With a steady, deliberate movement, he pressed a button and the lectern zoomed up to a height more comfortable for his tall frame.

He reached out for a glass of water on the table, removed the silver cover, took a long sip, and replaced the glass.

Then he faced the House, smiled and spoke.

He had just listened patiently to an hour of suggestions from MPs on how to improve public transport and was getting ready to engage them in friendly debate.

As I watched from the gallery, it struck me that the deliberate, steady way he readied himself to make his speech, summed up the way public transport policy changes are being introduced.

There are two approaches to policy change. One is the Big Bang approach, with big policy announcements and far-reaching changes introduced in a blitzkrieg kind of way.

The other is what I will call the small-steps approach - of incremental changes, phased in, to reduce confusion.

Mr Lim clearly favours the latter. Indeed, he said as much, eschewing South Korea's Big Bang way of introducing changes to the Seoul public transport system, when commuters woke up on July1, 2004, to changes affecting 400 bus routes and 8,000 buses.

The result: massive confusion.

The problem with a 'shock and awe' approach is that 'the morning after' is terrible, he said, adding that his preference is to give people time to adjust when big changes are afoot.

Mr Lim's small-steps approach to implementation actually belies the truth that changes to the public transport system are going to be revolutionary. Definitely Big Bang in nature.

The ministry has chosen a Big Bang approach when it comes to regulatory framework and policy; but a small-steps approach when it comes to implementing the change - a wise combination.

The impact of the changes to the public transport system announced earlier this year will be far-reaching.

For one, the move to increase 'contestability' of bus services, by packaging bus routes and letting public transport operators bid for them, will shake up the competitive environment.

Just what will ensue, no one quite knows - just as, 30 years ago, no one could have foreseen that the move to amalgamate the plethora of bus companies could have spawned SBS, which evolved into today's ComfortDelGro with its international operations.

Another important move is in the commitment to expand the rail network significantly.

To Mr Lim's credit, his ministry has dared venture where others feared to tread, in proposing a sweeping review of the entire public transport landscape.

The review was, however, carried out with little fanfare, in a steady-does-it manner, without precipitate haste or much banging of the drums. The same way Mr Lim took his time to ready himself before he replied to MPs in Parliament.

MPs were clearly seized by transport issues this year, judging from the passion and doggedness with which they spoke yesterday, the last day of the nine-day debate on ministries' budgets.

Even opposition MP Low Thia Khiang, who was scathing about the Government's car-control measures, had nothing negative to say about its moves on public transport. He welcomed the 'commuter- first' approach and acknowledged that the Government's decision to take over central route planning of buses showed it was prepared to take responsibility for public transport.

MP Lee Bee Wah stood out for the passionate way she spoke out for residents' concerns. She could tell the House that the overhead bridge to Khatib MRT in Yishun had 67 steps and was a veritable 'vertical marathon' for elderly commuters.

Seasoned Parliament watchers among my colleagues thought this year's debate was rich in anecdote and grassroots detail, for example during the debate on the Community Development, Youth and Sports ministry.

Both the Leader of the House Mah Bow Tan and Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi found the debate of high quality, although the latter said candidly that someone described the debate as 'like mineral water - some sparkling, some still'.

As I sat through the debate only on the first three days and the last day, I asked my colleagues for their sense of this year's debate. They generally concurred with the Speaker's assessment.

Some sparklers they cited were MPs like Mr Sam Tan, Mr Inderjit Singh, Dr Ahmad Magad and Mr Ang Mong Seng, who were able to give a good sense of the concerns of ordinary folk.

While nitty-gritty suggestions flowed swiftly, this year's debate, however, lacked a certain quality of intellectual engagement and appeared parochial, even dull, at times.

Maybe this is because the big pieces of change - in social welfare, in manpower, in wage policy, in taxation - have already taken place in past years.

Still, this year's agenda will see substantive changes to health care and national development and transport, among others. A more engaging airing of the principles and philosophy in these areas would have been welcome.

muihoong@sph.com.sg

A WISE COMBINATION

Mr Lim's small-steps approach to implementation actually belies the truth that changes to the public transport system are going to be revolutionary. Definitely Big Bang in nature.