Punggol East By-Election coming ? MP steps down

[Irrelevant]

Mdm Koh:

And who are those who \"really need it\"?

The Ministers do not really need their high salaries but they're still asking for them. I wonder if Singaporeans have become so selfish that we have forgotten our social responsibility.

Wow! Only on KSP. This is the first time I've heard ministers' salary described in the same breath as subsidies.....

{3Boys... my bad} :oops:

[concern2]

3Boys:

Question 1: Are public transport fares in Singapore affordable for the majority of Singaporeans? .... not outrageous compared to most other developed countries, and less than quite a number of developing countries, DESPITE g'ment ownership of some of those systems. If someone is able to challenge this, I happily stand corrected.

See, its got to do with perception. You are approaching this from the statistics point of view, just like the policy makers!

When one's income isn't increasing and other things are, including transport which is a neccessity, then there is room to fear about where this will lead to - is there no end to the increase? If there is no maximum fare limitation, what is the future going to be like? People want to plan for their future, and they look into their own pockets every time there is fare increase, wondering when their pay will increase too, and what they are going to do, how they are going to find more income! And they work harder and harder to find the money!!!

Fare is one thing - transport overcrowding and with frequent hiccups, some which posed safety issues are other concerns and frustrations. What's more, it is those with cars who are making these policies! How are they to understand what the people are talking about? What is the meaning of being packed like sardines?!!

3Boys:

Question 2: Are the service standards of SMRT and public trasnport operators inferior to those of comparable countries to Singapore. I have less of a feel and it's harder to objectively measure. BUT, from anecdotal evidence of my personal experience (granted, I only take MRT/bus 3-4x a week), and of those who come from other countries, is that our system is not bad at all. It's not perfect, but perfection comes at a cost, we all know that. Are we willing to live with 97% service reliability, or spend twice the amount in operating costs to ensure 99.9% reliability? That's what PM Lee is saying, look at the trade-offs, not just the spend spend spend. They are being truthful and transparent, can you say that of the WP?

Excuse me, 97% service reliability? Where is that figure from? 99.9% reliability? Is that all the garmen ask of itself? The kind of service that consumers expect are never below 100%! Only the companies that gives you more than 100% of your expectations will have you impressed and patronize again.

If you want to buy something, pay for something, like phone lines, just an example of a service, how would you judge it's standards? By comparing its features and price. Where is the basis of comparison in Singapore for transport? With other countries? Please. Everything is different in each countries. Are there reports on relative expenditure on transport based on income levels weighed out against the cost of living from various countries? If you want to compare, make better comparison within our own country, to which there is none other service provider currently. But of course, we do also have some other services that are meant to be competitive, but in the end are just oligopolistic. Who gains? Not the consumers.

As for WP, I don't know what you are driving at in terms of their truthfulness and transparency. The WP is now being blamed for being arrogant. Aren't they standing their grounds even though it may be an 'unpopular' thing to do?

3Boys:

We already know that some forms of competition is unhealthy, was there not a lot of pressure to get off school rankings, PSLE scores? How well does it serve Singapore to have 2 sets of train lines, or 2 bus companies plying the same routes? Have we no consideration for space or pollution?

:faint: Over competitive is unhealthy, neither is lack of it. Aren't you contradicting yourself? Who says about 2 train lines? We say let the train services be a public entity against that of a private one which is helping shareholders reap profits. As for buses, 2 buses running the same route, why not? And why must be same route? Surely each bus company can come up with alternative routes? Space and pollution? Do they think about that when they think about INCREASING THE POPULATION?

[3Boys]

toddles:

3Boys:

[quote=\"Mdm Koh\"]Weighing in on the earlier transport discussion...


Although minor fare increments are affordable for many of us, we can't assume that this means everybody is doing okay. I know of people who walk for hours to their destinations to save costs. It would be good if the Government can give vouchers to poorer families when there is a fare hike. The transport companies should also be able to justify the fare hikes with facts and figures, and not increase fares for the sake of keeping up with general inflation.

I agree. But an across-the-board subsidy is not the answer is it? Why should taxpayers money be used to subsidise all and sundry when it's better used on those who really need it?

I think to most people, what rankles is fare increases in the face of record profits by the company year after year.

We are paying more, for no discernible improvement in service (ok, overcrowded trains probably attributable to separate immigration policy oversights), so can't fault people for making the link that the increase in fares goes towards lining shareholder pockets! Totally regressive no? Taking money from the common man (most who take public transport are in the lower income percentiles) to benefit rich shareholders?

The way the management is being staffed now (ex-Army men) it might as well be run by civil servants. Take away the profit motive, take away dividends to shareholders, won't it be possible, in the name of national interest, to freeze fares?[/quote]Back to Question 1.

Affordability.

Is it unaffordable for the majority (lets define that as 80% of households, shall we)?

If you take away the profit motive, then how do you drive performance. If the entity does not have an opportunity to make a return on investment, how does it raise capital from markets if it needs to make investments in enhancements?

It's not just a matter of splitting out the dividends, once you go public, the whole ethos of how you run the entity changes. Their are certain thing you need to abide by. Suddenly, if you work for SMRT, you have to be a civil servant. There are many folk in the private sector, who may have the requisite skills, who will never consider that. How do you raise funds from private markets? Remember, to do so, you need to protect returns to the investors. Are you not back to square 1?

Since people think SMRT shareholders are having their pockets lined with public money, I wish the g'ment would buy 150 million shares of SMRT and just give 50 shares to each adult citizen. End of talk of nationalisation.

[3Boys]

Irrelevant:

Mdm Koh:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]
And who are those who \"really need it\"?

The Ministers do not really need their high salaries but they're still asking for them. I wonder if Singaporeans have become so selfish that we have forgotten our social responsibility.

Wow! Only on KSP. This is the first time I've heard ministers' salary described in the same breath as subsidies.....

[/quote]You have misplaced the quotes, correct please.

[Irrelevant]

toddles:

I think to most people, what rankles is fare increases in the face of record profits by the company year after year.

What record profits are you referring to? :scratchhead:

I've just checked SMRT's annual report. The relevant revenue and profit for the past 3 years are as follows:

FY2010
Revenue: 895.1m Profit: 162.9m

FY2011
Revenue: 969.7m Profit: 161.1m

FY2012
Revenue: 1,057.2m Profit: 119.9m

[3Boys]

concern2:

Excuse me, 97% service reliability? Where is that figure from? 99.9% reliability? Is that all the garmen ask of itself? The kind of service that consumers expect are never below 100%! Only the companies that gives you more than 100% of your expectations will have you impressed and patronize again.

Pretty demanding aren't you?

No, I don't demand 100% reliability, because it's a myth. We can always do better, but we should not ruin ourselves in seeking perfection. No country in the world does that and no industry in the world promises that.

Airlines are safe. Are they 100% safe? No. Does it mean we stop flying? SQ has has 2 fatal crashes in the last 20 years, you will never fly SQ?

[concern2]

3Boys:

People bandy this concept of competition about as if they were experts and understood all the concepts, pros and cons of it, and apply it indiscriminately to all situations, when even Nobel Laureate economists fight and disagree. I think some humility is in order, for if one criticises a policy, one then implies he knows better and can do a better job.

Just chip in based on what little I know and have an opinion in. Don't agree that one should be a know-it-all before one shares, yes? Only with sharing mah...like that say people...

[3Boys]

Irrelevant:

toddles:

I think to most people, what rankles is fare increases in the face of record profits by the company year after year.

What record profits are you referring to? :scratchhead:

I've just checked SMRT's annual report. The relevant revenue and profit for the past 3 years are as follows:

FY2010
Revenue: 895.1m Profit: 162.9m

FY2011
Revenue: 969.7m Profit: 161.1m

FY2012
Revenue: 1,057.2m Profit: 119.9m

I did the sums somewhere else before. Divided by ridership, equals something like $8+ per month per person that goes into 'profit'.

That's apparently a big deal for the majority.

Help the poor, certainly, but if you can afford, do your social responsibility by paying up and not demanding subsidies.

[toddles]

3Boys:

toddles:

I think to most people, what rankles is fare increases in the face of record profits by the company year after year.

We are paying more, for no discernible improvement in service (ok, overcrowded trains probably attributable to separate immigration policy oversights), so can't fault people for making the link that the increase in fares goes towards lining shareholder pockets! Totally regressive no? Taking money from the common man (most who take public transport are in the lower income percentiles) to benefit rich shareholders?

The way the management is being staffed now (ex-Army men) it might as well be run by civil servants. Take away the profit motive, take away dividends to shareholders, won't it be possible, in the name of national interest, to freeze fares?

Back to Question 1.

Affordability.

Is it unaffordable for the majority (lets define that as 80% of households, shall we)?

If you take away the profit motive, then how do you drive performance. If the entity does not have an opportunity to make a return on investment, how does it raise capital from markets if it needs to make investments in enhancements?

It's not just a matter of splitting out the dividends, once you go public, the whole ethos of how you run the entity changes. Their are certain thing you need to abide by. Suddenly, if you work for SMRT, you have to be a civil servant. There are many folk in the private sector, who may have the requisite skills, who will never consider that. How do you raise funds from private markets? Remember, to do so, you need to protect returns to the investors. Are you not back to square 1?

Since people think SMRT shareholders are having their pockets lined with public money, I wish the g'ment would buy 150 million shares of SMRT and just give 50 shares to each adult citizen. End of talk of nationalisation.

I agree that it is not unaffordable, but should fares increase because they are affordable? Does affordability justify fare increases? Surely there should be a better reason.

On the portion in purple, I think the NLB is an amazing example of an entity with great performance without profit motive.

Why can't the public transport system be similar? Why must excellence be driven by profit motive?

There are public service organisations who provide better service than some private sector organisations (e.g. banks).

[mummy so kiasu]

Way2GO:

concern2:

I pray that who ever wins, whatever the results, it is for the betterment of Singapore. This is the WP spirit, and the Singaporean spirit, isn't it?

Yea yea. Whoever wins, let's keep within our sight dat SG is moving towards a better tomolo for everyone.

It's been an interesting 9 days of campaigning.
d 2 main opponents hv basically ignored d other 2 contestants.
Wat started out as local contest bwt a 'poor' son of Punggol vs a 'hardworking' daughter of Punggol shifted into a new direction midstream into d campaign - d BE became a 'referendum' on WP n PAP performances.

PE voters hv been unfairly offered a false dilemmma.
Dis is not about two extreme choices of either for cohesion or divisive politics - there can be many degrees of co-operation bwt these two extremes.
It can only be gud for SG if we hv more alternative voices than just one dominant party in parliament to offer various alternatives to be debated rationally n soundly, to keep each other in check for d betterment of SG.

At 80:6, one more MIW wld not make much of a difference. But one more alternative voice will speak louder n make a greater difference than one more MIW voice drowned in a background of similar views.
Will Pungollians chose hope for a better SG of tomorrow over fear of change?

We live in hope.

Agree. One more MIW does not make much difference. But one more blue can make more difference in the parliament. KPK can still be part of a GRC in 2016 election, if he is really keen in politics. Anyway, that is PAP initial plan. Maybe he can replace Tin Pei Lin or LKY.