SBS Transit, SMRT submit applications for fare adjustment

[Daddy D]

Chenonceau:

I am quite concerned that you are not the only young person that I have come across who believes that Singapore has problems that cannot be solved. One young man in a top class in a top JC (with stellar grades) commented that even if our education system has problems he sees no solution, then there must be no solution. I discerned some arrogance there. If I (top grader in top class in top JC) sees no solution, then there must be none. I too was challenged to propose a solution at that time. I couldn't propose any at that time because I had had no access to data, to successful case studies, to historical events in the development of the current system. But I refused to accept that just because he couldn't find a solution and I had no solution - then there must be no solution.

:goodpost:

Just the response for this thread about youths... may I duplicate it there?
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24004

Yes, we're kinda :offtopic: ... let's steer back.

[Chenonceau]

Daddy

Just the response for this thread about youths... may I duplicate it there?

http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24004

Ummm... I guess you can... since you already have.

I need to clarify that Snowman's discourse has been most impressive. It is excellent that he applies himself to the issues of the day and shows he can think critically. I have no special interest in this SMRT topic but just wanted to make the point that it may be premature to conclude that there is NO solution.

[Edureach]

Transport council has to deliberate btw the interest of commuters vs shareholders who are vastly instituitions. For commuters, any fare increase is unwelcome whereas for shareholders, they are expecting a decent dividends for taking the risk. Historical dividends payout is above 70% fromm its nett earnings which translate to nett yield of 4.5% taking the current stock price.


The awkward situation is commuters hve hve no re-course whereas the co needs to please its shareholders otherwise the latter will dump its shares and will make it more expensive to raise funds in the future for capital expenditure.

Singapore is a pro-business city state, needs to continue to attract capital. Of course commuters are not interested to hear this as it hurts their pocket whenever travelling cost increase.

Ultimately it depends which side of the fence you are sitting, hence different opinions being voiced out.

[tankee]

Edureach:

Transport council has to deliberate btw the interest of commuters vs shareholders who are vastly instituitions. For commuters, any fare increase is unwelcome whereas for shareholders, they are expecting a decent dividends for taking the risk. Historical dividends payout is above 70% fromm its nett earnings which translate to nett yield of 4.5% taking the current stock price.


The awkward situation is commuters hve hve no re-course whereas the co needs to please its shareholders otherwise the latter will dump its shares and will make it more expensive to raise funds in the future for capital expenditure.

Singapore is a pro-business city state, needs to continue to attract capital. Of course commuters are not interested to hear this as it hurts their pocket whenever travelling cost increase.

Ultimately it depends which side of the fence you are sitting, hence different opinions being voiced out.

hi

I don't follow your point on needs to continue to attract capital.

How does allowing profitable monopolistic public transport companies to repeatedly increase public transport fare link to being pro-business and ability to attract capital? :?

:idea: unless the government plans to attract investors to set up alternate transport companies here. I doubt this will happen.

[Edureach]

tankee:

Edureach:

Transport council has to deliberate btw the interest of commuters vs shareholders who are vastly instituitions. For commuters, any fare increase is unwelcome whereas for shareholders, they are expecting a decent dividends for taking the risk. Historical dividends payout is above 70% fromm its nett earnings which translate to nett yield of 4.5% taking the current stock price.


The awkward situation is commuters hve hve no re-course whereas the co needs to please its shareholders otherwise the latter will dump its shares and will make it more expensive to raise funds in the future for capital expenditure.

Singapore is a pro-business city state, needs to continue to attract capital. Of course commuters are not interested to hear this as it hurts their pocket whenever travelling cost increase.

Ultimately it depends which side of the fence you are sitting, hence different opinions being voiced out.

hi

I don't follow your point on needs to continue to attract capital.

How does allowing profitable monopolistic public transport companies to repeatedly increase public transport fare link to being pro-business and ability to attract capital? :?

:idea: unless the government plans to attract investors to set up alternate transport companies here. I doubt this will happen.

These transport cos need to pay decent dividends to attract instituitions to park their money. Without an increase in fares, cos unlikely to maintain its current divideds policy let alone increase it.

Attracting instituitons to park their money in our major cos helps to grow Singapore as a financial powerhouse. This is a pro-business stand.

Personally, i resonate more with the commuters as i rather hve these cos trim some of their fats ie top execs pay. As this is a captive industry, the high degree of difficulties to attract customers thru innovation and risky enterprices are not prevalent vs-a-vs many other ventures. In short, its a cash cow business. The other areas that they can explore are other avenues of income examples attracting advertising revenues, maximise its retail space and investment income.

I also hope that our transport council takes into consideration all avenue of income to arrive at their decision not just strictly operating income.

[3Boys]

Is transport a monopolistic business in Singapore? Arguably so. It is so to some extent in most countries also, you don’t generally set up duplicate train tunnels and stations so that companies can operate independently, so at the very least, the infrastructure owner has a monopoly. However, that does not preclude using a free market model (with regulation) for its services to be costed. Can SMRT be non-profit? Absolutely, if it can be demonstrated that a non-profit model can result in the operating efficiencies that will improve services and cap costs for the commuters, and tax-payers that will support its operations. I.e. not just cheap fares for users but massive red-ink elsewhere for ‘someone else’ to pick up.


I am not convinced that nationalised rail companies are the way to go. There are many metropolitan train systems, both private and nationalised that run at huge losses. I would like ours to stay at least solvent, so at the minimum, cost recovery is essential.

[3Boys]

Chenonceau:

It might be premature to conclude that there is no solution to a problem without having brought more effort to bear on finding a solution. After all, mankind has found innovative solutions to so many things.

I am quite concerned that you are not the only young person that I have come across who believes that Singapore has problems that cannot be solved. One young man in a top class in a top JC (with stellar grades) commented that even if our education system has problems he sees no solution, then there must be no solution. I discerned some arrogance there. If I (top grader in top class in top JC) sees no solution, then there must be none. I too was challenged to propose a solution at that time. I couldn't propose any at that time because I had had no access to data, to successful case studies, to historical events in the development of the current system. But I refused to accept that just because he couldn't find a solution and I had no solution - then there must be no solution.

I don't believe he has given up at all or says that there is no solution. He did in fact ask the forum, \"Where is your solution?\", in what I believe, is counterpoise to the tidal wave of negativity and simplistic calls for nationalising the rail system. And sometimes (well, often), 'no solution' is better than 'wrong solution', and snowman was merely trying to illustrate the other side of the picture, which had not emerged in this discussion at all until his discourse.

I think there is a solution, but likely one that is not going to be very popular.

[Chenonceau]

3Boys:

I don't believe he has given up at all or says that there is no solution.

I didn't say he gave up. To give up, one must have tried. To do some reading up and to conclude the following...

snowman.697:

Overcrowding will NEVER be solved!!

... is not giving up. It is merely concluding, before having tried that there is no solution.

I'm not sure that nationalizing is the answer (haven't thought enough about this question) ... but for the moment I do lean that way. I worked with the transport companies before they were privatized. I worked with them after too. I do know that in their bid to increase profits, equipment maintenance budgets were pared to reduce costs.

One might argue that this makes the company more efficient... but I'm not sure that having more buses break down, worn cushions on buses, aluminium panels coming off... and more infrequent buses to maximise passenger load per bus (to maximise profit) equates to a more efficient public transport system. Can a profit-driven monopoly be really efficient? It is a monopoly after all.

Then again, it depends on where you are at? Infrequent buses to maximise passenger load may be efficient use of resources for the bus company, but is it efficient use of human resources for the nation?

What does efficient public transport mean?

[limlim]

snowman.697:

Perhaps, these question that I posted are totally not relevant bcoz the increase in fare is NEVER to solve the overcrowding/frequency issues in the first place!....?

Overcrowding will NEVER be solved!!

I realised I used the wrong words.. I should say \"improve the quality of service\" instead of \"overcrowding\" issue.

And, no issues with your statement on the difficulties of the overcrowding problem but is very disgusted by the obscene profits of a public transport company.

[limlim]

3Boys:

limlim:

Prices gone up.. but, the fact still remains that SMRT remains highly profitable.

Define highly profitable. Is $1 million highly profitable? Or $10 million? Or $1 billion? It depends on the nature of the business and the amount of work and infrastructure that goes into generating that profit, doesn't it? I don't think SMRT is highly profitable at all, and I think many investors will agree.

ya ya.. $600k is peanuts..

$200mil is what? water melon only what..

Had it been a nationalised company.. that $200mil would be perceived as a huge sum of money.. now somehow the value shrunk bcoz it is a privatized company..

So, we can see.. Privatization is bad.. it actually reduce the perceived value of money..

3Boys: It depends whether you're an investor or a commuter. However, public transport is not like other biz.. you can't just disregard the public's considerations.