Punggol East By-Election coming ? MP steps down
-
3Boys:
Just chip in based on what little I know and have an opinion in.
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.
Don't agree that one should be a know-it-all before one shares, yes? Only with sharing mah...like that say people...
-
Irrelevant:
I did the sums somewhere else before. Divided by ridership, equals something like $8+ per month per person that goes into 'profit'.
What record profits are you referring to? :scratchhead:toddles:
I think to most people, what rankles is fare increases in the face of record profits by the company year after year.
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
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. -
3Boys:
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.
Back to Question 1.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?
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.
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). -
Way2GO:
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.
Yea yea. Whoever wins, let's keep within our sight dat SG is moving towards a better tomolo for everyone.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?
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. -
toddles:
Picky aren't u? :nunchuk:
Urm, shouldn't that be KPKBor? Bu is mother, no?
in dis context, 'bu' cld be taken to mean d wifey lah
as when me say, \"my chiobu at home\"
most ppl wld not think me referring to my mother right?
-
That’s why I think the competition model is broken, i.e. no effective competition between SMRT and Comfort Delgro.
-
3Boys:
My point is only when there is competition are we able to push ourselves to be better, to achieve excellence. Perfection? I suppose not. But definitely room for improvement. And it is hard to say if they can do better or not without means of comparison.
Pretty demanding aren't you?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.
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:
Sorry, my bad.
Just chip in based on what little I know and have an opinion in.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. Don't agree that one should be a know-it-all before one shares, yes? Only with sharing mah...like that say people...
Not targeting you.
But I read these thing in the forums all over the place, people going at it with high-faluting concepts they have no clue about, as if they were Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz. Worse, then they propose to beat the g'ment on the head with something they clearly don't understand.
'Oh, privatisation without competition is BAAADDDD!!'
Really? In ALL cases? Nothing to mitigate? -
3Boys:
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.
Well, they did with Singtel, didn't they? But after people sell them off, that's the end of the story. 
Hey, you know, RP mentioned that everyone should be given a share in Temasek Holding leh, what do you think?
-
concern2:
And the answer is to create competition at ALL cost, even if it ruins both companies and drives service standards down?
My point is only when there is competition are we able to push ourselves to be better, to achieve excellence. Perfection? I suppose not. But definitely room for improvement. And it is hard to say if they can do better or not without means of comparison.3Boys:
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?
It's easy to propose, less easy to understand the consequences of what one is proposing.
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 💗
Register Login
