of toxic wastes as such an activity transcends national boundaries. It can only effectively be controlled through co-ordinated and joint action by all the countries affected. My Ministry therefore works closely with the authorities in our neighbouring countries to investigate any shipment of toxic wastes and to take the necessary control measures whenever we have information about such shipments. Procedures to monitor and control the movements of wastes have already been developed with Malaysia on a bilateral basis through the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Committee on the Environment and we are developing similar controls with Indonesia through the Indonesia-Singapore Joint Committee on the Environment.”
“(a) Benzene is a suspected carcinogen. Diseases of the blood such as leukaemia and anaemia have in other countries been associated with repeated exposure to high concentrations of benzene vapour in the workplace. (b) Monitoring of benzene in ambient air was initiated by my Ministry in 1990. So far, benzene has not been detected in our air. (c) The main source of benzene in ambient air is potentially from automotive petrol. Benzene is naturally present in petrol and may even be added as an octane booster. Complete combustion in the petrol engine converts the benzene to harmless products. To ensure it does not pose a problem, the level of benzene in petrol used in Singapore is closely monitored by my Ministry. (d) There are currently no standards or guidelines prescribed for benzene in ambient air although there are standards for workplace exposure. The Department of Industrial Health adopts a maximum permissible limit of 5 parts per million for workplace exposure for a normal 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek. TRANSHIPMENT OF TOXIC WASTES 2. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for the Environment what steps have been taken by his Ministry to prevent Singapore from inadvertently becoming a transhipment centre for toxic and hazardous waste intended for neighbouring Asian countries.”
“Currently, as the Member knows, there is a category for private car owners under the weekend car scheme. We have not received any request for such a category for commercial vehicles. However, if there is such a request, we will consider it. TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD/BOUNDARY ROAD (Construction) 5. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for National Development whether plans for the construction of a traffic interchange at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Boundary Road have been finalised and, if so, how it will affect existing buildings in the area, including the Braddell Heights Community Centre. The Acting Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, plans for the interchange at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Boundary Road are being finalised. In the proposed plans, it is envisaged that some of the existing buildings near the junction will be affected by the project. For the Braddell Heights Community Centre, the frontage of the site will be affected.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a total of 5,157 unused motor cycle Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) has been frozen since 29th January 1994. The Government has announced that it will redistribute this to other vehicle categories. The formula for conversion and distribution of the unused motor cycle COEs has yet to be finalised. It will be announced together with the quota allocation for May 1994 to April 1995.”
“It does not cover delivery expenses and there are no plans to change the present scheme. Annex - FEE INCREASES BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1993 AND JANUARY 1994 (Cols. 439 - 440) Appendix 1 - REDUCTION IN INCOME TAX RATES USED TO COMPUTE NON-RESIDENT RELIEFS UNDER SECTION 40 (Cols. 441 - 442) Appendix 2 (Cols. 443 - 445) Appendix 3 (Cols. 447 - 451) Appendix 4 (Cols. 453 - 456)”
“A Certificate of Entitlement (COE) from the Open Category can be used to register any type of vehicle. This is to allow the market some flexibility in determining the vehicle mix according to changes in demand. The domination of the Open Category by buyers of bigger cars is a reflection of the current strong demand for bigger cars. It does not follow that bigger cars cause more pollution. All vehicles, big or small, have to comply with the same strict emission standards before they can be registered for use here. At present, the Registry of Vehicles adopts internationally accepted emission standards for petrol-powered vehicles. These standards in fact impose lower and hence more stringent emission limits for bigger cars than smaller cars. My Ministry sees no reason for scrapping the Open Category. MATERNITY BILL OF FEMALE CIVIL SERVANTS 6. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Health whether the maternity bill of female civil servants who join the Service in 1994 will be paid by the Government and, if not, whether Medishield Plus will cover maternity costs. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Civil servants recruited from 1st January 1994 are placed under a new medical benefits package called Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) scheme. Under the scheme, they will receive an additional 1% Medisave contribution based on their monthly gross salary in lieu of hospitalisation benefits. However, they will be eligible for subsidised outpatient medical treatment subject to an annual limit of $350. Female civil servants who join the service in 1994 will therefore have to pay the hospital maternity bill themselves. The objective of MediShield Plus is to protect the insured from the high cost of treating prolonged and catastrophic or major illnesses.”
“Sir, unless there are other additional data available to the Public Transport Council, I believe the Council has looked at the points that were raised by Mr Teo and they have found sufficient cause to reinstate service 16 in the form of an express service during peak hours. The presumption must be that the alternatives that are available for the off-peak hours are found sufficient or that the number of people affected is not as high and therefore the changes that were made by the operators were approved and no further changes were considered necessary. However, if Mr Teo has any supplementary information, I would be glad to pass them on to the PTC. CATCHMENT AREAS (Cycling along designated routes) 17. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether cycling will be permitted along designated routes in catchment areas, especially MacRitchie Reservoir.”
“Sir, the request for reinstatement of these two services was made to the PTC sometime after the implementation, and as a result of further surveys done by the PTC and bus operators, the changes were made, as I explained just now, to service 16, because PTC has found that there are sufficient alternatives available for the other changes that were made.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Public Transport Council (PTC), the withdrawal of services 149 and 390 was part of a package to revamp bus services to the Changi Airport. This package included the extension of service 16 to the Airport, and the addition of buses to service 24 so that MRT commuters will have a better link to the Airport. Although service 149 was withdrawn, Scheme B buses were retained on the route to cater to peak demand. Like all other network changes under the MRT-bus integration exercise, the operators made these changes to the airport services to make more productive use of buses and drivers, and to reduce duplication of services. The Council approved the package of changes to the airport services after satisfying itself that alternative services are available to affected commuters. For example, for those taking service 149, the alternatives are service 31 between Toa Payoh and Marine Parade, and service 16 between Marine Parade and Changi Airport. It is the practice that, whenever changes to bus routes are implemented, the PTC and bus operators monitor feedback closely to see if further fine-tuning is necessary. After evaluating feedback from the airport workers directly as well as through Mr Teo, the Council decided that SBS should supplement Service 16 with a parallel peak-hour express service 16E. Service 16E was implemented on 31st January 1994.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are some 23,000 stalls in Environment, HDB and JTC hawker centres. Centres operated by the private sector have another 13,000 stalls. These stalls compete with one another and competition keeps prices at an affordable level. Stallholders in Environment, HDB and JTC centres are required to display price tags and sell at the declared prices. Enforcement officers regularly inspect these centres to ensure compliance. My Ministry supports the view that centres that profiteer on account of GST or other pretext should be excluded from the Sale of Stalls Scheme. If CASE has established that profiteering takes place in a particular hawker centre, it can refer the matter to my Ministry. PRICE INCREASES (Types and quanta implemented by Government departments and statutory boards before implementation of GST) 3. Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew asked the Minister for Finance what types and quanta of price increases affecting the public have been implemented by Government departments and statutory boards since the announcement of the Goods and Services Tax in his Budget Statement in 1993 and why these increases were allowed before the implementation of the GST on 1st April 1994.”
“To cater for Singaporeans who were overseas, the CPF Board operated a special service to authorise the Board to apply for the Group A shares on their behalf. Members had only to fill up and submit a special Authorisation Form available at all CPF offices, by the close of the Singapore Telecom share offer. This special service was announced in a CPF Board press release dated 10th September 1993. Many Singaporeans who were going overseas filled up these special Authorisation Forms and returned them to the CPF Board before leaving the country. Others collected the Authorisation Forms on behalf of their relatives or friends who were working or studying abroad. As at the close of the Singapore Telecom share offer, a total of 18,117 completed Authorisation Forms were received. PUPILS WHO DID NOT PASS THE PRIMARY SCHOOL LEAVING EXAMINATION IN 1992 3. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Education what happened to the 8.8% of the pupils who did not pass their Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) in 1992.”