We can argue and diagree on which is better. In fact, there is no single superior model.

I just want to point out that the underlying assumption of cost-plus (Sze Hian’s suggestion) is that we can deterrmine operators’ costs accurately. Frankly, can one do so? What is peventing operators from incurring costs and then just ask for more? Isn’t Sze Hian suggestion also mean to “protect the operators’ profit”? I would even add that it is even more so with cost-plus model. (pao-chiak case! )

More fundamentally important is the injection or threat of market contestablity. LTA has said they will do so. Let see if they will realise it or not…

Let see any action taken..

Heh.

You mean that the current operators have the incentive to be “more productive” as they are now? The Singapore transport system is effectively a monopoly conglomerate controlled by 1 entity. A Monopoly (especially one that covers essential needs) has no incentive to be “more productive” by nature. It has no viable competitor and the goods/service it provides is very hard to boycott. Why be more productive when you can easily generate more income by raising prices?

Buying shares is a not a bad suggestion. Except that the group of people who really needs the relief is not likely to be able to afford it.

Hmm… I don’t see how it would be a 67% increase in transport spendings for the needy family instead of a 3%. I mean, let’s suppose that they spend $100 on transport a month (an impossible number, but it’s a convenient number for an example). If the fare prices increase by 3%, wouldn’t their spending increase to $103, theoretically speaking?

But of course this does not do away with the fact that these people are indeed struggling, and that the transport voucher, even if they get them, is only a temporary relief.

Unlike the ERP hikes and GST hikes where all the $$$ got to the government directly, the fare hikes goes to the listed transport companies.

So, as the saying goes, if you can’t beat them, join them. Buy shares in Comfort of SMRT, and as shareholders, you can then benefit from increased dividends and share price should these companies make more profits from the increases.
Both currently pay fairly decent dividends of about 5-6%.. and you can use CPF to buy them too. That’s way more than what CPF or the pathetic bank FDs are gonna pay you.

Basically, the one way to beat inflation is to invest in the things that are causing inflation. Same as how the pension funds invest in commodities to offset commodities inflation.

Thanks very much for your remarks.

In the context of the needy, like one of the couples with 2 children and monthly household income of just $800, at our financial counselling session this morning, I think to them its more like a 67% increase or two-thirds increment, rather than a 3% increase.

They have never received a single transport voucher despite their state of poverty for so many years.

Transport vouchers are given to the needy whenever fares are raised in recent years, but the quantum is typically only for 1 year’s increase. Shouldn’t they be given vouchers to cover the increase over the years, instead of just 1 year?

Cheers

Leong Sze Hian

The 3 per cent cap for the fare increase is 67 per cent more than 2007’s cap of 1.8 per cent.

I thought it would be good manners for a writer to avoid using percentages to describe changes in quantities which are measured in percentage point. It can be rather confusing at times.

Perhaps the cause of this is the “indignation” of various bloggers who decried the MSM describing the increase in GST from 5% to 7% as a 2% increase (such bloggers were insisting that it was a 40% increase). Naturally, both are correct, but they differ in the “unit” of percent.

In any case, the original sentence can be alternatively (and in my opinion better) constructed as:

The 3 per cent cap for the fare increase is a two-thirds increment as compared to 2007’s cap of 1.8 per cent.

Just go on the assumption that you are right – by the measurement of your own pockets.

Do not waste too much time trying to figure out their own brand of mathematics. We will get to nowhere. They will always make it sound that price increases are necessary and for our greater good. Really ?

Very much as I would like to twist my brain cells to believe and give them the benefits of doubts by weighing the explanation they have given, my brain cells are so stubborn and refuse to give way a single inch.

They are so very very lucky that they are in control of MSM.

Similarly, the “lucrative” N-S/E-W Line is subsidising the money-lossing Bukit Panjang LRT Line…and maybe even the spur line to Changi Airport and Expo.”

Then the government ought to let us know the overall profit after subsidising. I thought that when someone announced a profit, it after all these deduction of expenses ?
Profit = Revenue – expense
Or is there something government never tell us just like GIC & Temasek ?

http://www.freedompass.org/

Instead, we are forced to travel within restricted hours (where waiting for a bus during these hours can be heinous given the weather here) and then when someone raised this, some well-paid minister says that when the government gives half a cup of water, don’t you dare ask for the whole cup. This is patently stupid and insensitive.

The word ‘public’ in government’s dictionary means public common places. So public transport means transport vehincles that transport you along public roads to public places. The profits earned doesn’t necessarily translate as rebates or subsidies or better services.

Whereas the word ‘public’ in Australia where I am living now means ‘community public service’. So public transport here means transport vehicles to service the common man to public places. The profits earned usually translate back into keeping the fares consistent and paying the drivers and operators to maintain the service.

That’s why we are paying millions to the ministers. They are NOT public servants but stakeholders, senior diretors and CEOs in the economy.

Think about it.

Kaffein