What is wrong (or not wrong!) with the PAP nowadays?

[limlim]

3Boys:

They'd rather the operations be paid for out of taxpayers pockets than investors pockets.

Yes. For public facility, why not?

[pirate]

limlim:

You don't control how the money is channeled.

But you can.

limlim:

And, if it can be realistically treated as govt owned, why everyday talk about profits? public entity shd talk abt covering costs more..

Because there is nothing wrong with making profits from people who can afford to pay or from foreigners using the service, and channeling the profits directly to more worthy causes, like low income families.

[limlim]

3Boys:

Aiyah, limlim is allergic to private investors taking a dividend off SMRT profits lah!

I just don't like public transport being run as profit-oriented entity.. It's the way it is run.. not about the investors making money..

Don't anyhow accuse me hor..

[limlim]

pirate:

limlim:

You don't control how the money is channeled.

But you can.

limlim:

And, if it can be realistically treated as govt owned, why everyday talk about profits? public entity shd talk abt covering costs more..

Because there is nothing wrong with making profits from people who can afford to pay or from foreigners using the service, and channeling the profits directly to more worthy causes, like low income families.

Why not just increase the income tax than? much simpler.. top earners pay more..

Those who can afford to pay? If they can well afford, they'll be driving cars or take taxis, not take public transport and squeeze!

[pirate]

limlim:

Why not just increase the income tax than? much simpler.. top earners pay more..

How is it simpler? Tourists don't pay income tax leh. Neither do FDWs. :scratchhead:

limlim:

Those who can afford to pay? If they can well afford, they'll be driving cars or take taxis, not take public transport and squeeze!

That's why they have to buy COE and pay ERP. So, nothing wrong with that going up, right? :evil:

Anyways, PMETs can :censored: afford to pay a couple of dollars to travel to work, and another couple of dollars back.

[Iluvmygals]

Seems like going one full circle…we used to talk about how inefficient government bodies are and how waste of resources they are…so we lobby for privatisation of governement agency…so you see transport being privatise, now energy is privatised…


Then after sometimes…service level dropped (probably will also drop if it is not privatised)…and people start to talk bad about privatisation and want to make it governement body again…

Hmmm…the real issue is not whether it is private or public…it is about how it is being run and how the government authority are governing them. Take for example, the fines that was imposed on SMRT. To me I think it is peanuts. The fine need to be heavy enough, the fine should be equal to the many years of maintenance costs that SMRT didnt spend. And the fine should be in terms of rebates back to commuters, not to the government authority. This will set the service provider thinking whether they should save on maintenance and risk a breakdown that will costs them the same, or should just spend upfront on maintenance. To them either way the money will be spend, it is just which one is better. And the government should not benefit from such incidents, the people who suffered should be compensated. Same goes for the telco…

[sinoboy]

pirate:

limlim:

Those who can afford to pay? If they can well afford, they'll be driving cars or take taxis, not take public transport and squeeze!

That's why they have to buy COE and pay ERP. So, nothing wrong with that going up, right? :evil:

Don't boiling frog syndrome leh. Pay high COE and ERP for too long har. Some ERP roads are such a necessity and no amount of ERP increase can increase traffic flow rate. Maybe that is why no more ERP before Braddell. Similarly COE can also be moderated if there is a will to do it.

Public transport companies can make all the profits but they are obliged to give commuters a reliable (and after which a comfortable) transport. Using cheap cable ties to handle extreme loads when the company is making huge profits from commuters and retail property rental? So who is responsible?

[pirate]

sinoboy:

Public transport companies can make all the profits but they are obliged to give commuters a reliable (and after which a comfortable) transport. Using cheap cable ties to handle extreme loads when the company is making huge profits from commuters and retail property rental? So who is responsible?

The regulators. That means ultimately the buck stops with the Minister of Transport? :siam:

[NormalLayman]

NormalLayman:

GLC is not unique to Singapore! See this ->. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation


Don't know who inspire who !

Have u ever wonder why other pioneers did not venture to the stages that we we are now? There are much discussion and debates on this GLC companies in those pioneered countries!!

[MR06]

3Boys:

pirate:

If TH makes 10 calls and loses money on 3 and makes money on 7, and turns in a good profit overall, that is considered good. It is unrealistic to expect every call to be good and every investment to be profitable. Somebody who can do that will not be working for any fund, he will be investing his only money and becoming a billionaire.

But if one of the bad calls results not from market conditions, but was due to sloppy due diligence, then punishment for that is warranted. Likewise, if one of the good calls resulted from pure dumb luck despite bad analysis or due diligence, no kudos is warranted.

Napoleon once said, \"I'd rather have a lucky general than a good one.\"

He also did say, \"In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.\"

Did he says anything about the time frame? One battle? Five Years?

Stupidity is not a handicap, did stupidity cause him his life?

Me no respect for Napoleon. :evil: