SBS Transit, SMRT submit applications for fare adjustment

[limlim]

snowman.697:

To the general public, 200 million would obviously seem like a lot. But to SMRT, what is 200 million? SMRT is worth much more. You say that a person is rich when he earns, say, 20k bucks. But you are talking about a single PERSON. Here you are referring to a COMPANY. A GROUP of people. a BIG group of people. SMRT's operating cost is more than $800 million. So what is $200 million to them? The best bus in the world costs $500 000. With $200 million only 400 of these buses can be purchased. And that is excluding the huge maintenance cost and driver training cost subsequently.

Profits is surplus money after deducting all costs, including the salaries of \"A GROUP of people. a BIG group of people.\"..

I didn't really follow some of the information posted.. did the private companies pay for the buses, roads, stations, rails, trains? or the tax payers?

So, where does the $200mil goes to?

pockets? or where?

[limlim]

Strparent:

think your words 'obscene profits' may start another strong discussion, LOL.

I copied from the phrase \"obscene salaries\" from somewhere......

[3Boys]

limlim:

snowman.697:

To the general public, 200 million would obviously seem like a lot. But to SMRT, what is 200 million? SMRT is worth much more. You say that a person is rich when he earns, say, 20k bucks. But you are talking about a single PERSON. Here you are referring to a COMPANY. A GROUP of people. a BIG group of people. SMRT's operating cost is more than $800 million. So what is $200 million to them? The best bus in the world costs $500 000. With $200 million only 400 of these buses can be purchased. And that is excluding the huge maintenance cost and driver training cost subsequently.

Profits is surplus money after deducting all costs, including the salaries of \"A GROUP of people. a BIG group of people.\"..

I didn't really follow some of the information posted.. did the private companies pay for the buses, roads, stations, rails, trains? or the tax payers?

So, where does the $200mil goes to?

pockets? or where?

Regardless of whether a company is public or private, salaries will need to be paid, unless you are suggesting civil servants should be working for free. That can be a BIG group of people too, you still need the train drivers, signallers, station masters, HR, finance. You will still need a CEO, a CFO, Operations managers, legal counsel. Unless you think that SMRT can run with fewer people as a public company than a private one?

So, do you think our cost for running SMRT as a public company will be lower than running it as a private one, profits notwithstanding?

I don't. I think its a surefire way to bloated inefficiencies and wastefulness, which over time, will cost us MORE, not less.

Its not just about the fares charged. The large majority of commuters can afford the fares, why have a broad ranging subsidy that does not focus aid to the most needy? A complete waste of taxpayers money.

$200 million is obscene? If I said all of Singapore's budget surplus for 2010 was $200 million, would you still think that was obscene? That's only $40 per each man, woman and child, you should be worried! Its all about scale and perspective, and snowman understands that very well indeed.

[3Boys]

Profits go back to the company as cash, which they can use for infrastructure upgrades, paying off debt, or hoard for future acquisitions etc.

[3Boys]

Strparent:

We as concerned parents and citizens perceive PUBLIC as a service TO give, assist and help the people, but maybe ( just maybe ) for these companies, it just mean to generate revenue FROM the masses ( public ) :siam: :rotflmao:

Of course it's there to provide a service to the public, who ever said otherwise? The question at hand is what is the best way to ensure a cost effective way of doing so. It needs to be sustainable, i.e. recover the cost of it operations at the very least, unless you suggest they be run at a loss? That includes paying the salaries and bonuses of staff, whether they be public or private employees.

[3Boys]

Chenonceau:

What does efficient public transport mean?

Hah! That indeed, is the question!

[corneyAmber]

All said and done...the timing to address such issues is always questionable....right after GE. Certainly if it has been an issue, it has been an issue even before GE. After public transport, one may wonder what's next?

[tankee]

ksi:

All said and done...the timing to address such issues is always questionable....right after GE. Certainly if it has been an issue, it has been an issue even before GE. After public transport, one may wonder what's next?

i think the practise now is to have an annual fare review exercise. Transport companies have up to certain month to put up any request of fare adjustment and PTC will review & revert after some months the outcome of their request.

[WeiHan]

For nationalised companies, they tend to over spend on many unnecessary items or even made dubious investments because they never have to worry about profit. The public will end up paying more or else where do we get all the extra money to pay for the extra cost? There will be no incentives for the company to run cost effectively and that again will escalate cost. Besides, the company has no motivation to get extra income from advertisements and other ideas that generate extra profit stream. The commuters or tax payers may well ended up paying more.


If SMRT is not runned as a nationalised company or non-profit organisation, then the company will have to be run like any companies that have customers interest in mind and at the same time profit. The profit can’t be too low or else no investors will want to risk their money in it and the company will not get investment for future upgrade and development. You can’t just ask the company to make less by giving all the money back to commuters.

[Strparent]

Of course, to be realistic, these transport companies ( be it public or nationalised ) need to recover all their operational cost. The question now is why need to increase prices now, when the last fiscal year yields $200m nett profit ? The answer is obvious - they need to keep the shareholders.


As tutormum and Limlim mentioned, we are more concerned with the effect for the majority of the public. Maybe, just maybe - the NTC would benefit Singaporeans better. Shareholders who are in it only for the dividends and such, can go put their money in other stocks.

Public Transport indeed. :censored:

http://i51.tinypic.com/333c286.jpg\">



statutory boards in Singapore are nationalised, to provide a public good. Do they not do a good job ?
http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20110719-289947.html.
[quote]A well-managed NTC can provide superior outcomes compared to the present profit-oriented monopolies. We would expect no less from NTC, in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, compared to the way any other statutory board is managed by the government.[/quote]I would hope the PTC and Mr Lui discuss all these further before giving the customary approval.

We should try to be more mindful to the needy, to the less well-off :please:

http://i52.tinypic.com/21268gh.jpg\">