- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/08/21/gerald-giam-debate-on-bus-services-industry-bill/
[h=2]Gerald Giam: Debate on Bus Services Industry Bill[/h]
August 21st, 2015 |
Author: Contributions
Delivered in Parliament on 18 August
2015
NCMP Gerald Giam
Mdm Speaker,
The Bus Services Industry Bill seeks to regulate the provision of bus
services, and the operation of bus depots and bus interchanges in Singapore. It
also gives effect to the recently-introduced bus contracting model via a bus
services procurement framework.
The Workers’ Party welcomes the government’s shift towards taking over the
ownership of bus assets, the planning of bus routes and the setting of fares,
while contracting out bus operations to the private sector. This will hopefully
give the government greater control over the service quality and affordability
of public transport, which is an essential public service.
I have a few queries on this Bill and the bus contracting model in general,
which I hope the Minister can address.
First, on the maintenance and renewal of bus assets. Under
this Bill, bus operators will be responsible for the maintenance of bus assets,
which will be owned by the government but leased to operators. LTA’s lack of
direct involvement in bus operations could result in information asymmetry
between the regulator and the operators. Essentially, LTA may not have a full
understanding of what is going on under the hood of bus operators, and hence may
not be able to take the necessary regulatory or enforcement action should
maintenance be lacking.
How will LTA ensure that bus operators conduct proper maintenance of these
buses? How will LTA mitigate the risk that the buses may be poorly maintained or
abused because the operators do not own them, resulting in shorter lifespan or
more frequent breakdowns?
Which entity will be responsible for the renewal and replacement of essential
operating assets when they approach their end of serviceable life?
The broader question on this issue is: How will the Ministry of Transport
manage any possible conflicts between LTA and the operators, to ensure that
there is proper accountability, so that disagreements between the two entities
do not result in delays or failure to conduct proper maintenance and renewal of
essential operating assets?
Next, on buses and crisis response. Currently, most public
bus operators are also MRT train operators, and they can reallocate resources
internally to respond to incidents like MRT breakdowns. This is likely to change
in the future, with the bus routes eventually tendered out to different
operators. How will LTA marshal bus resources from different operators to
respond to crises like the massive MRT disruption we saw last July? Is there any
provision in the bus operator contracts that state that operators must make
their bus resources available to the government to respond to crises?
Third, I would like to ask about the transition between bus
operators. The bus contracting model is likely to see more frequent
transitions between bus operators. How will LTA ensure that the incumbents
maintain high service levels as they transition out of areas where they will no
longer be providing bus services? I am particularly concerned about manpower
transitions that may affect service levels for the commuter.
Fourth, on the removal of the CEO of bus operators. Clause
19 requires bus operators holding a Class 1 bus service licence to obtain LTA’s
approval before appointing, re-appointing or removing its CEO or board chairman,
failing which LTA can issue a direction to reverse that decision. However, if a
current CEO of a public bus operator is incompetent or unable to provide
effective leadership to ensure the smooth operation of the bus services under
their contracts, does LTA have any power to remove that CEO before the expiry of
his or her contract?
National Transport Corporation
Madam, the bus contracting model is now in its second year of implementation.
Only two contracts have been awarded so far. It is too early to gauge whether
this model will indeed drive greater cost efficiency and service quality for
commuters, while keeping fares affordable. All stakeholders, including the
government, should monitor this model closely over the next few years to assess
its results. If it turns out that cost efficiency and service quality have not
improved as a result of this model, the government should be prepared to explore
different models, including having a government-owned National Transport
Corporation take over the running of public bus services on a not-for-profit and
cost-recovery basis, to ensure that service quality for commuters is not
compromised.
Finally, Madam, I would like to record my thanks to Minister for patiently
answering all my PQs (Parliamentary Questions) and responding to my speeches on
transport over the last 4 years, and I wish him all the best in his future
endeavours.
Madam, I support the Bill.
Gerald
Giam
Non-Constituency Member of
Parliament
* Mr Giam blogs at geraldgiam.sg.
[h=2]Gerald Giam: Debate on Bus Services Industry Bill[/h]
August 21st, 2015 |
Author: Contributions
Delivered in Parliament on 18 August
2015
NCMP Gerald Giam
Mdm Speaker,
The Bus Services Industry Bill seeks to regulate the provision of bus
services, and the operation of bus depots and bus interchanges in Singapore. It
also gives effect to the recently-introduced bus contracting model via a bus
services procurement framework.
The Workers’ Party welcomes the government’s shift towards taking over the
ownership of bus assets, the planning of bus routes and the setting of fares,
while contracting out bus operations to the private sector. This will hopefully
give the government greater control over the service quality and affordability
of public transport, which is an essential public service.
I have a few queries on this Bill and the bus contracting model in general,
which I hope the Minister can address.
First, on the maintenance and renewal of bus assets. Under
this Bill, bus operators will be responsible for the maintenance of bus assets,
which will be owned by the government but leased to operators. LTA’s lack of
direct involvement in bus operations could result in information asymmetry
between the regulator and the operators. Essentially, LTA may not have a full
understanding of what is going on under the hood of bus operators, and hence may
not be able to take the necessary regulatory or enforcement action should
maintenance be lacking.
How will LTA ensure that bus operators conduct proper maintenance of these
buses? How will LTA mitigate the risk that the buses may be poorly maintained or
abused because the operators do not own them, resulting in shorter lifespan or
more frequent breakdowns?
Which entity will be responsible for the renewal and replacement of essential
operating assets when they approach their end of serviceable life?
The broader question on this issue is: How will the Ministry of Transport
manage any possible conflicts between LTA and the operators, to ensure that
there is proper accountability, so that disagreements between the two entities
do not result in delays or failure to conduct proper maintenance and renewal of
essential operating assets?
Next, on buses and crisis response. Currently, most public
bus operators are also MRT train operators, and they can reallocate resources
internally to respond to incidents like MRT breakdowns. This is likely to change
in the future, with the bus routes eventually tendered out to different
operators. How will LTA marshal bus resources from different operators to
respond to crises like the massive MRT disruption we saw last July? Is there any
provision in the bus operator contracts that state that operators must make
their bus resources available to the government to respond to crises?
Third, I would like to ask about the transition between bus
operators. The bus contracting model is likely to see more frequent
transitions between bus operators. How will LTA ensure that the incumbents
maintain high service levels as they transition out of areas where they will no
longer be providing bus services? I am particularly concerned about manpower
transitions that may affect service levels for the commuter.
Fourth, on the removal of the CEO of bus operators. Clause
19 requires bus operators holding a Class 1 bus service licence to obtain LTA’s
approval before appointing, re-appointing or removing its CEO or board chairman,
failing which LTA can issue a direction to reverse that decision. However, if a
current CEO of a public bus operator is incompetent or unable to provide
effective leadership to ensure the smooth operation of the bus services under
their contracts, does LTA have any power to remove that CEO before the expiry of
his or her contract?
National Transport Corporation
Madam, the bus contracting model is now in its second year of implementation.
Only two contracts have been awarded so far. It is too early to gauge whether
this model will indeed drive greater cost efficiency and service quality for
commuters, while keeping fares affordable. All stakeholders, including the
government, should monitor this model closely over the next few years to assess
its results. If it turns out that cost efficiency and service quality have not
improved as a result of this model, the government should be prepared to explore
different models, including having a government-owned National Transport
Corporation take over the running of public bus services on a not-for-profit and
cost-recovery basis, to ensure that service quality for commuters is not
compromised.
Finally, Madam, I would like to record my thanks to Minister for patiently
answering all my PQs (Parliamentary Questions) and responding to my speeches on
transport over the last 4 years, and I wish him all the best in his future
endeavours.
Madam, I support the Bill.
Gerald
Giam
Non-Constituency Member of
Parliament
* Mr Giam blogs at geraldgiam.sg.
