SBS Transit, SMRT submit applications for fare adjustment

[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\">

[limlim]

3Boys:

limlim:

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

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?

$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.

Did you even read carefully? PROFIT is AFTER deducting all costs, including salaries. Do you understand what is \"profit\"?

Don't assume the pple who are against the fare hike does not understand scale and perspective.

Anyway, there are pple who feel that $600,000 is peanuts, there will be pple who feel that $200mil is nothing. you are naturally entitled to your perception of $200mil.

By any measurement, in absolute terms, $200mil is a large sum of money, would you think not?

$200mil as operating costs for SMRT is \"reasonable\". But $200mil profit for a company with moral obligation to provide satisfactory service at affordable fare but FAILED to do so, is \"Not reasonable\". YMMV thou..

A million dollar salary minister would say that a $800k HDB flat is affordable.. A $15k/mth MP can say that education and healthcare is cheap. Need I say more? I rest my case on what is \"A lot\". No point arguing on this aspect anymore.

You talked about investor POV.. see? THAT, is the problem.. bcoz it is a private company, that's why the term investor come into the picture.

[3Boys]

Giam has got it wrong. Very high sounding ideals, but very little practical suggestion as how to get there. It's easy to say, 'NTC will benefit, we expect no less', but can they deliver in reality?? Show me, I say.


Seriously, for a opposition member who spent the last election bashing govt stat boards for transport, health, education, he is now so enamoured about their efficiency, responsiveness and cost-control? :?

See the contradiction?

[3Boys]

limlim:

By any measurement, in absolute terms, $200mil is a large sum of money, would you think not?

And, if you are using scale as a measure, you should not be looking at it in absolute terms but in relative terms. If the $200M profit is on the back of $4bn of revenue and $4bn of assets, it is a tiny margin that can very quickly become $400M loss. If the $200M is off 1.5M ridership per day, it's 36 cents a trip, or $72 per month for a family of four. Yes, lets help the truly poor manage that extra $72 dollars, but I can't believe a middle class family who takes an annual vacation to Phuket or KL can complain about that. That is the scale and perspective I am talking about.

[limlim]

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.

It really depends on how you manage the company.

Can't the top management have well-defined KPI that determines their salaries or bonuses?