Debated in Parliament on 18 Aug 2015.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Public Transport Council (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the Public Transport Council Act in three key areas to support developments in public transport.
First, it will institutionalise the new role of the Public Transport Council, or PTC, in advising the Minister for Transport on public transport matters. Second, it will formalise the Fare Review Mechanism Committee's (FRMC's) recommendations in 2013, which the Government had accepted. And third, it will empower the Public Transport Council (PTC) to standardise the taxi fare structure. Let me elaborate.
As PTC divests its role as a bus service regulator, on which I had spoken during the Second Reading of the Bus Services Industry Bill, it will refocus its resources to take on the role of an independent advisor to the Minister for Transport on public transport matters.
PTC, by design, has a broad and diverse representation from society, which includes academia, labour union, industry and the people sector. This make-up is invaluable as it allows PTC to objectively weigh the considerations of commuters, the Government and public transport operators, to provide balanced recommendations on how the public transport system can be improved. The new role will complement PTC's existing mission of regulating public transport ticket services and fares, where it has to balance the interests of the public with the long-term viability of the public transport operators.
Clause 5 of the Bill, therefore, gives PTC the responsibility to research, evaluate and recommend to the Minister improvements to public transport services. It empowers PTC to undertake surveys or other arrangements to obtain public feedback on matters relating to the provision and improvement of public transport. PTC will also conduct research on global trends, developments and best practices, and benchmark our public transport system against that of comparable cities.
To perform these functions, PTC will need to enter into contracts and agreements in its own name and transact with entities outside of the Government. To enable it to do this, clause 4 reconstitutes PTC as a body corporate.
Page: 78
As Members of the House will recall, FRMC was convened in 2012 to review and recommend improvements to the public transport fare formula and mechanism. In 2013, the Government accepted FRMC's recommendations, which were mostly implemented in the 2013 and 2014 Fare Review Exercises. The proposed amendments to the PTC Act will formalise these recommendations in legislation.
One of FRMC's key recommendations was for PTC to be given some flexibility to carry forward a portion of the fare adjustment quantum as determined by the fare adjustment formula at each Fare Review Exercise. And this carry forward will then be considered at the next Fare Review Exercise. Clause 16 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts sections 24AA and 24AB to formalise the carry forward mechanism.
FRMC also recommended that more resources be systematically set aside to help the needy cope with fare increases. In the last two fare exercises, contributions from the public transport operators and penalties from train and bus regulatory lapses were channelled into the Public Transport Fund to fund Public Transport Vouchers for needy families.
Clause 11 formally establishes the Public Transport Fund as a Government fund under the Minister for Transport. Clause 16 will provide PTC with the powers to mandate contributions from the public transport operators when fares are increased. Clause 11, together with clauses 24 and 25, which make consequential amendments to the Land Transport Authority Act and the Rapid Transit Systems Act, will formalise the channelling of penalties from train and bus regulatory lapses to the Public Transport Fund.
FRMC also recommended various enhancements to the fare concessions framework. Previously, PTC had to rely on the public transport operators to propose concession schemes as part of their fare applications. Clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill will give PTC the power to require the operators to implement new concession schemes as part of its decision on fare applications. As is the practice now, PTC will take into consideration the impact of the fare concessions on other commuters who will have to cross-subsidise these concessions.
Let me move on to taxis. As announced in March this year, the Government, after having consulted commuters, taxi drivers and taxi companies extensively, plans to largely standardise the taxi fare structure while leaving fare amounts deregulated. A more standardised structure would allow commuters to compare fares across taxis more easily. Fares can still adjust according to market forces within this structure.
To enable this, we will make amendments to the PTC Act to empower PTC to standardise the taxi fare structure. Clause 14 of the Bill introduces sections 23B and 23C to empower PTC to issue a taxi fare pricing policy order. The order would specify the aspects of
Page: 79
the taxi fare structure that are required to be standardised across all taxis.
In addition, PTC will require each taxi company to have only one set of unit fare amounts for all its standard taxis, and one set of unit fare amounts for all its premium taxis. Each taxi company will also be required to have only one booking fee each for peak-period, off-peak and advance bookings for all its standard taxis; and likewise for all its premium taxis.
We are making a few other changes through this Bill to further clarify PTC's functions and powers.
The Bill will enhance the penalty fee regime to better deter fare evasion. Today, PTC can only take action against fare evaders if they have already travelled a distance on a bus or train service when they are caught. Clause 18 clarifies the definition of "fare evasion", so that PTC can also take action against those who are caught attempting to travel without paying an appropriate fare, for example, after they have tailgated other commuters at train fare gates. Public transport officials will thus be able to better enforce against fare evaders.
The Bill also clarifies PTC's regulation of fares of non-public bus services. Currently, as a formality, operators of such services have to seek PTC's approval for the fares that they charge. Henceforth, they will only need to abide by the general fare pricing policies approved by PTC.
In summary, Mdm Speaker, this Bill enhances and formalises PTC's powers so that it can carry out its public transport functions more effectively. The Ministry of Transport (MOT), together with LTA and PTC, is committed to delivering a high quality and affordable public transport system for Singaporeans, and this Bill brings us another step forward. With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I welcome the new role of PTC. The new PTC's aim to undertake surveys obtaining public feedback will be an important platform for ensuring a more sustainable public transport system. On this note, I would like to propose that PTC be allowed to explore deregulation of our public transport service.
I understand that the bus service is a tool to help control and regulate bus service quality. But there are merits for deregulations: we allow Singaporeans to create the most
Page: 80
fitting solutions for their transport problems.
Bearing in mind that our public transport infrastructure is waning, we must explore the opportunity to loosen our regulations and to ensure sector capacity can help service our citizens. I can imagine how unquenched public demand for transport can create private bus services. I can also imagine how our bottlenecks during peak hours can be solved.
Moreover, it is a global trend for urban residents to solve their own problems related to scarcity of resources by means of sharing excess capacity. I think the trend is called "the sharing economy".
Regarding the formation of the Public Transport Fund, my concern is the complexity of the entity. Surely, the public bus and rail operators are already making contributions to the Government. Why then would there be a need for another fund unless the intention is to create a few more jobs for civil servants that have already reached their Current Estimated Potential (CEP)? A new fund will require new expenses and will incur management fees. Unless we can see the incremental value of the fund, it may not be wise to create another financial entity. Surely, we have existing bodies to handle the payments.
Lastly, I refer to the pricing policy of cab fares. I understand the rationale for consistency. But we must take into consideration the effects of real-time information. These days, both passengers and drivers have access to applications that can work out the balance between demand and supply. The most efficient way to match demand and supply in the short term is by allowing prices to surge. If we do not create a system that facilitates the change in price, we will create a black market. This is a bigger concern. Surge pricing is happening for Uber around the world.
The Government's role should not be to micromanage the market. I think we need to think about expanding the fleet of taxis in Singapore. The common argument is that we have sufficient taxis and the bottleneck demand can never be met. Let the data do the talking. Conduct a study and compare the ratios of taxis per citizen. Let us adopt a lighter touch towards regulations.
Finally, SPP would like to thank Mr Lui Tuck Yew for the hard work he has done on a very challenging portfolio as Minister for Transport. Mr Chiam and I wish Mr Lui all the best for the future.
Minister Lui.
Page: 81
Mdm Speaker, first of all, let me thank Mr and Mrs Chiam for their kind thoughts and good wishes. Perhaps, I can respond to the three points that Mrs Chiam has raised. Let me respond to them in reverse order: first, on pricing policy for taxis; second, to clarify on the Public Transport Fund and then, third, for me to seek a little bit more clarification and clarity on deregulation and what it means to let urban residents solve their own problems.
First, on the pricing policy for taxi fares and the proposal to allow surge pricing and to, basically, let taxis charge whatever they wish at whatever periods of time. I am not so sure that this brings us forward rather than back, because if you go back to the 1970s with the pirate taxis, that was essentially what happened. I am not so sure that that is a better system.
On comparing the ratio of taxis per citizen in Singapore versus other cities around the world, indeed, we have the data. That is why we can quite categorically say that we have far more taxis in Singapore per 1,000 residents, compared to other cities. So, if I may, just to share with Members the numbers that we have.
In Singapore, we have approximately 5.2 taxis per 1,000 residents. Our fleet size is about 28,000; number of residents is probably about 5.4 to 5.5 million. So, about 5.2 taxis per 1,000 residents. In New York, the ratio is 1.6 taxis per 1,000 residents. In Hong Kong and London, it is about 2.5, 2.6 taxis per 1,000 residents. What that means is that actually, in Singapore, we have at least two to three times the number of taxis per 1,000 residents, compared to New York, Hong Kong or London. We have two to three times the number of taxis per 1,000 residents, compared to these other cities.
When I came to MOT in 2011, I was looking at different modes of transport. What I noticed was that in the preceding years leading up to 2011, the taxi fleet had grown at about 4% annually for a number of years, while ridership had grown at 2%, which meant that supply was outstripping demand. "Does it matter?" one might ask. Well, it does matter because, obviously, taxis require COEs, too. When you allow the taxi companies to bid and acquire too many COEs, number one, it deprives others of the COEs and, number two, it results in an inefficient system.
And so, we have put in place the taxi availability framework requiring taxis to be on the road for a number of kilometres a day, as well as during certain hours of the day. As an outcome of that, we see more taxis now having a hirer and a relief driver, which means that the taxis are more intensively used, not that the drivers need to drive more. But because there is a hirer and a relief driver, the taxis are more intensively used, and we have seen the
Page: 82
percentage of taxis on the roads increase from 82% to 90% during the peak hours. That roughly translates to about 2,000 more taxis available on the roads during the key hours.
On the Public Transport Fund, the Member mentioned something about the operators making contributions to the Government. Actually, the operators do not do that. They do not contribute to the Government; they contribute to the Public Transport Fund. In the past, MOT was managing the contributions, as well as working with the People's Association, to disburse the Public Transport Vouchers. It will continue to be so after the legislative amendments. It is just the legal requirement to put in place, now that it is no longer a voluntary contribution by the operators, but a mandatory contribution that the Public Transport Council imposes on the operators. So, let me assure the Member that there is no intention to increase headcount to continue to manage such a fund.
Finally, I come to the third area, which is on deregulation and to let urban residents solve their own problems. I am not so sure I fully understand the point raised and I suspect this "sharing economy" term is just a little bit too complex for me. My thinking about it is that if I take it to its logical conclusion, does it mean that we do away with fixed bus routes and service standards? Does that result in a lot more chaos, simply because we do not have the reliability and certainty that the bus network provides today?
So, yes, we have, to some extent, allowed the public bus operators providing Premium Bus Services to run in a manner that is quite different and less restrictive, compared to the public transport model that we have. We will continue to do so, including the experiment that we are now doing, the Beeline service, which allows people to crowdsource, group their requirements and then make their own arrangements for buses to serve them and provide a direct point-to-point transfer to their destinations. But I think, by and large, it is probably better for us to retain what we already have in the public bus network, properly regulated, high service standards and to make sure that the operators deliver on them.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lui Tuck Yew.]*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
Page: 83
PAPERCUTS