Transport Sector (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.29 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Acting Minister for Transport, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Transport Sector (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2025 seeks to make various amendments to land and sea transport-related legislation, and a related amendment to the Public Utilities Act 2001.

The Bill covers five key areas. First, the Bill reinforces our efforts to make our public transport system more secure and more comfortable for all. As announced at the Ministry of Transport's (MOT's) Committee of Supply debate this year, we intend to regulate the conduct of commuters to prevent inconsiderate behaviour on public buses and bus interchanges. Through the proposed amendments, we will align the regulatory framework against inconsiderate behaviour across trains and buses.

Examples of such behaviour include, littering and consumption of food and drinks; or causing a nuisance or annoyance to other passengers, such as by playing loud music or videos on mobile phones. Those who contravene the regulations will face penalties commensurate with how the proscribed conduct impacts on other bus commuters, with higher penalties for repeat offenders.

To enable the intent, clause 2(a), (f) and (i) of the Bill amends the Bus Services Industry Act to provide for regulation-making powers to regulate the conduct of bus passengers and members of the public, which includes prohibiting disruptive and nuisance-causing behaviour onboard buses and at bus interchanges. The Regulations, which will be made later, will take reference from existing regulations under the Rapid Transit Systems Act, which prohibits certain behaviour within the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) network.

Clause 2(i) also includes a new Part 7A that provides for the screening of bus passengers and entrants to bus interchanges, and prohibits the carriage of dangerous items onto buses and in bus interchanges. These provisions are currently found in the Road Traffic Act 1961 and are now being consolidated in the Bus Services Industry Act 2015. Hence, this is not a new requirement at law. It is also aligned with the same requirements under the Rapid Transit Systems Act which deals with the MRT system, as provided for in section 23A of the Rapid Transit Systems Act and Regulation 9 of the Rapid Transit Systems Regulations.

In addition, sections 42AC and 42AD of the new Part 7A also provides that it will be an offence for someone to wilfully do anything or omit to do anything in relation to a bus, bus depot or bus interchange thereby endangering the safety of anyone on buses or within bus depot or bus interchange, or cause damage to anything that is part of any bus, bus depot or bus interchange. These offences will be aligned with existing offences provided for in sections 25 and 26 of the Rapid Transit Systems Act in relation to railway and railway premises. Once this Bill is passed, we will be able to set out the prohibited behaviours in the regulations and take enforcement against those who do not comply.

With these changes, authorised officers, such as Land Transport Authority (LTA) enforcement officers and public transport staff like ticket inspectors and interchange staff who are empowered by the LTA to carry out enforcement, will be able to better protect members of public at bus depots, interchanges and public buses.

Second, clause 4 amends section 32 of the Public Transport Council Act to allow the Public Transport Council (PTC) to grant an application by bus operators to withdraw monies from the Fuel Equalisation Fund that they originally contributed. The withdrawals can be granted for reasons unassociated with the original purpose of the Fund.

The Fund was set up in 1992 to mitigate the effects of transient increases in fuel or electricity prices. Operators contributed to their own Fund accounts when energy prices fell below a reference price and could apply to PTC to withdraw funds when energy prices were higher. With the implementation of the Bus Contracting Model in 2016, the impact of any increases in the fuel price and electricity tariff on bus operators is already mitigated, as the Government pays service fees to the bus operators which are indexed to the corresponding energy prices. Therefore, this amendment seeks to allow bus operators to withdraw monies that they had contributed to the Fund over the years before contributions were suspended.

Third, clause 4 also raises the maximum composition sum under the PTC Act from $500 to $10,000, or half the amount of the maximum fine that is prescribed for the offence, whichever is lower. This will allow PTC to increase the deterrence effect of composition sums imposed against point-to-point transport (P2P) operators for breaches under the PTC Act.

For example, this could cover instances where a ride-hail platform operator charges incorrect fares arising from system errors. At present, the maximum composition sum of $500 under the Act is not commensurate with the severity of the offence, as operators are otherwise liable on conviction to a fine of up to $100,000. Therefore, this offence is not currently prescribed to be compoundable. With these amendments, we will be able to prescribe this offence as a compoundable offence and to offer composition of up to $10,000 per offence in less egregious cases.

Fourth, clause 6(f) amends the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act 1996 to empower the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) to demarcate deposit sites for the dumping of objects and materials, such as dredged and reclamation materials. Clause 6(e) allows MPA to prescribe fees, with the approval of the Minister for Transport, for the use of these deposit sites. These fees recover MPA’s costs in relation to the deposit sites, including developing, managing, monitoring and maintaining deposit sites, monitoring the deposit of materials at the deposit sites, and investigating the impact of the deposits on the surrounding seabed and marine environment. These matters are essential to ensure safe navigation and safeguarding of the environment.

The fees were originally introduced by the then-Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) and subsequently continued by MPA when it established in 1996. They were not formally prescribed in legislation as the then-PSA and MPA had regarded them as charges for private contractual services. Following the Auditor-General’s Office’s FY2024/2025 report, MPA has been advised that the fees must be prescribed in legislation. This amendment will therefore provide legislative basis for MPA to continue collecting such fees.

As MPA has already incurred significant costs in maintaining the deposit sites and managing dumping activities since 1996, and has been collecting fees in connection with the dumping activities, clause 7 will also validate the past collection of such fees up to the commencement of the new provisions.

Fifth, clauses 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10 introduce several operational and housekeeping amendments to the Multimodal Transport Act 2021, the MPA Act 1996, the MPA (Amendment) Act 2017, Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and a related amendment to the Public Utilities Act 2001. These include provisions to simplify processes and better manage MPA’s operations in this digital age to achieve greater efficiency, provisions to renumber section numbers of provisions enacted in a 2017 Act, as well as amendments to ensure that terminology used in the Multimodal Transport Act 2021 is consistent with our international obligations.

Sir, some of the amendments I am moving today are the legal equivalent of housekeeping – such as aligning the requirements of law across different transportation modes. But the crux of the Bill is to strengthen the foundation of the public transport system itself. A shared vehicle, whether a train or a bus, in a dense, fast-paced and highly networked city, is only safe if we guard against the worst of our base instincts, whether against those who wish us harm, those whose behaviour are boorishly unreasonable in a public space or even those who do not comply with our collective understanding of what it means to respect the rights and space of others in close proximity. This Bill sets out to all parties the expectations of specific forms of compliance when travelling on public transport, deters anti-social and harmful behaviours and ensures a safer and more salubrious experience for all. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

3.39 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would first like to declare my interest as the CEO of Strides Premier, a subsidiary of SMRT.

In 2012, I stood in this House to speak up for our Bus Captains, to raise a concern close to my heart. At that time, we had a glaring inconsistency: if a passenger brought a dangerous item on board a bus, the Bus Captain, not the passenger, faced a penalty. Yet, for the same offence on our trains, the passenger was held accountable. This was not just a policy gap. It was a profound injustice for the hardworking men and women at the wheel. I was relieved and thankful when the Ministry moved decisively to rectify this anomaly with the advent of the Bus Contracting Model. Now, with section 42AB of the Bus Services Industry (Amendment) Bill, it is clearly the responsibility of the bus passenger not to bring dangerous items on board the bus.

The Bus Contracting Model was a watershed moment because it forced a fundamental shift in perspective. With the Bus Contracting Model, LTA took direct ownership of bus service levels and the results have been transformative. Service improved significantly. Crucially, the first tender set a new and strong benchmark focused on quality and service, not just the lowest cost.

However, a concerning trend has since emerged. From 2015 to 2024, almost all the bus packages have been awarded based on the lowest or second-lowest price. And the service fee per kilometre has also been a decreasing trend over the last decade. While this has driven apparent cost efficiency, even as Bus Captains' starting pay rightly rose from just over $2,000 a month in 2013 to about $4,000 a month today, we must ask: how far can we push this?

There is a limit to efficiency. Internationally, in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia, similar systems have shown a tipping point exists. It seems that we may also have reached our tipping point. The recent Tampines bus package was awarded not to the lowest bidder, but to an operator with the highest bid, significantly higher than its competitors. While we are not privy to the award considerations, it would be worthwhile that we review the trajectory of the Bus Contracting Model and send a clear signal to the industry insofar on how the various operators should gear themselves up to service and support Singapore’s bus transport needs.

Next, I would like to address the issue that weighs heavily on the minds of many Singaporeans: the high Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices. The COE is the big elephant in the room of our transport sector. With Category A prices recently hitting record highs, the COE revenue for the Ministry in 2025 is projected to dwarf the $4.7 billion collected in 2024. To put this in perspective, the entire operating expenditure of MOT was only $2.5 billion in 2024, as compared to the COE revenue of $4.7 billion in the same year.

Currently, all this substantial revenue flows into the Government’s consolidated fund. For the Singaporean who dreams of owning a car but is priced out by these sky-high COEs, this creates a painful disconnect. They see a system that generates immense revenue from a good they cannot afford, with no direct benefit to their daily commute.

To bridge this gap and restore a sense of fairness, I propose the Government consider establishing a dedicated COE-PT (Public Transport) Fund. This fund could earmark a percentage of COE revenue specifically to enhance our public transport ecosystem, over and above the existing MOT operating budget. In this way, for those who would not be able to afford a private car, they will see a continuous improvement to the public transport system, one which will continually be safe and reliable, and that they can fully rely on for their daily commute needs.

This COE-PT Fund could be used to firstly, directly offset a portion of the annual public transport fare increases decided by the PTC, easing the financial burden on every commuter. A portion of the fund could also be used for the much-needed asset renewals across the public transport ecosystem, addressing Life Cycle Management needs, especially our train systems. This will keep our systems functioning safely and reliably, well into the future.

Secondly, the fund can also be used to accelerate the building of covered linkways, ensuring a more comfortable and sheltered journey from our Housing and Development Board flats to MRT stations and bus stops. Thirdly, the fund can also bolster for low-income families through enhanced Public Transport Voucher schemes. Today, for the household to qualify for Public Transport Vouchers, the monthly household income per person cannot be more than $1,800. With the COE-PT Fund, we can have more resources to allow households with orange Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cards, that is, households with monthly income per person of not more than $2,300 to also qualify for the Public Transport Voucher. With the COE-PT Fund, even those who cannot own a car would see a tangible, direct benefit from the COE system. It would partly take the sting out of the high COE prices and demonstrate that the system is designed to support all Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken candidly today out of a deep care for our public transport system and for the people it serves. My observations are meant to be constructive. Therefore, with the hope that these points will be given serious consideration, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

3.46 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, while I support the broader objectives of this Bill, particularly the administrative amendments that seek to streamline our land and sea transport regulations for greater efficiency, I have a number of questions regarding the proposed amendments to the Bus Services Industry Act concerning security screening and searches.

We have already travelled this road with the rail network. The legal provisions for mandatory screening, including x-ray scans and free searches, were variously introduced under the Rapid Transit Systems Act and implemented in phases in 2018 and 2021. I have no issue with the principle of transport security, but I have some questions regarding the proposed expansion to the bus network and ensuring that we learn from the roll-out on the MRT.

One, justification for expansion. What did we learn from the Rapid Transit Systems Act roll-out? The existing security paradigm has already seen the implementation of enhanced security MRT stations, many of which are physically integrated with bus interchanges. I would like to ask the Minister, what are the key operational or threat-based lessons drawn from the implementation of mandatory screening and free searches on the MRT/LRT network that necessitate this extension to the bus network? How often were the searches carried out and what was the level of non-compliance on the MRT?

Can the Minister clarify the specific heightened threat assessment, if any, that necessitates extending powers of free searches and mandatory screening to our bus interchanges and onboard public buses at this time? Can the Minister also provide a detailed explanation of the specific and unique threat profile to the bus network? Finally, given that buses and bus interchanges are inherently more porous than enclosed rail systems, how effective will mandatory screening be and how can we avoid creating unnecessary tension, especially given passenger loads during peak times.

Two, operational challenges and effect on seamlessness and commuter flow. The LTA has previously stated that the time taken for random screening on the MRT is kept to a minimum, often under 30 seconds. However, the operational environment of a bus interchange and a public bus is vastly different from a fare-controlled MRT station. Touching on issues of operational impact and public convenience, how will the LTA and the bus operators ensure these checks, whether on a moving bus or at a busy bus interchange, do not cause disproportionate delays to commuter journeys, which rely on rapid boarding and alighting. Specifically for bus interchanges that are co-located with MRT stations, like Jurong East, Woodlands or Ang Mo Kio, where commuters may have already been screened upon entering MRT. What steps will be taken to prevent the duplication of checks and thus, minimise commuter inconvenience? What is the projected manpower requirement to staff for these new screening points at bus interchanges and will this draw resources away from other crucial public transport operations?

Three, safeguards and training, applying the approved person experience. Like the Rapid Transit Systems Act, extending the proposed powers to approved persons under the Bus Services Industry Act similarly necessitates a high level of public confidence and scrutiny. On accountability and safeguards, the implementation of free searches on the rail network was backed by the 2021 legislative amendments. Could the Minister elaborate on the specific post-2021 training enhancements and refresher courses introduced for approved persons under the Rapid Transit Systems Act, and how will these proven standards be directly adopted or even enhanced for the new cohort of bus-related approved persons? Can the Minister explain for the benefit of the public, what are the specific protocols that will govern a free search on board a public bus or at a bus interchange? Are there any protocols to ensure both commuter privacy and officer safety?

Mr Speaker, Singaporeans understand the need for security, just as we also value clarity and efficiency. There is the opportunity to apply the lessons learnt from the Rapid Transit Systems Act introduction to make the Bus Services Industry Act amendments as seamless and publicly acceptable as possible. This expansion must be a justified necessity beyond mere legislative symmetry. I look forward to the Minister's clarification on the matters of necessity, operational efficiency and critical safeguards.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

3.51 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Bill. In particular, I would like to express my support for the alignment of enforcement powers against delinquent passenger behaviour for buses and trains, which I will focus my speech on.

Buses are an integral part of our public transport system, complementing our MRT. To encourage more people to use our buses and help reduce the demand for private vehicles, the conduct of fellow passengers play a very important role. Mutual respect and considerate behaviour improve the travelling experience on our buses and help ensure safe, reliable and enjoyable journeys.

Most passengers are mindful and cooperative, but we need to guard against potentially dangerous and disruptive behaviours on our public transport systems. Empowering our transportation teams, security and police officers through legislation is a fundamental step and will provide the necessary support for enforcement.

In addition to legislative backing, transport officers should also be offered robust training on how to enforce the law fairly and sensitively. I would like to call for special attention to be given to how our officers will be trained to handle vulnerable commuters, such as the elderly, persons with disabilities or those with mental health challenges.

There are also some important differences that may make addressing delinquent passengers a greater challenge on buses than on MRT trains. For example, all MRT trains will stop at MRT stations that are staffed by transport officers on duty, and have CCTVs and other safety features in place. However, for buses, this is not available except at the bus interchanges and bus drivers have to focus on driving the bus safely, navigating traffic conditions and looking after the safety of all passengers on board. We have also had cases where the bus driver's own personal safety was threatened by violence. Therefore, while bus drivers are often in the first line when it comes to delinquent behaviours on buses, we must remember not to add on to the stresses of their jobs.

With enforcement powers now available, I hope that the Ministry will continue to prioritise the safety of our bus drivers as well, as this is being rolled out. Would we also be expecting more enforcement officers being deployed along bus routes as a result, or if bus drivers will be able to call for assistance from quick response teams if required? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With enforcement powers are now available, I hope that the Ministry will continue to prioritise the safety of our bus drivers as this policy is being rolled out. We hope more enforcement officers will be deployed along bus routes so that our bus drivers will be able to call for assistance from quick response teams if required.

(In English): In addition to enforcement powers and penalties, I also believe that continued public education will help to serve as a reminder to all to exercise considerate and gracious behaviours on public transport. I hope that the Ministry will consider putting up such reminders on social media, radio stations, television, on buses and at interchanges to reinforce such messaging. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

3.56 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir,⁠ ⁠I declare my current appointment as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union.

⁠For decades, our transport workers have done far more than simply get us from point A to point B. With quiet dedication and pride, they have stepped forward time and again to keep Singapore moving, not just in routine times, peace times, but in moments that truly mattered. ⁠They are the first to welcome our visitors during large-scale concerts and events. They are also the ones who hold out a steady hand to help a senior on board the bus. And they are the ones who ensure millions reach their destinations safely, every single day.

⁠During the pandemic, when the nation was tested, they stood firm, calmly and consistently ensuring public compliance with mask-wearing. More recently, they once again stepped up to support the nationwide crackdown on e-vapes. Every time, they answered the call with professionalism, resilience and heart.

I note that passenger screening provisions have long existed under the Road Traffic Act. The Bill rightly consolidates these under the Bus Services Industry Act 2015, bringing greater clarity and strengthening our public safety. ⁠But, Mr Speaker, as we enhance security, we must also remember what our transport workers are and what they are not. Their primary duty is and must remain, to operate our public transport system safely, reliably and efficiently.

⁠If additional responsibilities, such as passenger screening are needed, these should ideally be undertaken by personnel who are trained and equipped for security enforcement.⁠ ⁠And where our public transport workers are expected to support these efforts, we must set them up for success. This means clear, simple and practical operating procedures, and ensuring that these new duties do not compromise their core responsibilities.

⁠We have seen what clarity can achieve. When the vaping crackdown began, many workers from our unions, we heard, were understandably anxious about being tasked to seize e-vapes. ⁠These concerns were addressed only after clear rules of engagement were laid out and their roles alongside the Health Sciences Authority were properly explained.⁠ ⁠Once they had that clarity, they adapted quickly and effectively. Their professionalism helped lead to around 60 offenders being caught around the public transport network using vapes.

Therein is the powerful reminder that we are looking at. When we support our workers, our workers will rise to the occasion. That is why I urge the Government to ensure they continue to receive proper training, clear protocols, sufficient equipment and manpower support. Not just only for this initiative, but for all future national assignments that our public transport workers will see coming their way.

⁠Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill introduces penalties against those who endanger the safety of individuals on buses and at interchanges.⁠ ⁠I seek clarification on whether this protection also covers cases of abuse or harassment against these public transport workers themselves. Because abuse, whether physical or verbal, endangers not only just their well-being, but the safety of everyone else who relies on our public transport workers. ⁠

⁠Every single day, our transport workers serve around 7.5 million commuter journeys. Their constant engagement with the public means they face a higher risk of abuse. ⁠Most commuters are, of course, gracious and respectful. But when incidents happen, they can be devastating. ⁠I recently heard of a Bus Captain who was kicked in the face after asking a commuter to lower the volume on his phone. He required stitches near his eye. Thankfully, the injuries were not permanent. But then again, they could have very easily been so. And we must not forget the early months of the pandemic, when our Bus Captains bore the frustration of some commuters while enforcing mask requirements. But I must say, they stood their ground with calm professionalism. ⁠Preventing abuse requires a comprehensive approach, but deterrence through legislation is an important part of that strategy.

⁠Today, the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act provide recourse. But the penalties under the Bill – up to $10,000 in fines and/or imprisonment of up to five years – send an even clearer message. ⁠If the clause does not currently cover abuse directed at transport workers, it is perhaps timely to strengthen these protections. After all, no one should have to fear for their safety while doing their jobs. ⁠Our Bus Captains, rail staff and all who serve on the frontlines deserve not only respect, but also protection. Tougher penalties are not just about punishment. They are about recognising their dignity and standing firmly behind them.

⁠Mr Speaker, a world-class transport system is not built by buses or trains alone. It is built by people: more than 20,000 men and women who keep Singapore moving, every single day. Their work is often unseen. But it is indispensable. They adapt to new responsibilities at speed. They shoulder national duties without hesitation. They do this with quiet pride, and with a deep commitment to serving others.

So, let us match their dedication with our support. Let us give them the training, protection and recognition they deserve and let us make it clear through both words and action that Singapore stands firmly behind those who keep us moving. And with this, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai.

4.02 pm

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker Sir, I thank hon Members for their support of the Bill, as well as their comments and suggestions.

Our transport agencies operate within a dynamic context where operational realities evolve quickly. Hon Member Ms Yeo just mentioned that. I will give some examples of it. From time to time, certain lacunae in legislative provisions may also be identified. Periodic updates are necessary to keep pace with these changes and update the legislation so that our agencies can continue to perform their functions effectively and accountably.

The amendments in the Bill serve as an important purpose to strengthen enforcement levers, provide legal basis for crucial statutory functions, ensure clarity for our stakeholders and streamline operational processes across our land and sea transport sectors.

Sir, let me begin by addressing our public transport system. Both hon Members Ms Yeo and Ms Pereira spoke about how we should provide adequate support for our public transport workers. Hon Member Mr Dennis Tan also spoke about sufficient training so that authorised officers can carry out their duties to keep commuters safe. I thank them for their concern for the safety and well-being of our public transport workers. This is something that MOT and LTA will pay special attention to.

We would like to assure hon Members that under the amended Bus Services Industry Act, authorised officers will be provided with the necessary training to carry out their duties professionally and with sensitivity towards more vulnerable groups.

To Ms Yeo’s question about engaging more manpower, we augment the presence of public transport staff by deploying Transit Security Officers at both MRT stations and bus interchanges to conduct patrols, respond to security incidents and conduct security screenings. This will continue.

I also thank Mr Dennis Tan for his queries on how LTA has incorporated lessons from security operations already conducted under the Rapid Transit Systems Act and how we will minimise the impact on bus commuters. Powers to conduct security screenings at our public transport nodes, including at bus premises is not new. As I mentioned in my speech, these powers already exist in the Road Traffic Act 1961. What we are doing here is to consolidate it under the proposed amendments. Our Transit Security Officers already conduct random screening to keep out threats from our public transport network. These screenings are stepped up depending on prevailing threat levels. Such screening remains a necessary deterrence. As noted in the latest Singapore Terrorism Threat Assessment Report released in July this year, our public transport nodes, including bus interchanges remain attractive targets for malicious actors because of high foot traffic.

Based on the experience of LTA and public transport operators, commuters are generally understanding and cooperative. Each search takes less than one minute. Only Police and Senior Approved Persons are allowed to conduct frisk searches and it will be only done on a need-to-basis. As far as staffing is concerned, a point that the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan raised, no additional manpower is required. As I mentioned earlier, the amendment here serves to consolidate the powers from the Road Traffic Act to the Bus Services Industry Act.

But as Ms Pereira pointed out, the safety risks and enforcement in bus settings will differ from that of the trains. Our Bus Captains are one-man operations – they have to focus on driving buses, helping those who need assistance and keeping passengers safe. When they spot behaviour that is disruptive or causing nuisance to other passengers, or if passengers report such behaviour to them, they will stop their buses to report to the Operation Control Centre, where there are trained personnel to advise them on the next course of action. If the behaviour is dangerous, they will have the authority to stop the bus service for the safety of the passengers. The Police will be activated for cases where passengers get violent, or if there are other safety or security concerns.

Ms Yeo asked about whether section 42AC of the new Part 7A, which provides that it will be an offence to endanger the safety of anyone travelling on a bus or within a bus interchange will cover our public transport workers. While this specific offence only covers acts involving bus assets or infrastructure that endanger safety, we intend to issue new regulations that will allow LTA enforcement officers to take stern action against passengers who abuse our public transport workers under the amended Bus Services Industry Act. For more egregious cases, bus passengers who abuse our public transport workers can also be prosecuted under the Penal Code, as per today.

Indeed, a major reason for the amendments to the Bus Services Industry Act is to ensure that our buses continue to offer passengers and our workers a more pleasant and secure environment.

In this same vein, I thank Mr Ang Wei Neng for sharing his views on the Bus Contracting Model. We agree with the hon Member that we should not be chasing ever lower prices. That is not our intent. LTA evaluates bus tenders based on a two-envelope process, where quality evaluation is conducted before looking at price submissions. The goal is not to have the cheapest bid, but the best value-for-money proposal.

Beyond price and quality factors at each individual tender, LTA also works closely with the National Transport Workers’ Union and transport operators to improve the attractiveness and sustainability of the sector. I was personally involved in working with Ms Yeo and her predecessor Mr Melvin Yong and tripartite partners to improve safety in our public bus sector earlier this year. We are also working with union to improve Bus Captains' welfare, including how we can ensure the salaries of Bus Captains are kept competitive, so that the job can be more attractive to our local Singaporeans.

Mr Ang Wei Neng also made other suggestions on how we can strengthen the financial sustainability and affordability of the public transport system. Specifically, he asked whether we can directly earmark part of COE revenue for public transport. In general, that is not the approach that we take for Government revenue. Instead, we look at the needs across different sectors to maximise the impact of Government spending. The public transport sector is a key area for Government investment and we already provide substantial operating subsidies of $2 billion for public transport every year. This equates to more than $1 in subsidies for every journey taken. MOT will consider his suggestion on tying public transport voucher eligibility to CHAS.

Mr Speaker, ensuring a safer, more secure and more comfortable public transport network is a collective responsibility. The intention of strengthening enforcement is not to just catch more egregious cases, but to stop them from happening in the first place. As Ms Pereira has pointed out, this means continuing our public education efforts to remind the public to be considerate and gracious when taking public transport.

Likewise, safeguarding sea resources and the marine environment serves a collective good. We aim to empower MPA to do so through this Bill. Taken together, the amendments in this Bill are part of our broader effort to maintain a well-governed, forward looking and trusted transport ecosystem – one that continues to support Singapore’s connectivity, competitiveness and environmental sustainability. I thank hon Members for supporting this Bill to strengthen the resilience of our transport sectors. Sir, I beg to move.

4.12 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? No.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Murali Pillai].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: It has been some time since we sat. Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.35 pm. Order. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.14 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]