Committee of Supply – Head W (Ministry of Transport)

Madam, the Vehicle Quota System of COE has been implemented since 1990, the purpose of which is to limit the growth of vehicles each year. As Members know, there are currently five COE categories – Category A for cars with engine capacity of 1,600 cc; Category B for cars above 1,600 cc; Category C for goods vehicles and buses; Category D for motorcycles; and the Open Category, Category E, for all vehicles.

The value of each COE is a function of the COE supply and demand for each category. In recent years, various German car makers have introduced more expensive vehicles with lower engine capacity, below 1,600 cc. This increases the demand for Cat A COEs whilst the supply of Cat A COEs remains unchanged. This could have the effect of pushing up Cat A COE prices, to the detriment of buyers of smaller vehicles.

I would like to ask the Minister about how LTA distributes the number of available COEs for each category, A, B and E especially? Also, when was this distribution last reviewed and whether the assumptions then are still valid today? I would also like to suggest that a comprehensive review be carried out so as to determine the most appropriate way to categorise cars and also the allocation of COEs accordingly.

A possible method is to categorise cars by carbon emissions or fuel efficiency instead of engine capacity. With higher COE allocation for more efficient vehicles, this would likely assist buyers of smaller vehicles and also encourage more environmentally friendly vehicles on Singapore roads.

My last question is about the volatility of COE prices. The prices have been very volatile. Sometimes, bidders are subject to the luck of the draw. COE prices can swing quite wildly from time to time. Does the Minister see any merit in stabilising the volatility of COE prices in each of the bids? And if so, what mechanisms can be used to achieve this?

Madam, the COE system was introduced over 20 years ago, but cannot shake off controversy. Never has so

Page: 14

much been said by so many over so few pieces of paper.

Most people accept the logic in restricting the number of cars on the road and the need to keep traffic moving smoothly. But no one likes to pay more. As a result, we have heard many suggestions on how to change the system, usually with a view to keeping COE prices low for some. I say "some" because there is no one suggestion that really benefits everyone who wants a car. So long as we agree that the car number must be controlled, there would be no solution that pleases everyone.

The real question is what the Government's role is when it comes to determining who gets a car? The problem is that there has been no consistent policy when it comes to cars.

When then Minister Dr Yeo Ning Hong introduced the COE system in 1990, he said that the rationale for having categories based on engine size was to "benefit the lower and middle-income owners". In other words, there was an element of social equity in the system. That rationale appeared to be premised on the fact that back in the 1990s, luxury car makers generally produced cars with larger engine capacities. But this has not been the case for some time. European emission standards and the introduction of turbo charging and supercharging has seen luxury car makers move into the small car market. So, today, luxury car makers dominate the small car category as well. So, lower- and middle-income owners no longer benefit. So, why do we still maintain categories based on engine capacities?

But the latest changes to the ARF appear to reaffirm the principle of social equity, making those who purchase large, luxury cars pay more. That is the intention, but what is the likely consequence? It may mean driving more people to the small car market, which will push up COE prices for that segment. And the latest MAS curbs on car loans will make it even more difficult for low- and middle-income persons to own cars in any event.

So, is there a principle which governs car ownership in Singapore? And frankly, I do not see any. I think we get into these difficulties because we try to fit conflicting principles of free market, social equity and financial prudence. It does not work. It raises expectations and ends up frustrating and confusing many.

I, therefore, ask the Minister to review the system and the principles of COE allocation. It is time to pull the handbrake on the current COE system, send it

Page: 15

back to the workshop for overhaul. First, let us have a simple and clear objective which most, if not all of us, can agree to. Since we cannot please everyone, I suggest that instead of focusing on who gets a COE, we should look at what kind of cars we want to have on our roads. Like Mr Cedric Foo, I think we should put more emphasis on environmentally friendly cars.

Cars can be simply categorised by their emissions, or other environmental factors. The Europeans have done this well. They are car manufacturers. So, over time, they have enforced higher emission and other standards for their cars. The result is that European car manufacturers have had to step up their game, and today, most Europeans buy cars which are well engineered, cleaner and more fuel-efficient than compared to, say, American cars.

We do not manufacture cars, but with the COE system, we can effect similar changes. The engine capacity of cars we buy should not matter. Neither should it matter whether they are diesel, petrol, LPG or hybrid. Such cars occupy the same space and contribute to congestion. But it will make a difference if we promote cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars. Therefore, substantially more COEs should be allocated to those cars which are environmentally friendlier and a smaller number for "dirtier" cars. And this will set a clear and defensible policy and send a strong message about what we value. It will also indirectly help those who can only afford to purchase smaller and cheaper cars as these tend to have lower emissions and be more fuel-efficient.

My second point is about the timing of changes to policies. We have a habit of springing them suddenly on people, such as the recent curbs on car loans, property cooling measures and so on. This makes it difficult for individuals and businesses to plan, and where plans are affected, it causes frustration and resentment. Why can we not give reasonable warning so that everyone can plan and make informed choices?

I can predict the response – if we had given six months' notice, for example, before imposing the car loans, everyone will rush in and purchase a car in those six months. Yes, they may, but so what? Those who rush in will know that others will do so as well, and so they must be prepared to pay more. Others who can choose to wait out the market, in their expectation that prices will fall, will wait out the market. For the rest of us, there will still be the same number of cars on the road.

The concern for those who may over-extend their finances, I think, is overstated. First, it will only affect a small number of people because only a

Page: 16

small group can buy in that short time. There has not been a significant number of car loan defaults and, in any event, I think the Government should take a step back in relation to financial decisions made by people. People should decide what is in their best interests and make their own decisions.

Madam, COE was introduced in 1990 to manage the growth of vehicles in Singapore. At that time, there were four COE categories just for private cars alone. We had categories for, yes, below 1,000 cc, 1,000 cc to 1,600 cc, 1,600 cc to 2,000 cc and then 2,000 cc and above. I checked the Hansard. One rationale for having four categories is so as "not to allow big car buyers to squeeze out buyers of small cars".

Like what Mr Cedric Foo had observed, COE prices for cars below 1,600 cc have been very high for the past months. One probable reason is that luxury car brands like Mercedes, BMW, Audi, they have all introduced cars with engine capacities below 1,600 cc. As a result, the COE prices for Category A cars have increased substantially because buyers of luxury car brands generally have a larger budget.

Whilst owning a car in Singapore is not a necessity, the Government needs to provide a reasonable opportunity for Singaporeans to own a car. It is inequitable if cars are seen to be reserved only for the rich.

I urge the MOT to review the COE system and I propose that COEs be categorised based on OMV of the car. Cars with OMV below $20,000 should be in one category so that Singaporeans who wish to buy lower priced cars can bid for COE in the same band. We should also increase the available number of COEs for this category (Category A) such that the COEs available for this category are the same as that available for Category B and Open Category combined.

We should also promote more off-peak cars so that buyers will find it more affordable to own such off-peak cars. This is especially if they do not drive the car to work daily and need it only for the weekends to ferry their children or parents. If the buyer has to pay $80,000, $90,000 for his car's COE, naturally he will want to drive the car daily, since the daily depreciation cost of the COE alone is between $25 and $30. And we are talking about depreciation for the cars. So, I ask MOT to review the COE for cars.

Page: 17

Madam, further to the suggestions I made earlier for the Government to explore introducing a new COE category – family car category – I would now like to suggest to the Minister whether effort can be made to alleviate the transport components of unit business costs for SMEs as a result of rising COE prices and whether he will consider introducing separate categories for commercial goods vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and very heavy goods vehicles. This will help small business owners and those who use the road as their livelihood.

Next cut. Madam, I would also like to suggest that when we have surpluses from the COE receipts, we can re-channel them to the Singaporeans who use public transport directly. The revenue from the vehicle quota premiums is expected to reach $2.4 billion in financial year 2012, more than the $2 million estimate. We can channel the surpluses to benefit the Singaporeans who use public transport directly, including enhancements and introductions of concessionary and rebate schemes and make public transport more attractive for Singaporeans.

Can the Minister also consider issuing new Singapore Shares in our transport company to all Singaporeans to allow them to have greater ownership and participation and have direct benefit from our public transport system?

Mdm Chairperson, I have spoken at length last night about the improvements that we are making to the public transport system, which is my Ministry's top priority. Before I go on to talk about private transport, taxis and ERPs and so on, I thought it might be useful for me to continue the discussion last night because we were talking about feeder buses and trunks. And if I did not hear it wrongly, Ms Lee Li Lian was saying that there were no trunk or feeder bus services serving her constituents in Punggol East. And so I was intrigued by that statement and went to do some checks on this.

I just wanted to clarify that indeed there are five services that run through the heart of her constituency and, in addition, there are about 10 services that run along Punggol Road which is at the western boundary of the constituency and another bus that runs along the eastern boundary of the constituency.

Our estimate, based on all these, is that about 90% of the HDB blocks in Punggol East are within 200 metres of either an LRT station, or a bus stop, or both. So, it is about 90% of the HDB blocks within 200 metres of an LRT station, or a bus stop, or both. And LTA had also planned previously to augment the bus services as new BTO developments come on stream and they will consider doing so.

I am sure that there was no ill intent behind her remark and that she is simply unaware of the buses running into and around her constituency. However, such inaccuracies, if they are taken up, and repeated often enough on social media, will take on a life of their own and, hence, I wanted to share this information with Members of the House, just to make sure that we get the record straight on the services that are available.

So, let me now move on to talk about private transport. Given our land constraints, we must press on with vehicle ownership and road usage measures to manage traffic congestion.

Our intent is to take a calibrated approach in managing the growth and use of private transport, and, where necessary, adjust our policies and pace of

Page: 19

implementation. For example, we have phased in more gradually the reduction in the annual vehicle growth rate, deferred the adjustment for past over-projections of the Certificates of Entitlement (COEs), removed taxis from the bidding system, and exercised some flexibility for ERP in the evenings and on Saturdays.

Let me first touch on the topic of COEs. We have, and we continue to receive, many well-intentioned suggestions from the public, as well as from Members like Mr Cedric Foo, Mr Hri Kumar, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, and they include ideas to re-categorise COEs according to whether it is OMV, value of the carbon emissions of the car, to allow only individuals and not dealers to bid, to tighten financing for cars, and so on. Please be assured that we take all these suggestions seriously. We will study them thoroughly and respond at the appropriate time, sometimes with our sister agencies like the MAS.

That said, I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the key feedback that we frequently receive. First, I do acknowledge that with changes in technology, using engine capacity as the criterion for COE categorisation may no longer be so valid and we will study this further on how to improve this.

Secondly, there are calls to do more to level the playing field to buy a car. As Category A COE premiums rose, I received more requests to give priority in COE bidding to families with elderly members, families with children, allow only one car per household, and so on. I also note that Mr Gan Thiam Poh had a suggestion in Parliament last week for a "family car" COE category.

I understand the aspirations of many Singaporeans to own a car. In fact, about 45% of households today already own a car, and this has increased over time. So, with your permission, Mdm Chairperson, I would like to share this slide with Members [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.] Forty percent in 2008, rising to 45% of households in Singapore owning a car in 2012.

I would have to say that this trend is simply not sustainable due to our land constraints, and so we have to limit supply and find some equitable way of allocating it. We believe that our COE system remains the most appropriate way of allocating this limited but non-basic resource.

Page: 20

By and large, the COE system today already accommodates some social equity considerations. Car quotas are divided into large and small car categories, using engine capacity of 1,600 cc as a simple but generally well accepted basis for the classification. With this, buyers who wish to have smaller cars need not compete for the COE bidding with those who desire larger cars. But outside of this 1,600 cc divide, we try not to impose other social considerations on the COE system to avoid distorting the market further.

Our approach has been to try to address social considerations largely through the vehicle tax structure, in particular, the Additional Registration Fee (ARF). Consistent with this approach, MOF recently announced changes to make the ARF structure more progressive. In the past, it was 100% ARF for all cars based on the OMV and I am sure if you remember from the announcement two weeks ago that we have introduced three categories, and for the ARF rates to be tiered from 100% to 180%. And this means that buyers of luxury cars will now pay higher tax rates than buyers of budget cars.

It is a difficult undertaking to try to allocate cars based on needs, such as to raise a family, to ferry elderly family members or for work purposes. Setting aside the likely problems with implementation and loopholes, I think it would be extremely difficult for the Government to decide fairly who deserves and needs a car and who does not. So, I would say that while our bidding system is by no means perfect, I think it is certainly preferable to some of the other suggestions that we have received, like converting it all to a balloting system.

In Beijing, there is a lottery system for car licence plates. Over one million people enter the lottery for about 20,000 licence plates every month. There have been reports of buyers who have never won the lottery – little wonder why – despite entering it every month since it started more than two years ago. Or buyers who had no intention of purchasing a car in the first place, save for the fact that winning the lottery has become a lot more lucrative. There have also been reports of buyers who get their licence plate on the black market for I think about S$30,000. In contrast, and similar to another Chinese city, Shanghai, our COE bidding system does allow people who want and can afford a car to do their sums, save up and buy one eventually, and not be left to the vagaries of a balloting system. And I think that this is the prudent way to go about buying a car, given that it is a big purchase and a depreciating asset.

Those who want to go for a less expensive option can consider Off-Peak Cars (OPC). Mr Lim Biow Chuan has rightly suggested that we try to do more to promote them. Today, owners who wish to use their OPC during the restricted hours have to pay $20 for an electronic day licence, and this is regardless of

Page: 21

whether they use it for just half an hour or, say, the full 12 hours. We will review the feasibility of making the scheme more flexible and attractive when the technology is available for us to price it differently.

There have also been requests for us to smoothen the supply of COEs to stabilise COE premiums. COE premiums are influenced by many factors, both on the demand and supply side. I think some smoothening of COE supply is a good idea to temper the peaks and troughs of the supply cycle. The difficulty is, of course, how to do it without causing other problems. I have asked LTA to see if there is a practical way of putting aside some of the supply from the upcoming peak that we expect in the next few years – I think starting from 2014 – to save some of it and put it aside for the future when COE supply becomes tighter. This is a longer-term study, and I assure you that we will not be making major changes to the COE market in the near term.

For businesses, we have reviewed with MOF what we can do to help them with rising business costs. As announced during the Budget Statement, besides a 30% road tax rebate, we will also relax the COE renewal rule for commercial vehicles to help owners with their cash-flow. Currently, at the end of the 10-year COE, if owners want to renew their COE for just five years, they can do so only once. We will remove this restriction for Category C, and allow these owners to renew their COEs for another five years. And this will also apply to those who are already on their first five-year renewal, and LTA will release more details on this later.

We will continue to review what more we can do to help businesses, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs). We will look into Mr Gan Thiam Poh's suggestion to split the COE category for commercial vehicles to separate light goods from heavy and very heavy goods vehicles. But one implication is that since additional sub-categories means smaller quota numbers, this suggestion may result in even more volatile COE premiums. But I think the intent behind Mr Gan's suggestion is really to ask if the smaller light goods vehicles should pay the same COE premium as heavy and very heavy goods vehicles, and this is something we will study carefully.

As there have recently been major changes that affect vehicle ownership, I think it is best that we let them take some time to settle. We have not even seen the outcome of the first COE bidding exercise after the implementation of the progressive ARF and loan restriction measures, which is going on this afternoon as even we speak. And it will take a number of bidding exercises before the effects of the recent changes become clear. Therefore, we will take some time to carefully consider the many suggestions we have received from Members

Page: 22

and the public before we make further changes to the COE system.

Let me move on to talk about ERP. With COE premiums reaching new highs, a common refrain is for us to shift our emphasis to restrain usage. So, in the past, it was ERP charges – too high, control the car ownership, and so on – now, I think we are hearing a different side of the equation. So, to those who are now championing aggressive usage measures like Electronic Road Pricing (ERP), I hope to get their fullest support if we see the need for more extensive usage of the ERP in future.

The ERP system has served us well since its introduction in 1998. Despite the vehicle population increasing by over 40%, we have managed to keep our roads relatively free from congestion with traffic speeds remaining largely in the optimal range. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, last evening and Mr Seah Kian Peng, this morning, have reiterated their calls to abolish ERP in the evenings and on Saturdays. Since the ERP rate reductions were made in October 2011 and in June 2012, we have generally observed heavier traffic flow and thus lower traffic speeds in the time slots where we had cut or removed ERP rates altogether. We have no plans at the moment to remove ERP altogether in the evenings and on Saturdays as it is clear that ERP is still needed to manage traffic congestion. Without the ERP, motorists, as well as bus commuters, will encounter more congested roads in the evenings when they go home, and on Saturdays when they go to town. Nevertheless, let me assure you that wherever it is possible, and we will certainly continue to see where we can fine-tune our ERP policies at the margins.

Let me move on to talk a little about car sharing. I understand that, from time to time, Singaporeans do like to have more convenient door-to-door options to get around, for family outings, shopping, shopping trips, ferrying elderly parents to medical appointments, for example. We can, and will do more to facilitate these transport arrangements and options.

Car sharing is, indeed, one example. With higher COE premiums, more people have taken to this option to gain access to a car without having to own one. Membership of car-sharing organisations now stands at 8,000, which is an increase of about 33% compared to a year ago. LTA is working with HDB to make car sharing more accessible in the heartlands where it is feasible. To facilitate peer-to-peer car sharing, LTA will study if there is further scope to liberalise the Private Car Rental Scheme. This Private Car Rental Scheme currently allows car owners to rent out their cars on weekends and public

Page: 23

holidays.

Let me move on to talk about taxi services and availability. Mr Seng Han Thong had filed a number of cuts on the role of taxis in our transport system and how to improve it further. Taxis serve specific point-to-point travel needs and can, therefore, we know, provide a higher level of service compared to mass public transport. As Mr Seng had pointed out, taxis also help to meet the transport needs of the infirm and the elderly. And in light of our ageing population, and as we continue to constrain car growth and car usage, taxis will play an increasingly important role. And this is why we had initiated a strategic move to make taxis more available, to utilise the taxi fleet more efficiently, and for taxi operators to meet higher levels of service. I believe the better the quality of taxi services, the more likely some car owners may be prepared to give up their cars and switch to the train or buses for their daily commute, while opting for taxis for the occasional trip.

Today, taxi companies are required to meet the Quality of Service standards set by LTA, which cover areas like call booking and safety. I assure Mr Seng that LTA reviews the service standards regularly, taking into account commuters' experience on the ground. The LTA will also consider overseas best practices and is looking into the possibility of benchmarking our service standards with that in other cities.

LTA has, in fact, tightened the service standards just last October. The revised standards include higher targets for call booking performance and vehicle inspection passing rates, the latter for safety reasons. Generally, most of the taxi companies have been able to comply with the revised standards so far. LTA will continue to monitor this and work closely with the taxi companies to achieve even higher service levels in the future.

I should add that even before the service standards were revised, there had been some improvements in service levels. The average answer rate for call bookings was better in 2012 compared to 2011. The average passenger waiting time at key taxi stands has also improved over the same period. For example, the average waiting time in the city from 5.00 pm to 11.00 pm fell from about six minutes in 2011 to about three minutes in 2012. And I think these improvements may, in part, have been attributed to the December 2011 taxi fare revision.

Dr Lily Neo and Mr Seng Han Thong asked about the impact of the taxi availability framework which was announced last August and introduced at the

Page: 24

start of this year. I think it is too early to draw definitive conclusions. In any case, the longer term and more stringent standards would be gradually phased in over three years – 70% of the taxi fleet in each company to meet 250 kilometres usage; 250 kilometres driven this year and increasing to 80% and then 85% in subsequent years.

We will continue to monitor the results and improve the framework as necessary. If the standards are so successful that taxis start to affect traffic flow, then that is a happy problem that we will be very happy to look more closely into. I do assure Dr Lily Neo that it is quite unlikely, as our 28,000 taxis comprise less than 3% of our total vehicle population of almost a million.

Mr Seng also asked about the long-term plan for taxi COEs. Today, they pay the Category A Prevailing Quota Premium (PQP) for COEs, although the COE itself is drawn from Category E. We have only recently made these changes and, as he has rightly pointed out, taking them out of the bidding system had the opposite effect on COE premiums to what people have suspected, that the premiums had gone up. And the conclusion, therefore, may be that the taxis bidding in Category A in the past may, indeed, not have had such a big effect on the rise in premiums as others had suspected. These are early changes that we have made and it will take time before we see the full effects and we will review the impact at the appropriate time.

Lastly, Mrs Lina Chiam last evening suggested bringing back the individual taxi ownership system. I think it is actually instructive to look at how our taxi industry has developed over the years. Prior to the 1970s, taxis were indeed owned by private individual owners. Since then, all new taxis have to be registered under taxi companies, and individual ownership of new taxis was disallowed. The aggregation of taxis under taxi companies means that they are better organised and able to leverage on economies of scale and resources, provide enhanced service and better meet the changing demands of commuters, say, for example, in call bookings.

Our problem today is that we have actually too many taxis that are not efficiently used, rather than too few. We have one taxi for about every 200 persons – so five for every 1,000. Hong Kong is about half this rate, likewise for London. In New York, it is about probably 1.5 taxis for every 1,000 people, higher than many other cities, and that is our rate today. It is better for us to see how we can strengthen the performance of our seven existing taxi operators,

Page: 25

make better utilisation of the fleets that are under their charge, rather than allow ad hoc, individual players back into the market.

Madam, please let me take some time to briefly update Members on some of our major road projects. First, the Marina Coastal Expressway (MCE) is on track to be opened by the end of the year. The MCE will link the East Coast Parkway (ECP) and the Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE) with the AYE in the west. This will give motorists a seamless east-west connection without going through the city centre. When the MCE is completed, the part of the ECP that connects to the AYE will become part of the network of arterial roads that will serve that area.

Second, to make better use of our scarce land space for roads, LTA will study the feasibility of a "reversible flow" traffic scheme. I think some of you, old enough to remember, will recall that Nicoll Highway had something similar to this in the past. This is actually ideal for stretches where traffic data shows a "tidal" pattern, where traffic is heavy in predominantly one direction during the morning peak hours, and in the opposite direction in the evening. We have identified the Kranji Expressway-Pan Island Expressway stretch connecting the residential areas in the north to jobs in the west as a feasible corridor for a "reversible flow" scheme. The LTA has awarded a contract for advanced engineering consultancy studies, which are now in progress.

Third, since the alignment of the 21.5-kilometre long North-South Expressway was announced in 2011, LTA has commenced some advance works and awarded three advanced engineering consultancy contracts. These consultancy contracts will guide major construction works, which we plan to start in 2015.

In future, the opportunities to build more roads will become more limited. While we will still expand local road networks to provide access to new developments, we will prioritise road widening in local areas for bus lanes, as our priority is public transport. We must be careful not to widen local roads beyond what is absolutely necessary as they will encroach into the living environment of residential neighbourhoods, and cause more dust and noise pollution. So, we will do this judiciously, and wherever possible, we will make sure that priority is given to public transport.

Let me now move on to the topic of green transport. The land transport sector will do its part to mitigate climate change and promote environmental sustainability. The Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS) was

Page: 26

implemented at the start of this year. Under the CEVS, low-emission car and taxi models are given incentives in the form of rebates off their Additional Registration Fee. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked during the Budget debate if it has made a difference.

Today, others have also said that we ought to consider having a COE category for vehicles of this nature and put more COE quota into this category. Let me share with Members of the House what the take-up rate had been like over the first few months. Close to 50% of cars registered in the first two months qualified for CEVS rebates, obviously, a much higher rate of over 80% for Category A cars, and a quite respectable 20% for Category B cars. So, 50% of the cars that were registered in the first two months qualified for some form of CEVS rebate, from $5,000 to $20,000. This is more than double the 20% that would have qualified for rebates in 2011. We used the 2011 data because we suspect that in 2012, there might be some pent-up demand that people sort of waited for the introduction of this scheme. So, 50% may have been distorted by the accumulation of pent-up demand and we would have to monitor this in the coming months. But I think we have seen some shift to more environmentally-friendly cars. I, therefore, believe that it has some effect to encourage more buyers to choose low-emission models. In total, for those who are interested, we have given out about $13.5 million in rebates in the past two months.

We will watch the take-up rate closely over the next two years because we promised that we will review this scheme towards the end of 2014 after we have seen how it has transformed market demand. LTA will then review the scheme based on its impact on purchasing decisions, advances in vehicle design and technology, as well as the progress of Singapore's overall carbon mitigation plan.

For commercial vehicles, as was announced by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the LTA and the National Environmental Agency will implement an Early Turnover Scheme to incentivise owners of pre-Euro and Euro I diesel vehicles, which are the oldest and most pollutive diesel vehicles on our roads, to upgrade to the cleaner Euro V emissions standards. The details of the scheme will be announced over the next two months and we will see how the take-up will be thereafter.

Let me conclude on this segment. We will continue to innovate and make improvements to the way we optimise road usage. We will introduce advanced technology to manage traffic in the years to come, regularly consider ways to refine our vehicle ownership measures to improve their effectiveness. The opportunities to build roads will become more limited in future, and when we

Page: 27

are able to do so, we will give priority to buses even as we expand those roads. We will continue to facilitate more travel options, and help people to make more responsible, environmentally friendly choices to meet their travel needs. In so doing, we hope to transform private transport in Singapore, to keep our people and economy moving.

Mdm Chair, may I ask what are the Ministry's plans to enhance road safety for cyclists and pedestrians? When policy changes are considered for road safety, traffic flow and regulation, what is the priority? Is it the smooth flow of vehicles, or efficiency, or is safety aspect the primary concern? Would the Ministry consider an approach that requires pedestrian safety to be the prime concern of any policy change? A framework, where in assessing any road safety measures, safety of the vulnerable is put above all other considerations? Where there is an intersection of human and vehicular traffic, could measures be put in place such that the safety of the pedestrian is prioritised above everything else?

For example, would the Ministry consider removing the combination of the flashing green man to signal pedestrian crossing and turning vehicles? Traffic flow will be affected as cars will be required to stop at the red light rather than having the option to move on in the absence of pedestrians. But I suggest that this is an acceptable inefficiency in the pursuit of improved safety. Currently, at such junctions, there is a reliance on the good sense of the driver. There is also a presumption that the pedestrian will be visible to the driver of the vehicle. Removing the flashing "green man" at intersections will be an example where efficiency and traffic flow is sacrificed so that pedestrian safety is put ahead of all these considerations.

Madam, the tragic accident in Tampines in January would not be so devastating if the vehicle involved were not a cement mixer. In view of the rising trend of traffic offences by heavy vehicle drivers and disproportionately higher and increasing number of fatal accidents, I have three suggestions for the Ministry to consider.

One, set up a mechanism involving the local community to plan the routes for heavy vehicles accessing construction sites in a built-up estate. LTA currently forbids cement trucks to go on the expressway. Can heavy vehicles be restricted near school zones and heavy pedestrian areas too?

Page: 28

Two, implement a penalty system for employers and hirers of heavy vehicle drivers so that they would be more responsible in hiring and training their drivers.

And three, require all heavy vehicles to install digital video recorders.

Madam, as we ramp up infrastructural projects, there will be more heavy vehicles on the road, so let us make our best effort so that they can be safer on the road.

Mdm Chair, Commander of Traffic Police, AC Cheang Keng Keong said last year, "While we will die from old age or may succumb to illnesses, we should not be dying on the roads due to traffic accidents. There is a need for road users to act responsibly."

Although traffic accidents have seen a decline in 2012, the recent accidents were more emotional because they involve young children. The Traffic Police has emphasised the 3Es of Enforcement, Engagement and Education. Traffic Police are now more visible. I encourage the Ministry to consider the appointment of more Road Safety Ambassadors and I ask for an update on road safety measures in our schools.

In life, it is a terrible thing to waste on the road no matter how the statistics read. And while we can continue to teach our young about road safety, we must take caution that no amount of education can prevent children from running across the roads on impulse.

Although there are fewer fatal and injury accidents in 2012, we must always ensure our roads remain safe for all users, especially for vulnerable groups like elderly and young pedestrians. It does not really matter who has the right of way because when flesh and metal collide, the consequences are devastating.

Today, I wish to speak on three areas of concern, namely, school zone, zebra crossing and signalised junction. The LTA has launched a zero-accident movement for its contractors to tighten up safety processes at their worksite in 2012. Likewise, can LTA start a zero-accident movement for our school zones as well?

Page: 29

The update by the Second Minister for Home Affairs last February showed a decline in the number of accidents within school zones involving injury or fatality. There were 16 accidents in 2012, down from 28 the previous year. Can we reduce the number to zero? I believe we can.

Thus, I propose we should make it mandatory for primary schools to have dedicated school-crossing patrol wardens at critical school hours. Having a warden is the only way to ensure vehicles travelling in both directions will stop and remain stationary at the zebra crossing until the whole crossing is clear, as stipulated in our Road Traffic Act. For signalised pedestrian crossing, the warden can also ensure children will not attempt to cross the road in an unsafe manner.

Second, all zebra crossings should be raised island-wide with speed-regulating stripes leading to and away from such crossings. This will educate drivers in the long run that they will have to slow down whenever they approach a zebra crossing, regardless of whether there are pedestrians at the crossing or not. This is a good driving habit to inculcate.

Third, signalised junctions should be programmed with some degree of predictability. I agree with Dr Janil on the flashing "green man". Currently, there are different signalling sequences governing such junctions. Some junctions allow motorists to turn right when it is safe to do so. Other junctions do not allow turning unless the green arrow lights up. There is even a junction that allows motorists two chances to turn – one at the beginning and one at the end of the green light cycle. All this while, the pedestrians are also in permutation for the right of way to cross the junction. Many times, we have seen turning motorists moving forward at junctions even though they are not supposed to do so. We have also seen motorists getting caught in the middle of the junction because of the confusion.

The most dangerous part of it all is when turning vehicles who are keeping an eye on oncoming traffic forgot about the pedestrians' right of way at the turn. There are about 170 accidents involving pedestrians at signalised junctions per year in the past five years, from 2007 to 2011. The number of traffic accidents at such junctions that do not involve pedestrians is about seven times higher.

I urge the Ministry to look into making signalised junctions more predictable. I believe when we take out the guesswork of using this junction, motorists and pedestrians will make fewer mistakes. We may end up spending a little more time on the road, but cultivating a little patience in the interest of

Page: 30

road safety is a good thing. Courtesy on the road is about giving way to fellow road users, and exercising a little patience is all there is to it.

Madam, just last year alone, we saw two fatal accidents outside a primary school in Sembawang, where both the victims were less than 10 years old. Similarly, two teenage girls were knocked down outside their secondary school in Woodlands. I have driven along the Sembawang road where the fatal accidents happened. I must say because of the bend of the road, and the fencing on the central divider, visibility of pedestrians to the drivers is greatly reduced.

I would like to propose that fences be constructed on both sides of the road rather than on the central divider. But, may I know what is the Ministry's plan to enhance road safety around schools?

Madam, in the Nee Soon East constituency, we have a few major foreign worker dormitories with more than 10,000 foreign workers situated within a stone's throw away from the HDB flats. Early last year, acting on feedback of overcrowding of feeder bus service 811 exacerbated by foreign workers in the nearby dormitories who use the feeder service as well, our grassroots worked with the dormitory operator and helped appeal for a private bus operator to run a feeder service customised for the foreign workers in the dormitory.

However, earlier this year during my block visits, residents shared with me and I have confirmed that the overcrowding of the same bus service has come back, filled by the spillover from the foreign workers. In fact, even without the foreign workers, the bus is already very crowded and many residents have to wait for the third and fourth bus to board.

I am, therefore, asking MOT to seriously look into the mandatory provision of transport for the tens of thousands of foreign workers from their dormitories directly to their place of work, as they add to the strain on our public transport system, especially feeder services, as, in my case, during the busy time windows daily.

Secondly, many of us have also seen many cyclists cycling in void decks and walkways which is illegal and poses a danger to residents, especially the elderly and the young. Many of our constituencies have rolled out education and enforcement efforts as well as building obstacles to impede and building specialised bicycle paths around the neighbourhood. The challenge is that many still flout the rules because it is convenient and easy to do so. What more can MOT do to curb this besides the creation of more cycling paths?

In the same vein, I have personally seen many abandoned bicycles at MRT stations and void decks as some of these bicycles cost little. Will MOT study the feasibility of the issuance of licence for bicycles as in decades ago, with a serial number attached and linked to an owner, so that people who flout traffic rules or law and abandon their bicycles or when these bicycles are stolen, they can

Page: 37

be more easily traced and enforcement action taken?

I thank Members for their many questions, comments and suggestions. Madam, Minister Lui has announced our goal to increase the peak period public transport mode share to 75% by 2030, a significant increase from 62% today. With as many as three out of four people taking public transport, we must significantly improve our public transport system and its supporting infrastructure, such as roads and walking facilities.

With your permission, Madam, I will display some slides on the LED screens. When I joined MOT last August, I tried to meet as many stakeholders as possible. I met public transport commuters, drivers, cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, students and retirees, as part of the focus group discussions for the review of the Land Transport Master Plan, and informal discussions which I held regularly.

I also visited the two public transport operators. These sessions helped me better understand our transport needs and the viewpoints of various

Page: 39

stakeholders. I thank all of them.

Many good ideas have also been expressed in Parliament over the past few months, as well as in the various speeches that Members have just made. I would like to take this opportunity to share with Members some of the plans and initiatives that we will pursue in three areas – road safety, cycling and in creating an elderly-friendly land transport system.

Let me start by talking about road safety. Safety is a key consideration when we design our transport system. Unfortunately, in 2012, we experienced the tragedy of 169 road-related deaths. Like all Singaporeans, I am saddened each time I hear of a new road accident. It has prompted me to reflect on how safe our roads are, and ask what more we can do in this area.

Compared to other countries, Singapore has a fairly good track record in road safety. In 2012, our road fatality rate was 3.2 per 100,000 persons, an improvement from 3.8 in 2011, and lower than many other countries, as we can see on the slide [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please see Annex 2.]

But numbers give little comfort to those who have suffered the loss of their loved ones. This is why, with every serious accident, we investigate and review thoroughly to determine if additional measures are needed to enhance safety at the accident location. For instance, under the "Black Spot Programme" for locations with a high occurrence of accidents, LTA will implement additional road engineering measures to reduce the number and severity of accidents. Some examples include traffic calming markings painted on the roads, and advance warning lights to alert motorists to stop. LTA also has a comprehensive preventive programme in place, such as regularly auditing the safety performance of roads, both during the day and night, to identify potential road hazards before accidents happen.

I agree with Members, such as Dr Janil Puthucheary and Mr Pritam Singh, that we can do more for vulnerable road users, particularly children and the elderly. Last week, the Second Minister for Home Affairs described a comprehensive "Safer Roads Singapore" strategy to keep our roads safe. In conjunction with this strategy, I am chairing an inter-agency committee to specifically review safety measures on the road for pedestrians and cyclists. The Committee on Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety will develop an Action Plan for the next five years, and will actively engage local communities and the people, public and private sectors.

Page: 40

On pedestrian safety, the Committee will pay special attention to the needs of the elderly and school children. Members, such as Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Png Eng Huat, have raised the issue of road safety for schools, in the past like Dr Lim Wee Kiak, will be pleased to know that one of the very first areas that the Committee will review is safety within school zones. LTA and the Traffic Police regularly review and improve traffic safety measures in collaboration with schools. We have already implemented several measures to enhance road safety near schools, such as the recognisable red-textured road surface, additional railings and traffic calming markings. The schools also play their part in educating the students, as well as their parents, on road safety.

The Committee, which includes members from LTA, the Traffic Police and MOE, as well as the Singapore Road Safety Council, will build on these efforts. It will examine the possibility of reducing speed limits around schools, as some people have suggested, and providing additional infrastructure, such as speed humps, flashing LED lights and more signages. We will also consider Dr Intan's suggestion for railings at both sides of the road in school zones, instead of only at the centre divider. All these will complement the stricter enforcement stance that the Traffic Police takes at school zones. We may start off with piloting some of these measures at selective locations to better understand their effectiveness. Our message is clear – for school zones, our priority is to ensure the safety of our children.

But we need to go beyond putting in more traffic schemes and measures at our school zones. We need to put in equal effort to inculcate in our young a safety consciousness when they use our roads. So, I agree with Mr Alex Yam and Mr Teo Ser Luck on the need to review road safety education in schools. The Second Minister for Home Affairs has shared the Traffic Police's efforts to educate school children on road safety. We can certainly do more, for instance, doing road shows, as what Mr Teo has suggested. My personal view is that we need to find creative ways to get the message across, especially to our young ones in schools, and I welcome any suggestions the public may have. In fact, the Committee will explore customising the safety message for different groups of road users, to achieve greater resonance. Over time, we hope to shape behaviour so that there is a sustained culture of safe and courteous road use.

The elderly is another group we need to educate on crossing roads safely. We have expanded the Green Man Plus scheme to more locations, to give the elderly more time to cross the road. I will talk more about ensuring that the transport system caters to the needs of the elderly in a little while.

Page: 41

More broadly, the Committee will look into how pedestrian safety on our roads can be improved. Dr Janil has suggested instituting a "pedestrian safety first" framework. I think, by and large, this is the ideal approach, especially for places where there is high pedestrian traffic. However, in a dense road network like ours, where all road users share a common space, we need to adopt a balanced approach, where we place the highest priority on the safety of pedestrians and motorists, while still keeping the road network reasonably efficient.

A good illustration of this point is the simultaneous right-turning traffic and pedestrian crossing arrangement, where motorists can make use of the gaps in oncoming traffic and pedestrians crossing to make a right turn at junctions. This is a common international practice, for example, in countries such as the UK, the US, Japan and Australia. Dr Janil has asked us to remove it for safety reasons, and LTA has indeed done so, on a case-by-case basis, after careful observation of the traffic flows, and in situations where LTA found that motorists' view of the pedestrian crossing could be blocked. The right-turn movements at these junctions would then be guided by red-amber-green arrow signals.

However, I would hesitate to remove the traffic scheme for all locations, as it could result in an unmanageable build-up of traffic, and may result in some impatient motorists resorting to reckless behaviour to beat the traffic lights, and ultimately put pedestrians at greater risk. As Dr Janil himself highlighted, it is unfortunate that oftentimes, it is human behaviour that poses the greatest safety risk, not infrastructure. We, therefore, need to consider the characteristics of each road junction individually before we consider removing this simultaneous turning traffic arrangement, instead of introducing a blanket rule. In cases where removing the arrangement is not advisable, there are alternatives to alert motorists, for instance, intelligent road studs that flash in tandem with the "green man" signal to remind motorists to give way to pedestrians. The Committee will study these alternatives. But I would also urge pedestrians to practise basic safety habits, such as looking out for cars before crossing, even if the traffic lights are in their favour. The best rules and the most sophisticated traffic control system can never deal with the occasional careless or reckless driver.

Let me now respond to specific queries two Members have raised. First, Mr Baey Yam Keng asked about ensuring safety around construction sites in residential areas. LTA works with agencies and contractors to try to ensure that

Page: 42

heavy vehicles accessing construction sites avoid areas with high pedestrian activity and schools. However, this may not always be possible, depending on the location of the construction site. In all cases, clear warning signs are put up around construction sites to alert road users of the movement of heavy vehicles. LTA is working with Mr Baey to review the routes taken by heavy vehicles in Tampines. The Committee will review Mr Baey's other suggestions for a penalty system for employers and hirers of drivers of heavy vehicles, and installing video recorders in all heavy vehicles.

Secondly, Mr Ang Wei Neng suggested leveraging on technology to be more productive in enforcing traffic rules to ensure safety and improve traffic flow. Since November 2011, LTA has conducted a CCTV trial at Beach Road and Marine Parade Central to detect and enforce against illegal parking, which is a safety hazard. The trial has shown that CCTVs are effective in detecting and deterring illegal parking, and has helped to improve traffic conditions in those areas over time. LTA will thus be expanding the use of CCTVs to more locations island-wide. More details will be released later, and LTA will continue to explore other areas where technology can be deployed to aid enforcement. The Traffic Police will also upgrade their network of red light and speed cameras island-wide, to complement the employment of more manpower to patrol our roads. Collectively, these measures will help both agencies better detect and deter traffic offenders. Lastly, LTA will review Mr Ang's suggestion on issuing warning letters before summonses, possibly for offences with minimal or no safety implications.

Madam, next, I would like to focus on cycling safety. This is a common concern among the feedback I have received and from cycling enthusiasts as well as concerned parents. I asked them for their ideas, and I was pleasantly surprised that many of them have stepped forward to volunteer their time and effort, to partner us in spreading the safe cycling message. Let me share two examples.

A few months ago, Mr Steven Lim, President of the Safe Cycling Task Force, and I went to meet Mdm Roslinah Rajab, who had written on my Facebook wall about how her son nearly got into an accident with a vehicle while cycling to school. She brought along a few of her friends to meet us, and, as a group, they felt that they, too, had to do their part to promote safe cycling. One of the things they wanted to do was to produce a short video to spread the safe cycling message. So, we helped to facilitate the filming of the video, which they have titled "Rolling Smart" and uploaded on YouTube.

Page: 43

Mr Lim and the Safe Cycling Task Force also suggested that the existing signs alerting motorists to the presence of sports cyclists along popular training routes should be made more visible. I have asked LTA to work with the Task Force on this, and they will put up these signs by the middle of the year on these routes, as well as several other routes that are starting to become quite popular with cyclists, for instance, in Tanjong Rhu and in Yishun.

While we can do more to alert motorists to the presence of cyclists, I have also received feedback from pedestrians, casual cyclists and motorists on the risky behaviour of some cyclists. Dr Janil also raised this just now. One particular issue that keeps surfacing is cyclists who ride through zebra crossings without stopping to look out for oncoming vehicles, let alone dismounting. We need to remind cyclists that they, too, need to play their part to ensure safety, and we will consider Mr Teo Ser Luck's suggestion of a dedicated public education budget to do so. LTA will also launch a guidebook on safe cycling tips in a few months' time, and continue to try new ways to remind cyclists to dismount at zebra crossings. One initiative that we are trying out is painting new markings at zebra crossings well-used by cyclists. LTA will trial this at three locations around Tampines, starting today. In conjunction with the trial, LTA is working with the Traffic Police and local community volunteers to engage cyclists to encourage them to dismount at crossings.

Where space permits, we will try out building separate mid-block bicycle crossings for cyclists. This has been done at Park Connectors, as well as two locations at neighbourhood centres, in Tampines and Simei. You can see them on the slide. Several more will be completed at Tampines and Sembawang Towns this quarter. Mr Teo Ser Luck would be pleased to know that we will identify more suitable locations for such crossings in tandem with the cycling paths that we are building.

A few people that I have met have suggested an on-road cycling lane pilot. In other countries, they are implemented as painted lines on roads with no physical protection for cyclists. We may not want to follow their example, given our heavy traffic situation, and for the sake of the safety of our cyclists. I seek Members' and Singaporeans' understanding that on-road cycling lanes would also affect the movement of buses, require the removal of street-side parking and expose cyclists to turning traffic if the lanes are not properly designed. That said, LTA is identifying roads where these issues could be overcome, and studying the feasibility of trying out on-road cycling lanes along these roads.

On the other hand, Mr Ang Wei Neng suggested that we need to discourage young children from cycling on roads, as they are particularly vulnerable. This

Page: 44

is a tempting suggestion, but the more important point is that on-road cycling is risky, and no one, young or old, who is not confident of cycling on the road, should do so.

I would like to thank Mr Teo Ser Luck for sharing with us about the Amsterdam experience. Indeed, our staff, together with myself, we have been trying to study the experiences of other cities. What I find is that there are many lessons that we can learn from them. Nevertheless, I realise each city or even localities have their own path, have their own journey in their cycling, building up their cycling framework, building up their culture as well as the norms of road safety. It is important for us to note that there are countries whereby people, by their development of the country, where many would have cycled before they drive. So, currently, when they drive, they would understand how it feels like to be a cyclist. For some countries where its development is so fast, many would not have the experience. So, each country would have their own paths and providing for signs, signages or even markings on the road, we have also looked at various countries. What we want to urge Members and Singaporeans to understand is that it is a journey that we need to go on together. It is a journey where we will have trials, where we should try. If it does not work, we will improve. But I hope Members and Singaporeans would be open to try some of these ideas that LTA staff have been working very hard over the years to see how they can have a balanced approach in providing the diverse needs of transport mode for our people.

And looking at the journey that we have, I realise that it is a long journey. For many cities, they have taken 50 years or more to arrive at where they are today. My predecessors, like Mr Teo Ser Luck and fellow Singaporeans, have started the journey of safe cycling, providing the infrastructure for safe cycling and so forth. So, we have started the journey and I think we are going in the right direction and I look forward to Members' support.

Indeed, based on my engagements, the cycling community agrees with me that off-road cycling is much safer than cycling on the road. Off-road cycling paths provide a safe cycling environment for a larger group of cyclists of different ages and competency levels. Hence, given the safety considerations, the Government will prioritise resources to build more off-road cycling paths. To this end, we have made good progress in building cycling paths in seven cycling towns under the National Cycling Plan which is integrated with the rest of our transport plans.

Dr Janil, Mr Ang and Ms Irene Ng would be pleased to know that LTA will finish building off-road cycling paths in Tampines and Sembawang this year.

Page: 45

The cycling path networks in the remaining five towns – Bedok, Changi-Simei, Pasir Ris, Taman Jurong and Yishun – as well as areas, such as East Coast, Jurong Lake District, Marina Bay and the Punggol Eco-Town, will be progressively completed by 2015.

We will expand this programme by adding 90 more kilometres of cycling paths to several more HDB towns, bringing the total network to some 210 kilometres of dedicated off-road cycling paths to about 16 towns, or more than half of all HDB towns, by 2020. Our eventual aim is for every HDB town to have a comprehensive cycling network for residents to cycle to the MRT station or to buy their groceries at the neighbourhood centres. Coupled with the extensive Park Connector Network that the National Parks Board is building, we will truly have an islandwide safe cycling network for Singaporeans to enjoy. LTA is also studying the feasibility of building cycling paths at major industrial estates so that workers in the estates have the option of cycling within the estate and to and from the nearest MRT station. It will take some time for all the cycling infrastructure projects to be completed, so I ask for some patience, and would like to assure cyclists that we are working hard to accomplish this.

In the meantime, I have asked LTA to see if we can prioritise resources to quickly plug short gaps in the cycling path network. Avid cyclists have alerted me that there are opportunities to connect existing Park Connectors to MRT stations nearby, for example, the ones at Sengkang and Yio Chu Kang. These are low-hanging fruits that can be picked before comprehensive cycling plans are finalised and rolled out. LTA will work with the local communities to close these gaps in the cycling network so that cyclists need not go onto the road or footpath to complete the final leg of their journey to reach the MRT station. In the long term, the cycling paths that LTA is building will be well-integrated with the Park Connectors.

Next, there have been requests to allow foldable bicycles on the public transport system beyond the current hours, specifically, during the morning pre-peak window. This will enable cycling to effectively close the last mile connectivity gap for trips to work. I support this idea. The challenge is for us to find the right cut-off timing in the morning such that the foldable bicycles do not add to our morning peak-hour crowds. We will study this carefully.

To facilitate the ease of cycling as a first-and-last mile mode of transport, we will build more bicycle racks at our MRT stations. Last year, we announced that we will be building 2,400 racks at 20 MRT stations. These have been favourably received and we will build another 600 racks at 12 more MRT

Page: 46

stations by the third quarter of next year.

Dr Janil and Mr Ang Wei Neng proposed for more secured bicycle parking around HDB estates, especially at void decks. Mr Ang also suggested using closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras to monitor these bicycle racks. Most of these racks are provided by the Town Councils, but community groups are also stepping forward. I was happy to hear the Senior Minister of State for National Development, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, speak earlier in Parliament that Yuhua residents are coming together to discuss the provision of secured bicycle parking facilities within their estate to support the 24 kilometres of cycling paths in Jurong Town. We should also be able to gain some useful ideas to design secured bicycle parking from those submitted by the public for the ongoing Bicycle Bay Design Competition jointly organised by the Singapore Police Force and the National Crime Prevention Council.

For those who do not own bicycles or would prefer the convenience of using bicycles for one-way trips, LTA is planning a pilot bicycle-sharing scheme, like those in other cities. Currently, the plan is to conduct the pilot at the Jurong Lake District, which will have a comprehensive network of cycling paths by end 2015, and a mix of different land uses that will provide strong demand for the shared bicycles throughout the day. We will request proposals from the industry in the coming months. We will also consider piloting bicycle sharing in one of the cycling towns if there is interest from the community and Members here. With all the above initiatives, I expect cycling to become even more popular as a mode of transport in the future. I welcome Members who have been advocates of cycling, like Ms Irene Ng, Mr Teo Ser Luck and Dr Janil, to continue this journey with us.

Before I wrap up on cycling, let me briefly address Mr Patrick Tay's suggestion to license bicycles to curb offences, and Mr Teo Ser Luck's suggestion on some of the areas. Mr Teo has also spoken to me about the mandatory Highway Code training sessions, which he feels would effectively require the licensing of bicycles. We used to license bicycles but stopped in 1982 because it was too onerous for bicycle owners, especially those who cycle only for recreational purposes and not as a mode of transport. Furthermore, licensing would need to be coupled with adequate enforcement to be effective. As licensing is neither practical nor cost-effective, it is something we do not think is needed for now. Other countries, such as the US and the UK, have

Page: 47

adopted a similar position.

I also note Mr Tay's point on sharp spikes in crowding on our public transport system due to foreign workers from dormitories. A survey conducted by MOM and the Migrant Workers' Centre in 2011 showed that most employers provide dedicated transport for their foreign workers, and that less than 15% of foreign workers living in dormitories take public transport. Nevertheless, we understand that there are certain localised bus routes and areas where public transport overcrowding is more acute. An interagency panel, including MOM and MND, is working closely with stakeholders, including dormitory operators and employers, to consider practical solutions.

Lastly, I would like to take a look at the future of our transport system. As our population ages, the needs of our elderly will become more acute. We will need to ensure that they will be able to move around easily, not just around transport nodes, such as MRT stations and bus interchanges, but also around our roads and public places, as Mr Heng Chee How had emphasised. The transport sector must play our part to make it easier for seniors to pursue active ageing.

We are making good progress in improving the barrier-free accessibility of our transport system. All our MRT and LRT stations are barrier-free and, soon, all our bus interchanges will be, too. Half of our public buses are already wheelchair-accessible and, by 2020, all of them will be so.

To enable the elderly to navigate our roads more easily, we have started to install lifts at selected pedestrian overhead bridges. Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Ang would be pleased to know that lifts at six bridges will be completed by the end of the year, and we will build lifts at about 40 more bridges. LTA plans to build the lifts in batches of about six each. Tenders will be called this quarter for the first batch of overhead bridges near Admiralty, Boon Lay, Lakeside, Marsiling, Outram Park and Serangoon MRT stations. These bridges were chosen because they are near major transport nodes and key amenities and are used by many people daily, and because in these areas there is no barrier-free alternative nearby. Tenders for the second batch of lifts will be called next quarter.

Beyond these plans, we need to take a more comprehensive look at how our transport system can cater to the needs of the elderly. I agree with Mr Heng that we should work with other agencies to study their needs, especially in estates where they are significantly higher in numbers, and expand existing

Page: 48

programmes, such as lifts at overhead bridges, as Mr Lim Biow Chuan had asked for, or pilot innovative solutions where we can.

We are also mindful that the little things matter for the individual's travel experience. LTA has been working closely with MOH, HDB and the community to make land transport infrastructure more elderly friendly in the City For All Ages pilot projects in Marine Parade, Bedok, Whampoa and Taman Jurong. For example, LTA will smoothen out uneven parts of pavements where the elderly may run a risk of tripping. In Marine Parade, LTA has also piloted elderly friendly bus stop seats with hand grips for the elderly to support themselves when getting up from their seat, as well as bus panels with larger fonts so that the elderly can read them easily. These elderly friendly improvements came about because residents, young and old, had proactively offered suggestions to us based on their daily travel experience, and I thank all of them.

Madam, I have outlined several ways by which we intend to make our transport system safer, more accessible and more inclusive. Through the feedback sessions and channels, I have come to realise that there are many diverse needs of Singaporeans that the public transport system has to fulfil. In the past, when Singapore was developing, we had to make difficult choices as we could only afford the most cost-efficient public transport system. We had to prioritise our scarce resources and make sure that the needs of the masses were taken care of first. Today, we can afford to do a bit more, for example, in making our buses and trains barrier-free, and building more cycling paths, and we will certainly do so.

Moving forward, we will continue to meet as many stakeholders as possible, engage them in a dialogue to understand their concerns and, from there, work with them to develop and prioritise solutions that can best meet their needs. I hope that Singaporeans will work together with us to improve our transport system.

Mdm Chair, I have two clarifications both on road safety. Let me thank hon Member Dr Intan for raising the issues on Sembawang Drive which is in front of Sembawang Primary School with regards to the local factors that may have some safety concerns. I would like MOT to look into the local factor and see how some of the road safety enhancement measures that were mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary can be implemented there.

The second clarification is the United Nations General Assembly has declared that 2011 to 2020 is a Decade of Action for Road Safety, and specifically one of the initiatives is the UN Global Road Safety Awareness Week which is coming up on 6 to 12 May this year. I am just wondering whether if MOT or the Government has any plans, in terms of promoting road safety during this UN Global Road Safety Awareness Week. My constituency together with the Singapore Motor Sports Association and all the schools in my division are coming together to promote road safety. I hope MOT can support our initiatives.

Page: 68

Madam, I would like to thank Dr Lim who is a very strong advocate for road safety over the many years that I have known him. About the Sembawang case, local factors are important. We have been looking at them and, in fact, we have been working with Dr Lim and his grassroots. Beyond that, like what I have said earlier, we are also looking at the students. We can provide the infrastructure and so forth, but I think it is important for us to continue to educate our students so that they can develop the values of road safety wherever they are.

The other clarification was about the UN campaign. Certainly, there will be an inter-agency effort to support this where LTA, Traffic Police and the Singapore Road Safety Council would come in and give support. We also have other campaigns like the Road Safety Month and a few others by the Traffic Police, and so forth.

I would like to urge Members to become the advocates for road safety. It can start from all of us. We can start by sharing this with our family and friends; whereby we help Singaporeans to develop values with regards to safety, care and sharing of the road. Over time, whether they are cyclists, pedestrians or even motorists and drivers, the values will be there and we would apply them accordingly.

With regards to how we would support such initiatives, we will continue to do so and we will take a multi-pronged approach to enhance the level of awareness of safety as well as the infrastructure, even at the local level.

Madam, I have two clarifications. First, is concerning weekend ERP. I have taken note of Minister Lui's sharing that it has led to slower traffic flow at those areas arising from the deduction in ERP charges and the change in timings. The data I asked for cover quite a few areas: Marina Bay, Orchard Road and the CBD areas. I would like, if possible, for Minister Lui to be specific in those three areas. I do believe that for Marina Bay – from my own experience and that of my residents and friends who tell me – traffic flow is really quite light. If it is not possible for full removal of the weekend rates for all the areas that I have cited, can we go into these specific areas? If one area is possible, let us try.

My second clarification is for Parliamentary Secretary Faishal Ibrahim. First, I am very happy to hear the news that there will be lifts coming to the pedestrian overhead bridge at Serangoon, except that at Serangoon, I have two pedestrian overhead bridges, one which is immediately next to Nex Shopping Mall. I

Page: 69

assume this first batch of lifts that is coming up applies to that area. Not very far away, less than 300 metres, there is another pedestrian overhead bridge. I am very concerned for that one because it is along Upper Serangoon, very near to Lorong Lew Lian area. Lorong Lew Lian is a very old estate. In fact, it contains the first blocks in the whole Singapore to get the lift upgrading programme many years ago. It reflects how old it is. There have been many times that the residents have raised the issue about the overhead bridge there. I assume that the lift in the first batch is coming to one near Nex at the MRT station. If it is, can I suggest that the Ministry consider having both these pedestrian overhead bridges to be included in this first batch? While the need is critical for both areas, I think it is even more pressing for the one at Lorong Lew Lian because that is where I have a number of elderly residents.

Do give me a chance to reply and share with him some data. I will touch on the ERP clarification, and perhaps Parliamentary Secretary Faishal Ibrahim may want to respond to the point on pedestrian overhead bridges (POB). Just to share some data on which we based the decision not to move further on ERP rates in the Orchard cordon as well as the Bugis/Marina Centre. I would share with Members the 2012 speeds before the removal or the reduction of the ERP charges as well as the speeds as we have it for the first quarter.

For Orchard cordon, what we did was we removed charges from 11.00 am to 12.30 pm. Speeds for all three bands, 11.00 am to 11.30 am; 11.30 am to 12.00 pm and so on, all fell. In particular, in the 12.00 pm to 12.30 pm band, traffic fell from 22.3 to 19.9. For the Bugis/Marina Centre cordon, we reduced the charges from 12.30 pm to 2.00 pm to $1, instead of $2. For two of the three periods, the speeds fell between 1 kilometre and 2 kilometres per hour and, for the other one, it was marginally the same. We do not see, at this point in time, more scope to reduce the charges further and we will just continue to watch the situation.

I thank Mr Seah for the clarification. The one that we are going to build will be near to Nex. As he knows, we will give priority to those which are near to transport nodes. Nevertheless, we will take that into account. I will speak with the Member offline.

I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to please review the signage that he has just told us about in Parliament. The second clarification is on the wider point about cycling policies. Other than piloting some initiatives in some towns and giving some cycling lanes here and there, can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there is a vision for cycling that we can look forward to?

Madam, I again thank Ms Irene Ng for her question. In fact, we have looked at the suggestion that she has raised. Interestingly, while there are diverse needs, there are also diverse views. We hear her suggestion but when we asked other people, they had different views and they seem to accept it. What I suggest is that perhaps this is a trial period. We will continue with it and we see how the cyclists respond to it. If there is a need for us to change it after the trial period, then we will do so.

Secondly, the clarification was about vision. There is a clear vision of what we are doing for cyclists. It is not only from now where I started, even when I was a backbencher, I saw how Minister of State Teo Ser Luck was pushing it, the way he tried to promote the National Cycling Plan, I think I was very touched by it. Today, we are just continuing this journey. As I have shared earlier, many countries take 40 or 50 years to be where they are today. I think we are moving

Page: 71

in the right direction and we certainly have a vision.

Madam, I thank the Member for that clarification. I was not sure if the Member was referring to buses or to trains, so I guess I have to try and deal with both.

For buses, as I have mentioned earlier, the licence expires in 2016. I am quite sure that the PTOs will be more than happy to return all the routes to us. The financials are an indication of how they see things. The challenge indeed is how to have good and proper continuity rather than the returning of the routes.

On trains, as I have mentioned earlier, going forward, for Downtown Line, Thomson Line and the other lines, there will be a competitive tendering process. What will happen is that the bidders will bid for the right to run those lines. They will pay an annual licence charge that is fixed and then we will have two other component charges based on revenue and profitability. The money that is collected from these charges and licences will be set aside as a sinking fund to renew the infrastructure as well as to buy more capacity, more trains and so on.

For the existing lines, there are licence agreements. It would be very difficult and we certainly will be open to legal challenge if we tell them that we want to take back the lines at whatever point in time before the expiry of the licences, unless there is proper negotiation and an agreeable exchange by both parties.

Madam, I would like to ask the Minister for Transport – he mentioned about the nine routes that would be tendered out to the private operators. May I know whether Punggol, Sengkang and Buangkok are covered under these nine routes that he mentioned?

I ought to get back to the Member on the specifics of that area.

Madam, I have three clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, are the new feeder and city direct bus services that are being contracted out to these private bus operators part of the $1.1 billion BSEP or are they extra? If they are extra, how much more will it cost the Government?

The second clarification is will these private operators be subject to the same quality of service standards and penalties as the current PTOs?

Page: 74

And thirdly, is this contracting model, where the operators are paid a fixed contract price and the fares go to the Government, a new model that MOT is thinking of extending to all the PTOs for the bus services after 2016 when their contracts expire?

Madam, I thank Mr Giam for his clarifications and some very good questions there. On the new feeders, no, they are not part of the $1.1 billion BSEP. At some point in time, we would have to go back to MOF and discuss this again, not just because we are introducing nine new routes for a few hours a day but because when we accelerate the BSEP programme, we are bringing forward the implementation of new routes, augmentation of feeders, bringing forward the recruitment of new drivers, using more fuel, doing more maintenance. Once we decide we want to accelerate the programme, then obviously, the cost will have to change and we have to look at this more closely together with MOF.

It is not just the new feeders that we are introducing that will affect the $1.1 billion programme but the fact that we intend to accelerate and bring forward the completion of the BSEP programme. That is something that we all believe we want to do and certainly, from the feedback of Members that they want to do this as quickly and as much of it as possible.

Will the private operators be subject to the same penalties? The tender process is on-going. I do not want to frighten some of them away. I do not yet know what response I will get from them. And certainly, when I see the tender responses from the private operators, then we will be in a much better position to sit down with them and to see how much of the standards that we would like to impose are acceptable.

At the end of the day, it is still, in that sense, a pilot and experiment, bringing in private transport operators to run some of these routes. It will be a period of time before we make the full adjustments as to the kind of standards that we would like to impose on them completely.

Gross cost model – gross cost is the term where basically, the Government takes the revenue risk while we pay them a certain fee to run the buses regardless of the passenger load. It is too early to say as to whether we will apply this to the two PTOs going forward. There is certainly a possibility. It is done in many other cities. In London, they use the gross cost model. But let us settle on what we can do with the private operators first before we decide

Page: 75

further.

I would like to thank the Minister of State for her very comprehensive answer as well as assurance. I just have one clarification and that is – as far as the union is concerned, we will do our best to build up the Singapore Core. However, it takes the concerted effort of the tripartite partners as well. And I just want to ask if the Minister would look into any incentives to incentivise our employers so that they can provide the berth places to these cadets. Because the feedback from the SMA as well is that they have to worry about looking for a berth place for these cadets before they can bring them in to train them. So, I hope that the Minister of State can look into it.

The other aspect is the dependency ratio. I would like to just share that, I have already written this letter last year in early December to MOM to look into it but I was informed that MPA is still working on it. I hope that I can hear some response soon.

Madam, I thank the Member for her two clarification questions. If there is, indeed, a shortage of training berth places, we will certainly do something to address this. However, the feedback that we have received is quite different – that it is difficult to find the warm bodies who want to take up these opportunities. Nonetheless, this is something that we will take a closer look at.

On the dependency ratio that the Member talked about earlier, in general, we would want all sectors to be able to uplift their productivity. These include the harbour craft and maritime sector as a whole.

As to what we should be doing to increase our efforts on this front, that is an area under review right now.

Madam, let me thank Mr Cedric Foo for that clarification. I think the intent of his question is: is there a possibility and in what way can we put more COEs to Category A?

I would say that there have been a number of quite major changes recently for the financing restrictions as well as the ARF. My belief is that it would take a number of bidding cycles, certainly two or three, before we see some clarity as to what is happening, what COE premiums are going to be like and whether there will be a shift of consumer behaviour from the larger to the smaller cars because of the ARF, the higher downpayment and because of the need to repay within five years and the ability to borrow less. We do not know but we think the possibility is that it may put more pressure on Category A COEs. I think that was his point.

What we want to see is what is the outcome of the measures that have been introduced, before we take the next set of moves. There has been no shortage of suggestions on a related line – basically, do a redistribution of the COEs. Should we then confine it to Categories A, B and E, or should we include also Category C and Category D because I know there were advocates for Category C for it to have more COEs – and more COEs for Category C, more COEs for Category A. They have to come from somewhere because I think we are quite clear that we do want to maintain the growth rate at 0.5%.

The second suggestion is, instead of using 1,600 cc, to use some other category. And indeed, we may consider that or a combination of different criteria so that we can draw a somewhat different line between Category A and Category B cars.

These are all preliminary thoughts. As I have mentioned earlier, there is no intent in the very, very near term to make further changes, until we have greater clarity on the changes and the impact of the changes, then we will consider what else needs to be done.