What I hate about the current Singapore

[corneyAmber]

3Boys:

ksi:

3Boys, firstly, I am not cheering at this at all and this is not what I want. Secondly, I don't quite get your point.

1. Are you saying that WP alone can have so much influence in the recent decisions made by the govt as a team by making such populist statement? :? (The above statement was made by Hougang MP)

or:

2. Do you mean PAP, the larger party in the government team should not fall into such popular vote tactics by putting in the 1.1B into the transportation for improvement to please the people? :?

Hi ksi,
apologies first off, although I included your quotes, it was not directed at you, just speaking in general.

Do I think the WP, despite its miniscule presence in parliament, can wield so much influence? Hell, yes! Its all about leverage. The take a leftist position, and the PAP need to react, to avoid losing even more votes. The scary thing is that the WP only seem interested in catering to their own constituency (as in supporters) and not assuaging the concerns of others who may feel that they are a little too far left. Anyhow, this is not the place for a prolonged political discourse.

I have no issue with the $1.1B spent. Having won their round with the government on pushing greater spending on transport, WP now proceeds to extract their pound of flesh \"Transport operators cannot profit from it, their shareholders should not be smiling, no cross subsidy please.\"

Really Mr Png?? Now you are starting to p*** me off. The g'ment should just give 50 shares of SMRT to every household in Singapore and just quash this nonsense once and for all.

LTA can do more obviously, the service standards bar can probably be set higher, but anti-corporate speak.......c'mon!

No worries 3Boys.
W2G pretty much sums up my thoughts about this query on the 1.1B spent, which is why I say I am not cheering nor this is what I want.

Like you, I have no problem in the 1.1B spent but perhaps the accompanying conditions from the govt from the gifting of buses and maintenance can be clearly tabled to allay any unnecessary speculations on benefitting the shareholders. I believe when they proposed a budget of 1.1B, there would be detail plans rolling up to this so it would not be difficult to table that. I see WP doing their job to question on our behalf, but perhaps I would have preferred if it has come from a member from PAP, which I strongly believe could have happened too.

[verykiasu2010]

3Boys:

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.

I highlighted for you. one is before privatization, one after.

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.[/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

[3Boys]

verykiasu2010:

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 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

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.

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.

[verykiasu2010]

3Boys:

verykiasu2010:

[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 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

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.

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

[wonderm]

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.

About to post this same comment, you said it well.

[Imami]

Way2GO:

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.

:rotflmao:

[Imami]

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:

[Imami]

3Boys:

Sometimes I feel like I am living on a different planet from some other Singaporeans, so divergent are our expectations.

Same thoughts.... So much so that I don't even dare to say too much about how I appreciate the little red dot.... :sad:

[limlim]

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.

You don't see it, do you.

[3Boys]

limlim:

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.

You don't see it, do you.

Please explain.