What I hate about the current Singapore
-
3Boys:
One isolated example, a newer driverless train system versus one without. That constitutes the sum of the evidence?
I highlighted for you. one is before privatization, one after.limlim:
[quote=\"3Boys\"]
I'd like to know which benchmark you use in terms of service standards. If there is convincing data that public transport systems consistently outperform privatised ones worldwide, then ok, you win.
SMRT is a listed company, if you believe that they are making obscene amounts of money and distributing it to their shareholders, it'll only cost you a couple of thousand of S$ to partake in the gravy train.
The problem is that you are looking at things in isolation without reference points.
Show me that publicly operated train systems consistently outperform private ones, across the world, then yes, maybe you have a case. Otherwise, you are just parroting the g'ment bashers.[/quote]if it is nationalised, then gov't fund all expenses and supposed run the operation as non-profit outfit, and all funding are from tax payers money, like $2,200 for a Brompton bike
if it is corporatised and listed, gov't is part of shareholders, lao bai xin also can be shareholders, and profit shared according to your shareholding.....does the dividends all go to individual lao bai xin shareholders and there is no return to the tax payers' money holding the shares ?? the oft-repeated saying that funding by tax payers and profit privatised is all nonsense
:siam:
by all account, corporatisation imposes market discipline and more transparency
if the S$1.1b gifting of the buses is purely non-profit, then there should exist a fair cost allocation mechanism by the operator to split cost sharing between the gifted buses and commercial buses. not impossible. cost allocation is a routing admin procedure which could be audited for fairness and transparency -
verykiasu2010:
That is certainly one way to look at it. I really do not understand, if really the belief was that SMRT is benefiting shareholders at the expense of commuters, it is ALL too easy to jump on the gravy train. SMRT shares not expensive, $1.70 a pop onli.
if it is nationalised, then gov't fund all expenses and supposed run the operation as non-profit outfit, and all funding are from tax payers money, like $2,200 for a Brompton bike3Boys:
One isolated example, a newer driverless train system versus one without. That constitutes the sum of the evidence?
Show me that publicly operated train systems consistently outperform private ones, across the world, then yes, maybe you have a case. Otherwise, you are just parroting the g'ment bashers.
if it is corporatised and listed, gov't is part of shareholders, lao bai xin also can be shareholders, and profit shared according to your shareholding.....does the dividends all go to individual lao bai xin shareholders and there is no return to the tax payers' money holding the shares ?? the oft-repeated saying that funding by tax payers and profit privatised is all nonsense :siam:
by all account, corporatisation imposes market discipline and more transparency
if the S$1.1b gifting of the buses is purely non-profit, then there should exist a fair cost allocation mechanism by the operator to split cost sharing between the gifted buses and commercial buses. not impossible. cost allocation is a routing admin procedure which could be audited for fairness and transparency
Why is there is misguided belief that once the profit motive is removed, that somehow the performance will be better? Where is there ANY evidence to show that? And if there are people who are so worked up about poor g'ment performance in just REGULATING the train operator, why on earth do they think that the g'ment would be BETTER in BEING the train operator?
Sheer lunacy. -
3Boys:
That is certainly one way to look at it. I really do not understand, if really the belief was that SMRT is benefiting shareholders at the expense of commuters, it is ALL too easy to jump on the gravy train. SMRT shares not expensive, $1.70 a pop onli.
if it is nationalised, then gov't fund all expenses and supposed run the operation as non-profit outfit, and all funding are from tax payers money, like $2,200 for a Brompton bikeverykiasu2010:
[quote=\"3Boys\"]
One isolated example, a newer driverless train system versus one without. That constitutes the sum of the evidence?
Show me that publicly operated train systems consistently outperform private ones, across the world, then yes, maybe you have a case. Otherwise, you are just parroting the g'ment bashers.
if it is corporatised and listed, gov't is part of shareholders, lao bai xin also can be shareholders, and profit shared according to your shareholding.....does the dividends all go to individual lao bai xin shareholders and there is no return to the tax payers' money holding the shares ?? the oft-repeated saying that funding by tax payers and profit privatised is all nonsense :siam:
by all account, corporatisation imposes market discipline and more transparency
if the S$1.1b gifting of the buses is purely non-profit, then there should exist a fair cost allocation mechanism by the operator to split cost sharing between the gifted buses and commercial buses. not impossible. cost allocation is a routing admin procedure which could be audited for fairness and transparency
Why is there is misguided belief that once the profit motive is removed, that somehow the performance will be better? Where is there ANY evidence to show that? And if there are people who are so worked up about poor g'ment performance in just REGULATING the train operator, why on earth do they think that the g'ment would be BETTER in BEING the train operator?
Sheer lunacy.[/quote]no disagreement with your view -
3Boys:
About to post this same comment, you said it well.Why is there is misguided belief that once the profit motive is removed, that somehow the performance will be better? Where is there ANY evidence to show that? And if there are people who are so worked up about poor g'ment performance in just REGULATING the train operator, why on earth do they think that the g'ment would be BETTER in BEING the train operator?
Sheer lunacy. -
Way2GO:
:rotflmao:
In SG, it stands for
Govt Invest in Infrastructure Promptly, Stupid!
ps Stupid is neither aimed at anyone nor use in an offensive manner in dis context. -
Funz:
I think I am very easily contented. I do not see how Singapore is so unbearable even with all it's bad points. And I also do not see how any other country can offer me a life that have all the pluses and no minuses. Must be really blind. But a happy blind.
:hi5: -
3Boys:
Same thoughts.... So much so that I don't even dare to say too much about how I appreciate the little red dot.... :sad:
Sometimes I feel like I am living on a different planet from some other Singaporeans, so divergent are our expectations. -
3Boys:
You don't see it, do you.
Why is there is misguided belief that once the profit motive is removed, that somehow the performance will be better? Where is there ANY evidence to show that? And if there are people who are so worked up about poor g'ment performance in just REGULATING the train operator, why on earth do they think that the g'ment would be BETTER in BEING the train operator?
Sheer lunacy. -
limlim:
Please explain.
You don't see it, do you.3Boys:
Why is there is misguided belief that once the profit motive is removed, that somehow the performance will be better? Where is there ANY evidence to show that? And if there are people who are so worked up about poor g'ment performance in just REGULATING the train operator, why on earth do they think that the g'ment would be BETTER in BEING the train operator?
Sheer lunacy. -
80 public transport systems compared.
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/public-transportation-prices-in-80-worldwide-cities/
An interesting discourse.
http://kfarr.com/2008/07/10/when-should-public-transportation-systems-be-private/
A good (but long) discussion on road privatisation. Not exactly mass transit per se, but nice summary of issues of equity.
http://web.mit.edu/dusp/dusp_extension_unsec/projections/issue_9/issue_9_rouhani.pdf
There is a longstanding history of urban transport systems being managed by private operators, in Europe and the USA. As long as there has been mass public transit, there have been private operators. The parroting of \"Public transport should be publicly owned\" as a truth in its own right, is just plain superficial.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login