Safe footpaths

Committee of Supply Debate, Ministry of Transport, 5 Mar 2024


Footpath safety is a concern for many of my residents. Accidents often occur along footpaths due to a lack of awareness and courtesy among pedestrians, cyclists and personal mobility device users. Some of my residents have suffered severe injuries as a result. I call on the Ministry to conduct more public safety education for all footpath users. 

For instance, cyclists should be encouraged to sound their bell when they are still some distance away from pedestrians to alert them of their approach — and not wait until they are directly behind. Pedestrians should be educated to avoid suddenly changing direction without looking over their shoulders. Cyclists who disregard pedestrian safety should be taken to task.

By promoting a culture of mutual respect and responsibility, we can make our footpaths safer and more pleasant for everyone. This is not only a matter of convenience, but also of public health and social cohesion. 

重新思考新加坡公共交通模式

严燕松(阿裕尼集选区)

这是我在2023年11月7日的国会里发表的英译中演讲。

______

生活成本危机:要求国会呼吁政府重新审视其政策,以减轻新加坡人及其家庭的生活成本压力。

议长先生,

新加坡面临着无可否认的生活成本上升趋势,这是由全球通货膨胀、供应链中断、能源价格上升和劳动力短缺等因素驱动的。然而,与武吉班让议员对动议的修改中所暗示的相反,国内政策决定,如消费税增长、水电费上涨、公共交通费用上升,以及拥车证的成本飙升,也导致了新加坡人的生活成本增加。

黑匣子研究最近的SensingSG调查发现,59%的新加坡居民认为生活成本是国家和社会所面对的两个最重要的问题之一。公共交通成本也是新加坡生活成本的组成部分,占新加坡金融管理局核心通胀篮子的2.5%。

在过去的10年中,地铁和巴士车资的增长率快于核心通胀率。在2023年的车资调整检讨中,公共交通理事会的车资调整公式建议高达22.6%的车资调整。尽管公共交通理事会选择将其限制在7%。这一项决定导致政府在2023年为公共交通运营商提供了约3亿新元的额外补贴,高于前一年的2亿新元。这一补贴仍未能消除剩余的15.6%的车资增长,公共交通理事会已将其推迟到未来的审核。

与此同时,公交业者继续公布惊人的利润。在2011年至2022年之间,SMRT和新捷运共计每年平均获利7460万新元,上一财年甚至高达1亿1千万新元。在车资上涨和政府补贴增加的背景下,这一利润尤其惹人注目。在我们当前的公共交通模式下,公交业者之间几乎没有竞争。这是因为不同业者运营的是岛内不同的交通路线。即使不同交通方式在相同路线的重复,也在逐渐被消除。巴士路线和新的地铁线路平行运行的公交服务也被取消了。

以上的论点引发了对当前车资调整公式有效性的疑问,以及围绕新加坡公共交通模式的可持续性的广泛讨论。

向国有化迈进

当前的模式包括政府对运输资产的所有权和在多个以盈利为导向的公交业者之间划分的运营合同。这个模式比政府更愿意承认的更朝向国有化迈进。。自2010年,所有铁路资产都转移到了政府手中。2012年,政府推出了每年11亿新元的巴士服务增强计划。2013年,巴士承包模式开始实行,陆交局在某些地区向公交业者招标巴士服务。这一过程在2016年完成。陆路交通管理局现在拥有巴士资产并向公交业者支付运营费,同时收取所有车费收入并设定服务水平。政府现在每年为公共交通服务提供20亿新元的补贴,即每次航程1新元。

目前的公共交通模式包括运营商、监管机构和政府,这可能会导致效率低下和额外成本。这些始终将转嫁到乘客和纳税人身上。这将表现为车资增加、政府补贴增加、服务覆盖范围降低,或三者兼得。

一些服务覆盖范围已经逐渐减少。在过去三年里,已经有大约30项公交服务被缩短或取消。这些变化已经影响到勿洛蓄水池一带的居民。他们不断地向我表达他们对长时间等待巴士和拥挤的勿洛地铁站接驳巴士的关注。那些偏爱直达干线服务以达到在通勤过程中步行距离较短的老年乘客,也受到了这些变化的影响。

工人党的国营交通公司提议

正如反对党领袖在提出这一项动议时所说的那样,我们必需重新思考政府发出一次性财政津贴的政策方法,并探索可能的结构性变化,以减少新加坡人的生活成本开支。

因此,重新考虑成立国营交通公司的提议是及时的。这一项提议最初由工人党在2006年提出。我们设想国营交通公司作为一个公共拥有、非营利、多模式的陆路运输实体,将监督新加坡所有的地铁、轻轨和干线巴士服务的规划和运营。

国营交通公司在多个方面优于当前的公共交通模式。

首先,在国营交通公司旗下,原本流向公交业者及其股东的可观利润可以重新分配给乘客。这样的收入可以减缓车资上涨并为老年人、残疾人士和低收入家庭提供交通补贴,直接解决生活成本问题。

其次,政府拥有权过问国营交通公司的财务记录,政府便可以仅设置足够高的车费来确保国营交通公司的财务可持续性,而不会过度负担乘客。复杂的车资调整公式可以废除。车资调整可以逐步引入,避免在经济困难时期突然变化。

其三,国营交通公司可以管理巴士换乘站、地铁和轻轨站,以及相关联的通道,利用这些黄金零售和商业区的租金来支持其运营。这将有助于减缓车资上涨和对不断增长的政府补贴的需求。

其四,国营交通公司可以根据专业知识、业绩记录和对公共服务的承诺,聘请国内外顶尖的交通工程师和管理人员。公司的成败由人才推动。利润动机并非是提高效率和生产力的唯一驱动因素。通过设定严格的关键绩效指标(KPI)并赋予这些专业人员的话语权,国家交通公司可以持续提高服务标准。相比之下,当前针对公交业者服务中断的处罚与其利润相比微不足道,也不会直接影响到高级管理人员的薪酬。国家交通公司的方法将在绩效管理上看到显著的改进。

其五,为了透明度和问责性,国家交通公司应该公开其高级管理人员的薪酬、主要利润来源和主要成本驱动因素,使国会和公众能够检查和审视其财务状况并追究相关方的责任。

其六,类似国营交通公司的统一交通实体将确保更统一的服务标准、增强的服务整合和全面的数据获取,用于服务改进。国家交通公司可以利用广泛的通勤者数据,运用人工智能预测通勤趋势,动态地指挥公交车和火车前往最需要的地方。通勤者在新加坡某一个地区提出的改进建议也可以在全岛实行。

其七,国家交通公司在采购、人员配置和技术基础设施方面也将产生规模经济,带来更多节省,使通勤者受益。

其八,国家交通公司将承担目前由陆路交通管理局持有的运营责任,让陆交局只专注于其监管角色,消除同时作为监管者和运营者可能出现的利益冲突。

最后,国家交通公司将被赋予自由去试行和引领陆路交通解决方案,并将新加坡置于全球交通创新的前沿。这可能为新加坡成为像自动驾驶公交车或环保的氢能源汽车等先进技术的早期采纳者铺平道路。

结论

议长先生,国家交通公司是对新加坡公共交通模式的重新思考。它让我们从依赖政府补贴以盈利的公共交通公司转变为一个非营利、统一的服务提供者,这将为通勤者和纳税人提供更高效、更具经济效益的服务。

这种新模式将把我们通勤者的需求和福祉放在我们交通政策的核心。它不仅会解决新加坡人目前的成本问题,而且还将引导新加坡的公共交通走向未来。

议长先生,我支持反对党领袖和阿裕尼选区议员,毕丹星先生,以及盛港选区议员,蔡庆威先生,提出的动议。

Rethinking Singapore’s public transport model to benefit commuters

This was my speech in Parliament on 7 November 2023 during the debate on the motion tabled by Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and MP for Sengkang Louis Chua, on the cost of living crisis.

Cost of Living: That this House calls on the Government to review its policies so as to lower cost of living pressures for Singaporeans and their families.

Mr Speaker,

Singapore faces an undeniable upward trend in the cost of living, driven by factors such as global inflation, supply chain disruptions, escalating energy prices and labour shortages. However, contrary to what the Member for Bukit Panjang seems to imply in his amendments to the motion, domestic policy decisions, like the hike in the GST, increases in water and electricity tariffs, and rises in public transport fares, coupled with the skyrocketing cost of COEs, also contribute to the increase in the cost of living that Singaporeans are experiencing.

Blackbox Research’s recent SensingSG survey found that 59% of Singapore residents highlighted cost of living among the two most important national and community issues. Public transport costs are also a contributor to the cost of living in Singapore, making up 2.5% of the MAS’ Core Inflation basket.

Over the last 10 years, the rate of increase in bus and train fares has been faster than that of core inflation. In the 2023 Fare Review Exercise, the Public Transport Council (PTC)’s fare adjustment formula produced a whopping 22.6% fare increase, although the PTC chose to cap it at 7%. This decision led to the Government providing an additional subsidy to public transport operators (PTOs) to the tune of about $300 million in 2023, up from the $200 million the year before. This subsidy still does not eliminate the remaining 15.6% fare increase, which the PTC has deferred to future reviews.

In the meantime, PTOs have continued to post eye watering profits. Between 2011 and 2022, SMRT and SBS Transit have together posted profits averaging $74.6 million a year, reaching $110 million in the last financial year. This is particularly jarring against the backdrop of increasing fares and government subsidies. The PTOs in our current public transport model face little competition with each other, because they operate different transport routes across the island. Even duplications of the same routes for different transport modes are slowly being eliminated, as bus services running parallel to new MRT lines are removed.

These prompt questions about the efficacy of the current fare adjustment formula, and a broader discussion around the sustainability of Singapore’s public transport model. 

Inching towards Nationalisation

The current model consists of a mix of government ownership of transport assets and operating contracts carved up among multiple profit-oriented PTOs. The model is inching more towards nationalisation than the Government would like to admit. Starting in 2010, all rail assets were transferred to the government. The year 2012 saw the introduction of the $1.1 billion a year Bus Services Enhancement Plan. In 2013, the Bus Contracting Model saw bus services in certain areas tendered out to PTOs. This was completed in 2016. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) now owns bus assets and pays the PTOs an operating fee, while collecting all fare revenue and setting the service levels. The Government is now subsidising public transport services to the tune of $2 billion a year, or $1 for every journey. 

This mesh of responsibilities involving the operators, the regulator and the government potentially introduces inefficiencies and additional costs. These will eventually trickle down to commuters and taxpayers, manifesting as either increased fares, higher government subsidies, lower service coverage, or all of the above.

Some service coverage is already being reduced. In the past three years, about 30 bus services have been shortened or removed. Such changes have affected my residents in Bedok Reservoir, who continue to voice their concerns to me about long wait times and crowded feeder bus rides to Bedok MRT station. Elderly commuters, who favour direct trunk services which facilitate shorter walking distances during the commute, are also affected by these changes.

WP’s National Transport Corporation proposal

As the Leader of the Opposition said when moving this Motion, we need to move beyond one-time fiscal handouts and explore possible structural changes to existing policies to reduce cost-of-living expenses for Singaporeans.

It is therefore timely to revisit the proposal to establish a National Transport Corporation (NTC). This was first proposed by the Workers’ Party in 2006. We envisage the NTC as a publicly-owned, non-profit, multi-modal land transport entity which will oversee the planning and operation of all MRT, LRT and trunk bus services in Singapore.

The NTC offers many benefits over the current public transport model.

First, under the NTC, the substantial profits which go to PTOs and their shareholders could instead be redirected to benefit commuters. Such revenue could mitigate fare increases and subsidise transport for the elderly, people with disabilities and low income households, directly addressing concerns about the cost of living.

Second, with full access to the NTC’s financial records, the government could set fares just high enough to ensure the NTC’s fiscal sustainability without overly burdening commuters. The complex fare adjustment formula can be done away with. Fare adjustments could be introduced progressively, avoiding abrupt changes during times of economic hardship.

Third, the NTC could manage bus interchanges, MRT and LRT stations, and their associated linkways, leveraging the rent from these prime retail and commercial areas to support its operations. This will help moderate fare increases and the need for ever-growing government subsidies.

Fourth, the NTC could hire top transport engineers and managers, both locally and globally, based on their expertise, track records and commitment to public service. Companies are fuelled by their people. Profit motives are not the sole drivers of efficiency and productivity improvements. By setting stringent KPIs and empowering these professionals, the NTC can continually improve service standards. In contrast, the current penalties for PTOs’ service disruptions are trivial against their profits and don’t directly affect executive pay. The NTC’s approach will see a marked improvement in performance management.

Fifth, for transparency and accountability, the NTC should disclose its executive salaries, primary profit sources and major cost drivers, enabling Parliament and the public to examine its financial health and hold relevant parties accountable.

Sixth, a unified transport entity like the NTC would ensure more uniform service standards, enhanced service integration and comprehensive access to data for service improvement. Utilising the vast array of commuter data, the NTC can employ AI to forecast travel trends, dynamically directing buses and trains where they are most required. Improvements suggested by commuters in one region of Singapore could be applied island-wide.

Seventh, the NTC would yield economies of scale in procurement, staff allocation and technological infrastructure, leading to further savings that benefit commuters.

Eighth, the NTC would assume operational responsibilities currently held by the LTA, allowing the LTA to focus solely on its regulatory role, eliminating potential conflicts of interest from being both a regulator and an operator.

Lastly, the NTC would be given the freedom to experiment with and spearhead land transport solutions, and position Singapore at the vanguard of global transport innovations. This could pave the way for Singapore to be an early adopter of advancements like autonomous buses or eco-friendly hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Conclusion

Sir, the National Transport Corporation is a rethink of Singapore’s public transport model. It shifts us away from public transport companies that profit from government subsidies, to a non-profit, unified provider that will be more efficient and affordable for both commuters and taxpayers. 

This new model will place the needs and well-being of our commuters at the heart of our transport policy. It will not only address the immediate cost concerns of Singaporeans, but also steer Singapore’s public transport into the future.

Sir, I support the Motion standing in the name of my Hon. Friends, the Leader of the Opposition and Member for Aljunied, Mr Pritam Singh, and the Member for Sengkang, Mr Louis Chua.

Rejection of vocational driver licence applications due to criminal records

Several of my constituents in Aljunied GRC have approached me to appeal to obtain vocational drivers’ licences to drive taxis or private hire vehicles, after serving their convictions for various offences. While the LTA website states that those who have committed rape, murder or kidnapping will not get a licence — which I think is a reasonable safeguard for passengers — the LTA is less specific about which other offences would debar them. This leaves aspiring taxi or private hire drivers who have committed non-violent offences unclear about whether they would be able to ferry passengers for a living. I sought clarity on this matter with the Minister for Transport. Read on for the answer and my supplementary questions.

==========

22 March 2023

REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS FOR VOCATIONAL DRIVERS’ LICENCES DUE TO CRIMINAL RECORD

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport in the last three years (a) how many applications for the (i) Taxi Driver’s Vocational Licence (ii) Private Hire Car Driver’s Vocational Licence (iii) Bus Driver’s Vocational Licence (iv) Bus Attendant’s Vocational Licence and (v) Omnibus Driver’s Vocational Licence were rejected due to the criminal record of the applicants for offences other than rape, murder or kidnapping respectively; and (b) of these, how many appeals were received and how many were approved upon appeal.

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): Of the more than 15,000 vocational licence or VL applications across the different services in 2022, 226 applications or about 1.5% were rejected due to criminal records, including murder, rape and kidnapping.

 It is necessary for LTA to screen the VL applications to safeguard the interests of the commuting public. LTA may consider appeals from applicants with criminal records depending on the nature of the case. In 2022, 72 out of these 169 appeals were acceded to. LTA considers such appeals carefully to strike a balance between allowing applicants who committed less severe offences to take on driving as a vocation while safeguarding the safety of passengers.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam. 

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I understand that those who have committed offences like rape, murder and kidnapping will not get a licence. And I think that is a reasonable safeguard for passengers.

However, I have met residents who told me they cannot get back their vocational licence for past convictions for less violent or non-violent offences. This prevents them from earning a living and re-integrating into society.

So, can the Senior Minister of State please provide more clarity on what offences will debar a person from obtaining this licence? I think this will also give some clarity to the passengers to know that drivers who have gotten offences in the past will not be a safety threat to themselves.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As the Member has rightly pointed out, we need to strike a balance, we need to maintain public confidence, especially for passengers conveyed in public service vehicles, like taxis and private hire cars (PHCs). Whilst we want to give the applicant who has had a criminal record before a second chance in taking up driving as a vocation, we also need to ensure that the interest and safety of commuters  are safeguarded.

So, when we look at the applications, the Member has asked whether there are specific offences that we consider. Actually, criminal offences make up a large range. Besides murder, rape and kidnapping, there is a real wide range of such offences. We will consider them on a case-by-case basis because it is not just the severity of the offence, but also when the offence was committed and also any other mitigating factors like recalcitrance and so on.

So, when an appeal comes in, we will look at it on a case-by-case basis, based on its own merit and make an independent assessment.

Source: Parliament Hansard

Photo by Jeremy Kwok on Unsplash

#Parliament #WorkersParty #MakeYourVoteCount

Bus waiting time and fare increases

Public transport fares will increase 2.9% from 26 Dec 2022. I asked the Minister for Transport in Parliament on 8 Nov whether the Public Transport Council decides on fare adjustments based on bus service reliability. Minister S Iswaran said “steady improvements” had been made and that between 2018 and 2022, all services had met the required standards, including bus 228, which he said was “close to Mr Gerald Giam’s heart”. 

In fact, bus 228 is even closer to the heart of my residents in Bedok Reservoir, who could previously take several other bus services from their homes to Bedok Interchange before they got rerouted. They now depend on only bus 228, which has an arrival interval ranging from seven to 15 minutes. I urged the Ministry to look into increasing the frequency of this service to improve the commuting experience.

The Minister recalled that I had raised the issue earlier this year in Parliament as well and noted my “consistency” in doing so. He replied that reducing headways had cost implications because of the need for more buses and bus captains. 

I understand that more frequent buses will cost more, but these costs have to be seen in the broader context of getting more Singaporeans to shift from pollutive private transport to greener public transport.

Increase the frequency of feeder buses

The convenience and comfort of public transport is an important factor that commuters consider before going “car lite”. Fewer private cars on the road reduces both traffic congestion and carbon emissions. Conversely, inconvenient public transport can have the opposite effect of encouraging more driving or riding of private vehicles. Most residents, however, have no choice but to take public transport as cars in Singapore are unaffordable for them.

Many of my residents, especially those living along Bedok Reservoir Road, continue to voice their dissatisfaction to me about the Government’s decision last December to reduce the number of bus services plying routes to nearby bus interchanges and MRT stations, as well as trunk routes to other parts of the island. This represents an overall reduction in public transport convenience for them, particularly since the frequency of bus 228, which takes them to and from Bedok Interchange, has not increased enough to make up for their loss of bus service 66. The frequency of feeder bus services like bus 228 should be increased further, to make public transport a more attractive option for Singaporeans.

During the 9 May 2022 sitting of Parliament, I asked the Minister for Transport what percentage of bus services operate with frequencies (technical term: headways) of no more than five minutes during peak hours and 10 minutes during off-peak hours. This is the Minister’s reply:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport in the last six months, what percentage of (i) all public bus services and (ii) feeder bus services, operated with headways of no more than five minutes during morning and evening peak hours, and no more than 10 minutes during off-peak hours, respectively.

Mr S Iswaran: LTA monitors the performance of our bus operators against the standards stipulated under the Bus Contracting Model (BCM).

Under BCM, basic bus services have scheduled headways of 15 minutes or less during the morning and evening peak periods. At least half of these services are required to have scheduled headways of 10 minutes or less. Feeder services run at shorter intervals, with scheduled headways of no more than eight minutes during peak periods. In the last six months, bus operators have adhered to the standards set by LTA.

Source: Parliament Hansard

Read Land Transport Guru’s in-depth analysis of the bus service changes in Bedok Reservoir.

Bus services rationalisation

The Public Transport Council’s latest annual customer satisfaction survey found that satisfaction with public transport services has fallen to its lowest level in six years. The survey showed that discontent with public bus services was a factor, with many commuters notably expressing dissatisfaction with bus waiting times.

These sentiments are similarly expressed by many of my residents living along Bedok Reservoir Road, where four bus services were cut or rerouted last December. This has resulted in my residents having to put up with longer waiting times, crowded buses and losing direct routes to their destinations.

Before removing or rerouting bus services, LTA should conduct public consultations with affected residents. If bus services are being rationalised due to low ridership, I would like to suggest that LTA first consider switching to smaller buses or extending their headways.

If bus services must be removed, the frequency of the remaining feeder services to bus interchanges or MRT stations should be increased to make up for them. Commuters should not have to wait more than 5 minutes during peak hours or 10 minutes during off-peak hours for feeder buses.

LTA should strive to retain trunk bus services. These serve many elderly and disabled residents who have trouble walking between bus stops or transferring from bus to MRT. Many of them do not mind longer bus rides if that allows them to walk less.

While LTA and the public transport operators strive towards efficiency, they must pay closer attention to the comfort and convenience of commuters. LTA should proactively monitor public feedback and be open to bringing back bus services if there is strong commuter demand.


This was my speech during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Transport, 8 Mar 2022.

Fare increases and quality of service (COS – MOT)

The PTC chairman acknowledged that service reliability needs to improve, but said that this issue should be kept separate from fare raises, which are to cover rising costs for operators. This is quite baffling for most commuters, myself included. In most service industries, customers will demand good service before they even agree to pay. But for public transport in Singapore, we seem to be expected to pay more just to get satisfactory service.

Parliament, 11 March 2014

Madam,

In January, when the Public Transport Council (PTC) approved hikes in bus and MRT fares, many commuters asked why fares were being raised when they had yet to see satisfactory improvement in service reliability.

The PTC chairman acknowledged that service reliability needs to improve, but said that this issue should be kept separate from fare raises, which are to cover rising costs for operators.

This is quite baffling for most commuters, myself included. In most service industries, customers will demand good service before they even agree to pay. But for public transport in Singapore, we seem to be expected to pay more just to get satisfactory service.

Can the Ministry consider revising the fare review formula to incorporate service reliability as one of its components? This will create is a direct link between service quality and fare adjustments, and will better align the incentives for transport operators with the interests of commuters.

Companies Participating in the Travel Smart Scheme

Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how his Ministry plans to increase the number of companies participating in the Travel Smart scheme from the current 12; (b) what is the Ministry’s target number of participating companies; and (c) what tangible incentives does the Government plan to give companies to implement flexi-work options so as to spread out peak hour commuter load on public buses and the MRT.

I asked the Transport Minister on 12 August 2013 about the Travel Smart Scheme, in which companies commit to implementing flexi-work options such as staggering working hours or tele-commuting.

——————-

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how his Ministry plans to increase the number of companies participating in the Travel Smart scheme from the current 12; (b) what is the Ministry’s target number of participating companies; and (c) what tangible incentives does the Government plan to give companies to implement flexi-work options so as to spread out peak hour commuter load on public buses and the MRT.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew : The Travel Smart project is a pilot study to help understand the impact of various organisational practices and interventions in shaping the travel patterns of employees. The 12 participating organisations, with a total of 25,000 employees, will develop and implement Travel Smart Action Plans, which include initiatives like flexi-work measures, and installation of shower and locker facilities and cycling facilities, amongst others. Each of the 12 organisations can claim up to $20,000 from LTA’s Travel Smart Reimbursement Grant to subsidise their costs. We will also be looking into customising travel incentive programmes together with the Travel Smart organisations to further encourage their employees to shift their travel times outside of the morning peak period.

Preliminary feedback has been encouraging. We will review the results in early 2014 before deciding how best to expand the programme.

Aside from Travel Smart, the Ministry of Manpower and the Singapore Workforce Development Agency had launched a one-stop programme called “WorkPro” on 1 April this year to build progressive workplaces for their employees. WorkPro includes a Work-Life Grant that provides funding support of up to $160,000 to help employers implement and sustain the use of flexi-work arrangements such as flexi-time to improve work-life harmony.

————-

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)